Chennai Court July 1946 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
In Re: Narra Padmavathamma
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-19-1946
Reported in: (1946)2MLJ271
ORDERYahya Ali, J.1. This application is to revise an order made by the Joint Magistrate of Chendragiri making absolute a preliminary order under Section 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.2. I am satisfied that sufficient opportunity was not given to the petitioner to show cause against the confirmation of the preliminary order. She is a lady who observes purdha and the notice itself had been served on her agent who promptly applied for time on the ground that notice was too short. Inspite of it the application for time was refused and the preliminary order was made absolute. In a matter like this it is essential that the party aggrieved should have sufficient opportunity to meet the charge.3. The order in M. C. No. 50 of 1945, dated 27th September, 1945, is set aside and the joint Magistrate is directed to issue a fresh notice to the petitioner giving her sufficient time and opportunity to meet the case. All proceedings which have been issued on the footing of the order which has ...
Bridget Souza Bai Vs. Maria Louis Bai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-19-1946
Reported in: AIR1947Mad119; (1946)2MLJ362
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. The property in suit is of very small value, but the action has given rise to much argument in three Courts below and in this Court. On the 4th October, 1916, the appellant's predecessor in title granted a permanent (mulgeni) lease of a plot of agricultural land measuring a quarter 'of an acre to the first defendant at a rent of 8 annas per year. The lease contained a covenant by the lessee that the land should not be ' alienated in any manner to any one else ' and should not be given as security for any pecuniary obligation of the lessee. On the 8th January, 1935, notwithstanding this covenant, the lessee granted a usufructuary mortgage of the property to secure a loan of Rs. 1,000 which was to be repaid by the 30th April, 1940. By this time the lessee had built a house on the land. On the 8th September, 1940, (he lessor gave to the lessee notice of forfeiture of the lease for breach of the covenant. The lessee refused to vacate the property and this ...
P.V. Muthuswami Ayyar Vs. A. Velammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-18-1946
Reported in: (1946)2MLJ273
Horwill, J.1. The petitioner became the owner of a half share in a well which had long been in disuse. There were two other co-sharers, each of whom had a quarter share in the well. The plaintiff was in a position to make the necessary expenditure to put the well into repair; and he sent notice to the other two sharers asking them to contribute towards the repair of the well, so that they would all be able to use it and with its water raise a second crop on the land-which they had not been able to do hitherto. One of the sharers whose share was subsequently acquired by the petitioner said that he was not interested in the well because his land was heavily mortgaged. The respondent said that she did not propose doing anything in the matter; but that if the plaintiff chose to do it she had no objection. The petitioner sent demands to her for payment of contribution before the work was started; but she did not reply. Later on, while the work was being executed, he sent further notices to ...
In Re: Petiti Kondala Rao
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-18-1946
Reported in: AIR1947Mad207; (1946)2MLJ400
ORDERYahya Ali, J.1. The petitioner who was the first accused in the lower Court has been convicted of the offence of contravening the provisions of the Drugs Control Order, 1943. He is alleged to have sold a bottle of Adexelin to P.W. 2 for Rs. 2--12--0 while the control price of the drugs was Rs. 2--6--0. The conviction by the trying magistrate was under Section 9(a) of the Drugs Control Order read with Rule 81(4) of the Defence of India Rules. Section 9(a) of the Drugs Control Order refers only to wholesale or retail dealers and not to their servants or clerks. Rule 81 of the Defence of India Rules does not carry the matter further. This rule was amended on 17th July, 1945, so as to bring within the operation of Section 9 of the Drugs Control Order, servants or agents, etc. But the fact remains that until 17th July, 1945, persons other than wholesale or retail dealers were not within the purview of the Drugs Control Order. The learned Sessions Judge who heard the appeal against the ...
Mookka Pillai Alias Sudalaimuthu Pillai Vs. Valavanda Pillai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-18-1946
Reported in: AIR1947Mad205; (1946)2MLJ462
Chandrasekhara Aiyar, J.1. The first defendant appeals from a decree granted to the plaintiffs for recovery of possession of the suit properties with mesne profits. The plaintiffs' suit was dismissed by the Subordinate Judge, but was decreed on appeal by the District Judge of Madura. Originally, the plaintiffs sued for a declaration that they and the 12th defendant were trustees of the suit properties and were entitled to recover possession from defendants 1 to 3. The claim was opposed on the basis of a will executed by one Irulayi, widow of one Sudalaimuthu Pillai under which she set apart the properties for the performance of charities and nominated certain trustees. The will provides for the filling up of vacancies in the trusteeship, and if the trustees so appointed by her or coming in their place by co-option refuse to act or do not act properly, fresh trustees were to be appointed by all the married adult male members of her community, namely, that of Arumugamangalam Vellalars li...
M.T. Parthasarathy Iyengar Vs. M.T. Pankajammal and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-18-1946
Reported in: AIR1947Mad330; (1947)1MLJ52
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. This is an appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent from a judgment of Rajamannar, J. : AIR1946Mad99 reversing a decree of the City Civil Court. The suit was filed by the appellant who is the adopted son of one Thiruvengadachari and his wife Alangarammal, both of whom are now dead. The plaintiff claimed possession of a house with mesne profits by virtue of a deed of settlement dated the 11th July, 1930. The City Civil Court held that the plaintiff was entitled to the relief asked for as he took an absolute interest in the property on the death of his adopted father. Rajamannar, J., considered that the deed did not operate as a settlement on the son and consequently he allowed the appeal. We are of the opinion that the deed does operate as a settlement in favour of the plaintiff.2. In 1930, Thiruvengadachari was 62 years of age. He had decided to adopt the plaintiff, but he was anxious that some provision should be made for the maintenance of his wi...
Sri Rajah Ravu Venkata Mahipathi Gangadhara Rama Rao Bahadur Garu, Yuv ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-17-1946
Reported in: (1946)2MLJ282
Chandrasekhara Aiyar, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiffs from an order of the Subordinate Judge of Amalapuram holding that the suit which was tried by the District Munsiff of Razole was beyond his pecuniary jurisdiction and directing the plaint to be returned for presentation to the proper Court. The Province of Madras which was the defendant in the suit raised an objection to the valuation of the suit and contended that the plaintiffs under-valued the properties. The District Munsiff held on this issue that the suit was properly valued and was within the pecuniary jurisdiction of his Court. He decided the merits of the suit in favour of the plaintiffs, and granted the declaration and injunction sought. On appeal the Subordinate Judge came to the conclusion on the question of jurisdiction that the suit was undervalued and without going into the merits of the other issues raised in the suit he directed the return of the plaint to the proper Court as stated already. He refrained fr...
R.M.L. Natarajan Chettiar (Deceased) and anr. Vs. A.L.A.R. Rm. Vellayy ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-17-1946
Reported in: AIR1947Mad421; (1947)1MLJ180
Somayya, J.1. This is an appeal filed by the second defendant against the decree of the lower Court dismissing the suit which was one to set aside an order passed by the Collector under Sections 20 and 21 of the Madras Estates Land Act. The subject-matter of the suit is an oranai or a tank which is how admitted to be intended exclusively for the villagers to take drinking water from. In the plaint it was alleged that the oranai or the tank, the bund and the land all round the oranai were the private and absolute properties of the plaintiffs and of defendants 2 and 3.2. A petition was filed in 1937 before the Collector for action under Sections 20(1) and 21. Under Section 20(1) the Collector is empowered on the application of the landholder or other person interested, to decide any question as to whether and land is or is not of the description mentioned in Sub-clauses (a), (b) or (c) of Clause (16) of Section 3. Section 3, Clause (16) defines ryoti land to mean cultivable land in an es...
Londa Abbayee of Pithapuram Vs. Badam Suryanarayana and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-17-1946
Reported in: (1947)1MLJ246
Horwill, J.1. In execution of a Small Cause decree, the petitioner, who is the judgment-debtor, was given notice to show cause why he should not be committed to prison. He appeared and filed a counter ; but on the date to which the application was posted for disposal he was absent. His objections were apparently read but overruled. The decree-holder was then ordered to pay arrest batta and when that was done, an order was issued for his arrest. In pursuance of that order he appeared before the Court; but he was released as, he furnished security to file an insolvency petition. The execution petition was thereupon dismissed. The two civil revision petitions have been filed, one against the order of arrest and the other against the order overruling the petitioner's objections.2. Order 21, Rule 40 of the Code of Civil Procedure makes the procedure quite clear when a decree-holder is desirous to have the judgment-debtor committed to prison. In the first place, notice must go to him. Then i...
Godavarthi Venkanna Vs. Godavarthi Venkatanarayana
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-16-1946
Reported in: AIR1947Mad49; (1946)2MLJ193
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. The appellant is the defendant in the action which has given rise to this second appeal. He has contested the plaintiff's claim in the three Courts below and in this Court with a persistency and vigour worthy of a better cause, but in this Court he has accepted some cf the findings below, as contest was no longer possible.2. The plaintiff is the defendant's adopted son. He sued in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Narsapur for a decree for partition of the family estate. The defendant denied that he had ever adopted the plaintiff and pleaded that the property which the plaintiff claimed to be joint family property belonged to him in his own right. The Subordinate Judge held that the plaintiff had been adopted by the defendant and that the properties were joint family properties. The plaintiff averred in his plaint that there had been a partition between the defendant and his father but that subsequently there had been a re-union. The defendant said...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »