Chennai Court November 1947 Judgments
S. Rama Iyer Vs. K.V. Nataraja Iyer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-28-1947
Reported in: AIR1948Mad294; (1948)1MLJ125
ORDER1. This is an application under Section 491, Criminal Procedure Code, for a direction that a minor boy named Jayaram who is the petitioner's son be brought up before the Court to be dealt with according to law, and that the respondent be directed to restore the said Jayaram to the custody of the petitioner. At one stage it was agreed between the parties that the boy who is 13 years old should be put in the Sri Ramakrishna Mission High School Hostel, Thiagarayanagar, and the father was willing to bear all the expenses of the maintenance and education of the boy in that institution. After his admission in the hostel and the school, in spite of numerous attempts made by the warden, the boy played truant and was persistently running away to the respondent's place. Consequently the consent order was vacated on the 26th September, 1947 and the petition was heard on merits. It was, however, agreed that before passing the final order one further attempt should be made to put the boy in th...
Tag this Judgment!W. Jayaraghavan Vs. the Leo Films
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-28-1947
Reported in: AIR1948Mad442; (1948)1MLJ209
Frederick William Gentle, C.J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff against the amount of damages awarded to the defendants upon their counter-claim. The plaintiff (hereafter called ' the appellant,') carries on business as a film distributor. The defendant firm, of which Mr. C.S. Jagannathan is the managing partner (to whom it is convenient hereafter to refer as ' the respondent ') were producers of a Tamil talkie picture named ' Poompavai.' Whilst the film was in course of production, and before it had been completed, a contract dated 6th May, 1943, was made between the respondent (therein called ' the lessor ') and the appellant (therein called the 'lessee') whereby it was agreed inter alia that (1) the respondent should lease to the appellant the rights of exploiting the picture ' Poom-pavai ' within the districts specified in the agreement, including the City of Madras, for five years from the date of delivery of the picture; (2) the appellant to pay to the respondent, as rent, th...
Tag this Judgment!Sakhamuri Peraya and ors. Vs. Nimmaraju Kondayya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-28-1947
Reported in: AIR1948Mad430; (1948)1MLJ290
Horwill, J.1. On 10th August, 1931, the plaintiff in O.S. No. 69 of 1943, here-after referred to as the plaintiff, and the fifth defendant in O.S. No. 69 of 1943, hereafter referred to as the fifth defendant, executed a sale deed, Ex. D-3, for Rs. 8000 in favour of the first defendant (in O.S. No. 69 of 1943). Rs. 1100 were paid in cash, and the remaining Rs. 6,900 were to be paid before the Sub-Registrar at the time of the registration. As the plaintiff and the fifth defendant were not willing to have the document registered, the first defendant on 24th November, 1931, presented the document before the Sub-Registrar for compulsory registration. It was subsequently registered on 1st December, 1931. In the meanwhile, on 18th November, 1931, I.P. No. 119 of 1931, was filed by a creditor to adjudicate (the fifth defendant an insolvent. He was so adjudged on 3rd September, 1932. Proceedings were then instituted by the Official Receiver to have the alienation evidenced by Ex. D-3 set aside....
Tag this Judgment!In Re: M.E. Sheik Mohamed and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-28-1947
Reported in: (1948)1MLJ410
ORDERYahya Ali, J.1. To sustain a conviction under Section 46 of the Madras City Police Act it should be found as a fact that the accused was found gaming or was present for the purposes of gaming in a common gaming house. In the present case there is no finding that the place where the gaming was going on was a common gaming house. On the contrary while acquitting the first accused of an offence under Section 45 of the Act the learned Magistrate held that it was not established that the first accused was the occupier of the house and that he was conducting a gaming house. If in view of this conclusion it was felt that some other person was running a common gaming house at that place such finding should have been recorded indicating the evidence upon which it was based. As a matter of fact, there is no such evidence in this case. In this view, the conviction under Section 46 of the City Police Act cannot be maintained. 2. The petition is allowed, the conviction and sentence are set asi...
Tag this Judgment!Vannappan Servai Vs. Sinnathayee Ammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-28-1947
Reported in: (1948)1MLJ455
Satyanarayana Rao, J.1. The plaintiff who is the petitioner before me instituted the suit out of which this petition arises for declarations that the wills purported to have been executed by the deceased Periakaruppan Servai on 29th October, 1944, and 30th January, 1945, respctively were not true in fact and at any rate invalid in law, and in respect of these two declarations he paid a fixed court-fee of Rs. 100 for each declaration. On an objection raised by the defendants, the learned Sub-ordinate Judge framed issue (3) raising the question ' whether the court-fee paid is correct.' He took this issue for trial as preliminary issue and held that the two reliefs fall under Section 7 (iv-A) of the Court-Fees Act. According to the learned Judge, the reliefs in substance are for cancellation of the two wills and that therefore the plaintiff is bound to pay Court-fee on the market value of the properties forming the subject-matter of the wills.2. In my opinion, the learned Judge has overlo...
Tag this Judgment!A.M.S. Sheik Muhammed Maracair Vs. Bathummal Beevi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-27-1947
Reported in: AIR1948Mad458; (1948)1MLJ298
Satyanarayana Rao, J.1. This revision petition is filed by the defendant against the order of the Subordinate Judge of Tuticorin upholding the decision of the District Munsiff of Srivaikuntam passed under Order 22, Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code.2. One Bathummal Beevi executed a power of attorney in favour of the defendant authorising him to manage her properties and to make collections of the rents and profits of the shops and buildings. The defendant who was thus constituted the plaintiff's agent continued to manage until the power of attorney was revoked. As the defendant did not render an account of his management to Bathummal Beevi, the principal, she instituted a suit for an account and for recovery of the amount found due after taking acccounts. She assigned her rights in the money due from the defendant to the present respondent on the 3rd July, 1943, whereby the assignee was clothed with rights to recover from the defendant all the amounts belonging to the assignor and re...
Tag this Judgment!P.L.N.K.M. Nagappa Chettiar Vs. P.L.N.K.M.L. Lakshmanan Chettiar (Dead ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-27-1947
Reported in: (1948)1MLJ350
Frederick William Gentle, C.J.1. This is an appeal by the judgment-debtor against the order of Kunhi Raman, J., who reversing the order of the learned Master, held that E.P. Nos. 126 and 148 of 1946 on the file of this Court are not barred by limitation and directed that the relief sought by the two petitions should be granted.2. The circumstances are somewhat complicated, but reference will be made only to the relevant facts.3. On 25 th March, 1935, the respondent-decree-holder obtained a money decree against the appellant judgment-debtor in O.S. No. 112 of 1934 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Devakottah.4. In C.S. No. 196 of 1933 in this Court the appellant sued a Chetty firm in respect of an advance of Rs. 11,250 made in 1916 out of a family trust fund in which the respondent and the appellant are interested; the claim made was for about Rs. 50,000, including principal and compound interest; the suit was dismissed in the trial Court but was decreed in the appellate Court; a...
Tag this Judgment!Ramakrishna Ayyar Dharmam by Its Hereditary Trustee, Ramakrishna Ayyar ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-26-1947
Reported in: AIR1948Mad351; (1948)1MLJ356
Frederick William Gentle, C.J.1. This is an appeal pursuant to the provisions of Clause 15 of the Letters Patent of this Court against an order of Rajamannar, J., made on the 26th August, 1947, directing the appellant before the learned Judge to furnish security for the respondents' costs, pursuant to the provisions of Rule 10 of Order XLI of the Code of Civil Procedure. The appellant challenges the correctness of that order.2. The appellant instituted a suit in forma pauperis in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Madura. The suit was dismissed. He has now preferred an appeal also in forma pauperis against the learned Judge's dismissal. It is in respect of that appeal that the order, now appealed against, was made.3. The claim by the appellant is to a considerable amount of property, the claim being based upon what is alleged to be a deed of trust dated 21st August, 1907, by which, according to the appellant, he has now become the sole hereditary trustee of the property, which prope...
Tag this Judgment!S.A.R. Chinnan Chettiar Vs. the Estate Manager
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-21-1947
Reported in: (1948)2MLJ377
Patanjali Sastri, J.1. This appeal arises out of an application to execute a decree for arrears of rent obtained by the Zamindar of Sivaganga represented by the Estate Manager, the respondent herein, against one Kannappa Chettiar deceased. The decree was passed on 31st July, 1929, and though Kannappa died on 28th November of the same year successive applications, each within 3 years of the preceding one, were filed subsequently in the Revenue Court for execution of the decree against the said judgment-debtor as if he were alive on those dates but were allowed to be dismissed for non-prosecution. The present application (E.P. No. 5784 of 1944) which has given rise to this appeal was filed on 10th July, 1941, against the same person but it was returned by the Special Deputy Collector with the remark that as the judgment-debtor was dead his legal representatives should be added. The respondent decree-holder accordingly applied on 24th April, 1943, to bring on record the appellant and anot...
Tag this Judgment!Rao Sahib Sriman Mudumbi Venkata Ranga Anaharachariar Vs. Sri Manyam K ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-21-1947
Reported in: AIR1948Mad383; (1948)1MLJ251
Patanjali Sastri, J.1. This second appeal and the connected civil revision petition raise a question of jurisdiction.2. The appellant who is the Petitioner in the Revision Petition is a ryot holding lands in certain villages of which the respondent is the land-holder. Disputes arose regarding the rents payable in respect of the lands and the respondent tendered certain pattas for fasils 1350 and 1351 which the appellant refused to accept as not being valid and proper. Thereupon the respondent issued notices of demand for payment of the arrears of rent which according to him were due for those faslis, and the appellant, with a view to avoid a distraint, paid the amounts claimed under protest intimating at the same time his intention to recover the sums paid as money illegally collected from him. He accordingly brought the two suits O.S. No. 24 of 1943 in the Court of the Special Assistant Agent, Kovvur on the Civil Side and O.S. No. 261 of 1943 in the Court of the District Munsiff, Raja...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »