Chennai Court January 1947 Judgments
The District Board by the President, Represented by the Power of Attor ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-29-1947
Reported in: AIR1947Mad382; (1947)1MLJ303
Horwill, J.1. This is a civil miscellaneous appeal filed by the plaintiff in a suit against an order of the Subordinate Judge of Tanjore setting aside the decree in O.S. No. 226 of 1942 on the file of the District Munsiff of Pattukottah and directing the plaint to be returned to the plaintiff for presentation to the proper Court. The question arose in this way. The suit which was really of a small cause nature was filed before the District Munsiff as an original suit but with a court-fee on the basis that it was of a small cause nature. The suit was tried as an original suit and there was a decree in favour of the plaintiff. The defendants preferred an appeal which was heard by the Subordinate Judge. The Court-fee Examiner took an objection that the court-fee paid was insufficient as the suit was not cognizable by a Court of small causes. The Subordinate Judge went into this question and came to the conclusion that the suit was of a small cause nature. On this finding, instead of dismi...
Tag this Judgment!Munia Servai Vs. Thangayya Onturiyar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-24-1947
Reported in: AIR1948Mad133; (1947)1MLJ171
ORDERYahya Ali, J.1. Mr. Viswanatha Sastri, learned advocate for the respondents, raises an objection in famine against the admissibility of this application for stay of delivery of possession of the disputed lands to the respondents and for continuance of the lands in possession of the village Munsiff any further. His argument is that this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain such a petition, since the only provision of law upon which it could possibly be founded, viz., Section 561-A Criminal Procedure Code does not confer any new or additional powers on this Court and this Court has no inherent power to appoint a Receiver in proceedings that come up under Section 145, Criminal Procedure Code in revision before it. For this position reliance is placed on the decision of a Bench of this Court in Marudayya Thevar v. Shanmugha Sundara Thevar : AIR1926Mad139 . There an application was made asking this Court to appoint a Receiver pending disposal of an application to revise an order pass...
Tag this Judgment!P. Veda Bhat Vs. Mahalaxmi Amma and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-24-1947
Reported in: AIR1947Mad441; (1947)1MLJ229
Chandrasekhara Aiyar, J.1. In this second appeal preferred by the plaintiff, the primary question which arises for consideration is whether there has been a forfeiture of the mulgeni lease evidenced by Ex. P-1, by reason of alienations made by the mulgeni tenant, who is now the first defendant, of the tenancy. By Ex. P-7 she transferred her mulgeni rights in some of the properties, and by Ex. D-I she transferred her right in the remainder of the properties, with the result that the mulgeni right has now been wholly alienated. Both the lower Courts have held that as the alienation under each deed of transfer was only of a part, no forfeiture has been incurred. The clause against alienation and providing for re-entry is set out at length in paragraph 24 of the District Munsiff's judgment.2. In Chatterton v. Terrell (1923) A.C. 578 which was on appeal from the decision of the Court of Appeal in Terrell v. Chatterton (1922) 2 Ch. 647 . (which in turn reversed the decision of Astbury, J.) o...
Tag this Judgment!Yelamanchili Venkatadri and anr. Vs. Vedantam Seshacharyulu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-24-1947
Reported in: AIR1948Mad72; (1947)1MLJ287
Happell, J.1. This is an appeal from the judgment of the Subordinate Judge of Masulipatam, dated 31st January, 1945, by which he dismissed O.S. No. 65 of 1942 on the file of his Court. The appellants were the plaintiffs in the suit and are the trustees of the temple of Sri Vuddandaraya Venugopalaswami Varu of Pedda Maddali. They were appointed trustees on 29th March, 1940, in pursuance of a scheme framed by the Hindu Religious Endowments Board in 1939 for the management of the temple, and they brought the suit to eject defendants 1, 2 and 4 from certain properties and for a declaration that these properties belonged to the temple. The first and second defendants are the archakas of the temple, the third defendant is the hereditary trustee and the fourth defendant was impleaded as a lessee under defendants 1 and 2.2. A number of issues were framed in the suit based on the contentions of the parties. Arguments in appeal, however, have been confined to the questions whether the grant of t...
Tag this Judgment!N. Kandaswami Pillai and anr. Vs. the Executive Officer, Panchayat Boa ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-23-1947
Reported in: AIR1947Mad306; (1947)1MLJ172
ORDERYahya Ali, J.1. The petitioner in this case was acquitted on a previous occasion of an offence under Section 194 read with Section 207 of the Madras Local Boards Act, 1920, for having erected a factory without permission from the prescribed authority. He was subsequently prosecuted for running the factory and convicted. After that conviction it would appear that a fresh charge sheet was filed against him for the erection of the factory and he was prosecuted under the same sections namely Section 194 read with Section 207 of the Act. When the case came up the plea was raised on behalf of the petitioner (accused) that a fresh prosecution did not lie in view of the previous acquittal, being barred by the doctrine of autrefois acquit under Section 403 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Magistrate who dealt with the case overruled this objection and directed that the trial should proceed. The reason mentioned by him is that the executive officer withdrew the complaint on the previo...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Bheemavarapu Subba Reddi and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-22-1947
Reported in: AIR1948Mad23; (1947)1MLJ193
Bell, J.1. The appellants are a brother and a sister who were charged respectively with the murder and abetment of murder of one Guntaka Somireddi in the village of Nunna on 13th May, 1946. They were both sentenced to death.2. [His Lordship after discussing the facts and evidence proceeded to consider the objection as to the method of investigation.]3. Mr. Jayarama Aiyar, however, has raised a point to which some attention must be given. He says that the method of investigation employed by the police was such as to deprive the accused and his advisers of the assistance or opportunity which the Criminal Procedure Code provides for scrutinising the evidence called for the prosecution. He based his contention in the main on the evidence of P.W. 14, the Circle Inspector, and on that of P.W. 13 the Sub-Inspector, to a smaller extent. P.W. 13 in cross-examination said that he collected the witnesses and kept them ready for investigation by his superior officer. He said that he did not examin...
Tag this Judgment!Guruswamy Mudaliar Vs. Ayyanar thevar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-21-1947
Reported in: AIR1947Mad439; (1947)1MLJ322
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. This appeal raises a question of Hindu Law. It is from a judgment of Somayya, J., under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent. The learned Judge considered that the judgment of this Bench in Satyanarayanappa v. Rahimatullah : AIR1943Mad560 decided the question. We cannot subscribe to that opinion, but we are otherwise in agreement with the learned Judge.2. The appeal arises out of a suit for partition instituted in the Court of the District Munsiff of Srivilliputtur by the appellant and his elder brother, who is now dead. There were five defendants, but it is only necessary to refer to the first three. The first defendant was the father of the plaintiffs, with whom he is joint, the second defendant was the Rajapalayam Co-operative Urban Bank, Ltd., and the third defendant was the purchaser from the second defendant of the properties now in suit. The first defendant was a member of the Rajapalayam Cooperative Urban Bank, Ltd., and was indebted to it. As secur...
Tag this Judgment!The Public Prosecutor Vs. V.S. Viswanathan and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-17-1947
Reported in: (1947)1MLJ179
Yahya Ali, J.1. The appellate Magistrate who acquitted the respondents in these two appeals filed by the Public Prosecutor of the alleged offence of abetment of bribery came to the conclusion in view of certain admissions made by the Textile Officer P.W. 1, that the decision in Venkatarama Naidu, In re : (1929)57MLJ239 applied to the facts of this case. P.W. 1 stated that he has considered the application presented by the respondents for the grant of a permit for extra supply of yarn on its merits and had come to the conclusion that it had no merits. He had decided not to give additional yarn and apparently conveyed his decision to the concerned parties. The next day, the respondent in C.A. No. 35 of 1947, alone appeared before P.W. 1, and repeated his request for the permit and offered a bribe of Rs. 300. P.W. 1, the concerned officer, stated further that once he had rejected the application for special quota, he had never granted it on repeated applications. In view of these clear st...
Tag this Judgment!S.M.Ar.M. Arunachalam Chettiar Alias Veerappa Chettiar Vs. M.S.T. Than ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-16-1947
Reported in: AIR1947Mad335; (1947)1MLJ176
ORDERYahya Ali, J.1. On 2nd January, 1946, the respondent, who is a member of the Municipal Council, Karaikudi filed a complaint before the Additional Sub-Magistrate, Tiruppattur against the petitioner who is another member of the Council complaining of certain offences committed by the petitioner during and after a meeting of the Municipal Council held on the evening of the 27th December, 1945. At that meeting a resolution was moved with reference to the improvements to be effected to a market in Karaikudi. The petitioner and the respondent expressed opposite views on the resolution and when the sense of the house was taken six members voted for the complainant's view while four were against it. One other councillor remained neutral. The chairman started recording the result of the poll and in doing so he noted first the fact of one of the Councillors remaining neutral and thereafter the result of the division with regard to the resolution. The petitioner (accused) objected to this me...
Tag this Judgment!Surisetti Satyanarayanamurthy Vs. Rajanala Gopalarao Naidu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-16-1947
Reported in: AIR1947Mad394; (1947)1MLJ273
Yahya Ali, J.1. C.M.P. No. 5638 of 1946 is for stay of further proceedings in O.S. No. 34 of 1946 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Ellore, pending the disposal of C.R.P. No. 1278 of 1946 of this Court. Interim stay was granted and thereafter it was contended by the petitioner in the Civil Miscellaneous Petition that the statutory stay provided under Madras Act XVII of 1946 had come into operation and both the Civil Miscellaneous Petition and Civil Revision Petition should be stayed. Consequently the Civil Revision Petition and Civil Miscellaneous Petition were directed to be posted together for orders. The Civil Revision Petition itself is against an order holding that Section 4 of the Act XVII of 1946 has no application to the case.2. The first defendant is the petitioner in the Civil Revision Petition while the plaintiff is the respondent. The suit is for a declaration that the plaintiff alone is the owner of the occupancy rights in the suit lankas, that none of t...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »