Chennai Court September 1946 Judgments
S.K. Sahul Hamid and anr. Vs. S.M. Sulthan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-20-1946
Reported in: AIR1947Mad287; (1947)1MLJ20
Rajamannar, J.1. This is an appeal by defendants 4 and 6 against a preliminary decree for partition made in favour of the first respondent by the Subordinate Judge of Tinnevelly. The plaintiff and defendants 1 to 13 are Mahcmedans and alleged to be co-sharers. The other defendants are alienees from some of the defendants of portions of the properties in suit. The plaintiff claimed that he was entitled to 19/240th share in the properties set out in the schedules to the plaint.2. Though there was some contest in the trial Court, there was no dispute before us about the relationship between the plaintiff and defendants 1 to 13. One Pakkiri Taragan had four sons, Alliyar, Sheik Uduman, Syed Ahmed and Ghosu Muhammad and a daughter Kathija. Alliyar married one Nagoor Meeral and by her he had a son Syed Ahamad and a. daughter Mukkuthi. The plaintiff is the husband of Mukkuthi. Nagoor Meeral, before she married Alliyar, was the widow of one Abu Bucker, by whom she had a son named S.M. Muhammad...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Abdul Rahim and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-19-1946
Reported in: AIR1947Mad188; (1946)2MLJ332
ORDERYahya Ali, J.1. Two technical objections are raised against the convictions of the petitioners in these two cases which are dealt with together as the questions arising in them are common. The first is that under Section 4(2) of the Madras Gaming Act there is no reference to public street as in Section 12, and it is from that circumstance argued that gaming in a public street is not an offence tinder the Gaming Act. Gaming is defined in Section 3 as including betting on a horse race except when such betting takes place in a place within the race enclosure. That amounts to saying that betting taking place anywhere outside the race enclosure whether in a public street or in any other place is an offence within the meaning of Section 4(2) of the Madras Gaming Act, 1930. The second objection is that some of the horses which were backed by the petitioners did not actually run on that day and were not even scheduled to run. I am of opinion that this would not make any difference so far ...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Nagalingam and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-19-1946
Reported in: AIR1947Mad134; (1946)2MLJ403
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. These two petitions may be dealt with together. The petitioner in Criminal Revision Case No. 88 of 1946 is the husband of the petitioner in Crl. R.C. No. 89 of 1946. They were convicted by the City First Class Magistrate of Madura of having committed an offence under Rule 90-B (2) read with Rule 121 of the Defence of India Rules and each was fined Rs. 1,000. They appealed to the Sessions Judge of Madura who by an order dated the 29th October, 1945, dismissed their appeals. This Court is asked to set aside the convictions under its revisional powers because it is said the rules under which the accused were convicted are ultra vires the Central Government.2. The accused are residents of Jaffna. In the month of December, 1944 they visited Madura, where during that month and the month of January, 1945 they purchased gold which they had made into small cylindrical blocks. The case against them was that they had bought the gold and had it made into ingots in...
Tag this Judgment!S. Raja Chetty and anr. Vs. Jagannathadas Govindas and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-16-1946
Reported in: (1949)2MLJ694
ORDERP.V. Rajamannar, C.J.1. This is an application for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the order of the Second Judge, Small Causes Court, Madras, sitting as the appellate authority, made by him on the 16th August, 1949, in H.R.A. No. 1077 of 1949 setting aside the order of the Rent Controller, dated the 2nd August, 1949, and directing eviction of the petitioner from the premises described as ' Maharani Talkies'.2. By a registered deed, dated the 15th November, 1948, executed by and between the petitioners and the respondents 1 to 3, the respondents as lessors demised to the petitioners as lessees the cinema theatre known as 'Maharani Theatre or Maharani Talkies', Madras, situated in Washermanpet. What was demised is thus described in the indenture:All the piece of ground with the new cinema theatre including the buildings and stall erected thereon known as 'Maharani Theatre' or 'Maharani Talkies'...together with all easements and appurtenances whatsoever thereunto belonging...
Tag this Judgment!Malisetti Viranna and anr. Vs. Kondeparthi Pallayya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-16-1946
Reported in: (1947)1MLJ244
Chandrasekhara Aiyar, J.1. The first defendant entered into an agreement with the plaintiff on 29th May, 1942, to sell the suit property to him for a sum of Rs. 1,300. This agreement is Ex. P-1. A sum of Rs. 150, which had been already received by the first defendant under an arrangement that the plaintiff should lend the first defendant a sum of Rs. 400 and enjoy the property for four and a half years appropriating the income towards interest, was treated as the advance for the agreement to sell. The balance of consideration was to be paid at the time of the registration of the sale deed which was to be executed in a month. On 17th July, 1942, the first defendant executed a deed of mortgage in favour of the plaintiff, Ex. P-2, for a sum of Rs. 400 providing that the properties were to be enjoyed by the plaintiff for a period of five years (from Chitrabanu to the end of Vyaya) the income to be appropriated towards the interest. At the end of the period, if the principal sum was not pai...
Tag this Judgment!Bangaru Reddi Vs. Mangammal Alias Jayalakshmi Ammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-13-1946
Reported in: AIR1947Mad163; (1946)2MLJ377
Rajamannar, J.1. The short question for decision in this appeal is whether the respondent forfeits her right to property which she obtained under a deed of settlement Exhibit P-1 executed in her favour by the appellant on 7th June, 1938. The appellant Bangaru Reddi and one Sundara Reddi were undivided brothers. The plaintiff-respondent was married to Sundara Reddi in August, 1937. Unfortunately, Sundara Reddi died in April, 1938, leaving the plaintiff (still a minor) a widow. The deed in question was executed by the appellant in favour of the minor respondent represented by her guardian and father one Govinda Reddi. In September, 1941, the plaintiff married one Viswanatha Reddi. In December, 1941, the appellant issued a notice to her alleging that she had forfeited her right to the property settled on her on account of her re-marriage. The respondent was compelled to file the suit out of which this second appeal arises in respect of one of the items of property for a declaration that t...
Tag this Judgment!Venkatarama Pillai Vs. Parasurama Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-13-1946
Reported in: (1947)1MLJ348
Shahab-ud-din, J.1. The respondent in both the petitions was the second defendant in O.S. No. 575 of 1942 which was filed by his mother, Viradambal. He had a brother Chenna Pillai who died in 1939. Chenna Pillai, the respondent and their half brother Govinda Pillai, the first defendant, had partitioned their properties during the life-time of their father. The case of the respondent's mother was that Chenna Pillai was solely entitled to the suit property as it had fallen to his share at the partition and that after his death she had the right to enjoy it as he died a bachelor. It was also her case that the respondent (second defendant), the first defendant and his son, the third defendant, and defendants 4 and 5, sons of the respondent trespassed upon the suit property and alienated portions of it to defendants 6 to 8 without her knowledge. She therefore prayed for a declaration that she was entitled to a life interest in the suit property and that the alienation by defendants 1 to 5 w...
Tag this Judgment!Mushtoorappa and anr. Vs. Hanumanthappa and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-12-1946
Reported in: AIR1947Mad236; (1946)2MLJ484
Chandrasekhara Aiyar, J.1. In suits brought for damages for malicious prosecution of the plaintiffs on a charge of dacoity, both the lower Courts have found that the prosecution was actuated by malice and was without reasonable and probable cause. They have gone further and held that the appellants falsely implicated the plaintiffs because they happened to belong to the opposite faction, and without any basis whatever for thinking that they were really guilty of the offence of dacoity with which they were charged.2. I should have thought that the appellants were concluded by these concurrent findings, inasmuch as they are findings of fact. But Mr. Ch. Raghava Rao was able to cite the decision of Wadsworth, J., in Narayana Mudali v. Peria Kalathi : AIR1939Mad783 as authority for the position that the question whether there was malice or absence of reasonable and probable cause on facts found by the lower Courts is a question of law that can be gone into in second appeal. This decision i...
Tag this Judgment!M. Siddique and Company Vs. Mysore Textiles Agencies
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-12-1946
Reported in: AIR1947Mad455; (1947)1MLJ249
Sidney Wadsworth, Officiating C.J.1.The appellant company was the defendant in a suit for damages for breach of contract for sale of yarn. Most of the facts are not in dispute. The plaintiff company has its office in Bangalore and works in conjunction with a mill in Cochin state. The defendant company has an office at Coimbatore On the 14th May, 1943, under Ex. P-1 the plaintiff agreed to sell to the defendant 200 bales 40 s. of Cochin Egyptian Special D.H.X.C.R. yarn at a price of Rs. 40 per bundle of 10 lbs. ex-mill site, delivery July 1943, payment cash against goods or railway receipt. There was trouble between the parties about the performance of this contract and on the 31st July, 1943, the parties met at Coimbatore and entered into a fresh agreement, Ex P-1 (a) the relevant portion of which provides that the defendant withdraws all complaints regarding quality and count which have been raised so far and agrees to accept and take immediate delivery of 150 bales of yarn of the sam...
Tag this Judgment!Kuppuswami Padayachi Vs. Jagadambal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-09-1946
Reported in: AIR1947Mad423; (1947)1MLJ34
ORDERYahya Ali, J.1. This is an application to revise an order made by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Ariyalur dismissing an application under Section 489 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed by the petitioner for cancellation of an order of maintenance that had been passed in M.C. No. 40 of 1944. In M.C. No. 40 of 1944, the petitioner was directed to pay maintenance to his wife, who was the petitioner in that petition and who is the respondent here. A revision application was filed against that order and when that application came up for hearing in this Court on 5th February, 1945, it was represented by the petitioner that the case had been compromised. The respondent's advocate then mentioned to the Court that he had not heard about it and he took time to verify the information. On 7th February, 1945, it was reported by both parties that the husband and wife had resumed cohabitation and on that ground the petition was not pressed and was eventually dismissed. No specific orders ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »