Chennai Court October 1947 Judgments
In Re: Arumugha Mudaliar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-31-1947
Reported in: (1948)1MLJ81
ORDERGovinda Menon, J.1. These revisions arise out of the orders passed by the learned Additional District Magistrate, Trichinopoly, setting aside the orders of discharge of the various petitioners herein passed by the Committing Court, the Special First Class Magistrate of Trichinopoly in preliminary register cases on his file. The point for consideration is the same in all the cases and therefore I propose to deal with them by a common judgment. These various petitioners and a number of others were proceeded against under the rioting and mischief sections of the Indian Penal Code and a large body of oral evidence was let in before the First Class Magistrate. On a consideration of the evidence before him, the First Class Magistrate found that there was no prima facie case against these accused persons which would warrant the committal of them to take their trial before the Court of Session.2. The prosecution preferred revision petitions under Sections 435 and 437, Criminal Procedure C...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: the District Magistrate of Vizagapatam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-31-1947
Reported in: (1948)1MLJ332
Yahya Ali, J.1. This is a reference made by the District Magistrate of Vizagapatam in the following circumstances.2. A charge sheet was filed by the Koduru Police against 14 persons charging them with offences under Sections 147 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code.3. Both these offences are bailable and the accused applied for bail. While releasing them on bail under Section 496 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Stationary Sub-Magistrate, Chodavaram, stated that besides executing a bond for Rs. 500 each with two sureties for a like sum for each surety, their relase was subject to the condition that they would not enter upon the land in dispute for a period of one month or until the land dispute is decided by a Court of law which-ever is earlier and also subject to the condition that they would not commit breach of peace. The District Magistrate rightly points out that these conditions are repugnant to the principle and policy of Section 496 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.4. In bai...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Thokkudubivyanu Immaniyelu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-30-1947
Reported in: AIR1948Mad521; (1948)1MLJ49
Frederick William Gentle, C.J.1. The sole question for consideration is whether a petition for review of the judgment in Appeal Suit Nos. 26 and 78 of 1945 was presented in time or beyond the period prescribed by the Limitation Act. The judgment was delivered on the 25th January, 1947 and the limitation period during which the petition for review of it could be presented expired on or about the 22nd June, 1947. That date occurred during the period when this Court was in recess. The notification regarding the summer vacation in 1947 of this Court prescribed that the Court would be closed from the 28th April until the 4th July, 1947, both dates inclusive. The first day on which the Court was not closed, but was open, was Saturday the 5th July, when it is not in dispute, the office was open and plaints, appeals, petitions and other proceedings were presented and could have been presented. That was the first day on which the Court was open after the expiration by effluxion of time of the l...
Tag this Judgment!Ananthanarayana Sarma and ors. Vs. Krishnamurthy Ayyar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-29-1947
Reported in: (1948)1MLJ17
Frederick William Gentle, C.J.1. The relevant facts in this civil revision petition can be stated shortly. On 16th March, 1911, one Sami Ayyar, died possessed of certain properties; he left a widow who died on 20th October, 1931. Upon her death the father of the three petitioners claimed the properties; he made an application under the provisions of Order 33, Civil Procedure Code, for leave to sue as a pauper for the purpose of recovering the properties. On 6th October, 1933, leave was refused and the application was dismissed under Rule 7 of the order. The father died in September, 1934, and his rights, if any, to the properties devolved upon his three sons, the petitioners herein. On 15th October, 1943, they applied to sue in forma pauperis in regard to their alleged claim to the properties. That application was made in respect of the petitioners' own personal cause of action; it was not made by them in any representative capacity respecting their father's interest in the properties....
Tag this Judgment!Shankar Bhatta Vs. Shankar Upadhya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-27-1947
Reported in: (1948)2MLJ283
Frederick William Gentle, C.J.1. This second appeal is preferred from the decision in appeal of the learned District Judge of South Kanara, who reversed the learned District Munsiff of Kundapur, in a matter arising out of a mortgage suit. The appeal first came before Happell, J., whose attention was drawn to two decisions of this Court, Rajagopalaswami Naicken v. Palaniswami Chettiar (1931) 62 M.L.J. 93 : I.L.R. Mad. 332 and Sabapathi Pillai v. Chockalinga Pillai : (1913)25MLJ552 . Each is a decision of a Division Bench and they are considered to be in conflict. Both of them were referred to in Purushothama v. Raya Pandaram (1944) 2 M.L.J. 178 : I.L.R. 1945 Mad. 165. It was in consequence of the considered conflict that this appeal has been posted before a Full Bench. In my view reference to the authorities abovementioned is in no way required and this appeal can and should be decided simply upon the construction of the decree in the suit.2. The appeal arises out of a mortgage suit in ...
Tag this Judgment!Kapavarapu Venkata Achyuta Rao and anr. Vs. Kapavarapu Srinivasaswami ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-21-1947
Reported in: AIR1948Mad396; (1948)1MLJ54
Govinda Menon, J.1. This is an appeal against the order of the learned Subordinate Judge of Chicacole appointing a receiver for managing the properties involved in O.S. No. 61 of 1944 on his file. The appellants in this Court are the first and second defendants in the suit. The third and fourth defendants are alienees of small portions of the property involved in the suit from defendants 1 and 2. The fifth defendant is the Rani of Jaggampet who had advanced money to the first and second defendants for the purpose of fighting litigation with the Provincial Government regarding the title to the property sought to be partitioned. The plaintiffs are a brother and sister, the children of the half brother of the first and second defendants. The properties which are the subject-matter of this suit belonged to one Kapavarapu Papamma who died some years ago. As there were doubts as to whether her adopted son's descendants, the plaintiffs and defendants 1 and 2 were reversioners under the Hindu ...
Tag this Judgment!Revur Venkatasubba Rao and ors. Vs. Gurijala Venkataramanayya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-21-1947
Reported in: AIR1948Mad397; (1948)1MLJ56
Frederick William Gentle, C.J.1. The appeal relates to a sum of Rs. 2,180-0-10 deposited in Court to the credit of O.S. No. 64 of 1936 on the file of the District Court of Nellore; originally it was credited to O.S. No. 28 of 1922 on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court; by virtue of various proceedings it was transferred to the credit of other suits and is now credited as previously stated. Throughout its various transfers its nature and the parties entitled to it have not altered.2. O.S. No. 28 of 1922 was a mortgage suit, the hypotheca being 67 acres 53 cents of land, of which 53 acres 62 cents were cultivated. In respect of Fasli year 1338 the total proceeds from the crops raised on the cultivated portion of the hypotheca were paid into Court; this was some time after the year 1928; out of those proceeds the mortgagee-decree-holders have been paid all the sums to which they were entitled and, it is beyond doubt, the cultivators of the 53 acres 62 cents are entitled to the bala...
Tag this Judgment!Govindan Nair Vs. Nagabhushanammal and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-17-1947
Reported in: AIR1948Mad343; (1948)1MLJ331
Satyanarayana Rao, J.1. On the facts that emerge in this case it is difficult to sustain the finding of the learned Judge that the plaintiff is a partner with the first defendant in the tea shop and that this suit is cognizable by the City Civil Court. According to the plaintiff, the tea shop was purchased for a sum of Rs. 846-8-0 including the additional expense incurred for purchasing utensils, etc., and that out of this sum the first defendant contributed a half, i.e., Rs. 423-4-0. According to the plaintiff the shop was leased by the plaintiff and the first defendant on a daily rent of Rs. 4-8-0 and the rent was being divided between them both. According to the first defendant, however, he is the exclusive owner of the shop and the plaintiff has no interest in it. The plaint was framed on the footing that the plaintiff and the first defendant are partners each owning a half share in the business and the plaintiff seeks to obtain a decree dissolving the partnership and for accounts....
Tag this Judgment!Maharajah Sri Sri Rajah Saheb Meharban Dhosthan Raja Sri Rao Swetachal ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-15-1947
Reported in: AIR1948Mad340; (1948)1MLJ362
Happell, J.1. This is a petition for the revision of a judgment of the Subordinate Judge of Chicacole by which he set aside an order made by the District Munsiff of Parvatipur reviewing a previous order of his made in E.A. No. 690 of 1944, in O.S. No. 574 of 1918 by which he dismissed that application on the ground that it was barred by limitation. The petitioner filed a decree in this suit (O.S. No. 574 of 1918), and in execution of it brought the property to sale in E.P. No. 9 of 1939. The sale was confirmed on the 18th of April, 1940, and in E.A. No. 656 of 1941. the petitioner applied for delivery of the property. An order for delivery was made, and according to the record, delivery was actually effected on the 25th of July, 1941. Thereafter the petitioner filed another application, E.A. No. 690 of 1944, praying again for the delivery of the property. This petition was dismissed on the ground that it was barred by limitation by reason of the fact that it was filed more than three y...
Tag this Judgment!K. Rangachariar Vs. the Trinity Bank, Ltd. and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-14-1947
Reported in: AIR1948Mad411; (1948)1MLJ61
Frederick William Gentle, C.J.1. This appeal arises out of a mortgage suit in which a decree for sale was passed. The mortgaged properties were three items of which, so far as material item No. 1 became vested in the 12th defendant to the suit, the second respondent in this appeal and items 2 and 3 were vested in the sixth defendant to the suit and the appellant in this appeal, the first respondent here being the mortgagee. The learned Additional Subordinate Judge of Trichinopoly settled the proclamation of sale, one of the terms being items 2 and 3 should be sold prior to item 1 of the three pieces of hypotheca. This is an appeal by the sixth defendant in the suit against the direction by the learned Additional Subordinate Judge for items 2 and 3 to be auctioned prior to item 1.2. At the outset, learned Counsel on behalf of the second respondent, the 12th defendant in the suit, took a preliminary objection against the maintainability of the present appeal. He placed his objection on t...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›