Chennai Court February 1947 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.
M. Abdul Wahid Sahib Vs. Dewanjee Abdul Khader Sahib
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-25-1947
Reported in: AIR1947Mad400; (1947)1MLJ207
ORDERYahya Ali, J.1. This is an application under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure to transfer C.M.A. No. 18 of 1946 on the file of the District Court of Bellary to some other District Court in the Province. An objection has been raised in limine by the respondent that the application is not maintainable as in functioning as an appellate authority in the matter in question the District Judge of Bellary is a persona designata and not a Court which is subordinate to this Court, and that consequently no application for the transfer of appeal before such authority can be maintained in this Court. The Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (XV of 1946) regulates the letting of residential and non-residential buildings, and control of leases of such buildings. Under that Act a Controller is appointed who has been invested with certain powers. A right of appeal has been given against some orders passed by him under Section 12 of the Act. That section empowers the Provincial Go...
Uppalapati Venkataratnam Vs. Uppalapati Apparao
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-25-1947
Reported in: AIR1948Mad80; (1947)1MLJ271
Bell, J.1. The petitioner filed a suit O.S. No. 278 of 1944 in the Court of the District Munsiff, Kovvur. She asked (a) for arrears of maintenance and (b) for enhancement of the previous rate which had been fixed by a registered document of 1937. The defendant admitting that the arrears of maintenance were due at the old rate alleged that he had made a tender of the amount, namely, Rs. 300; with regard to enhancement, however, he said that the document fixed the rate once for all and that no further enhancement was possible or lawful. On the date of the trial the plaintiff was absent and her pleader filed an application for an adjournment but this was dismissed. He then reported no 'instructions'.2. The District Munsiff thereupon passed a decree for Rs. 300, being the amount of the arrears of maintenance at the old rate, together with costs, and then having examined the registered document itself and heard the arguments of the defendant and Counsel he held that the plaintiff had no jus...
Guttula Masenu and ors. Vs. Madimpalli Bhavaraju Garu and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-25-1947
Reported in: AIR1947Mad375; (1947)1MLJ296
Horwill, J.1. The appellants were defendants in O.S. No. 224. of 1943 and O.S. No. 99 of 1944, the plaintiffs being persons who claimed to have occupancy rights in the lands in dispute. The case of the appellants was that the plaintiffs were really landholders and that since the defendants were in possession at the time when the Madras Estates Land Act was amended they acquired occupancy rights.2. There can be no doubt that the plaintiffs were in possession of the lands for a very long time, long prior to 1908, when the original Act came into force. On the 11th November, 1887, two documents came into existence, one Ex. P-19, purporting to be a grant by the proprietors of a certain village, and the other, Ex. P-1, an ordinary lease granting leasehold rights to grantees from the expiration of that agreement, the 1st of April, 1908. The lower Courts have found that the defendants have not acquired occupancy rights, and that the plaintiffs were in possession of the lands in dispute even pr...
Panguluri Ankamma and anr. Vs. Vootla Raghavamma and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-21-1947
Reported in: (1947)2MLJ233
Horwill, J.1. O.S. No. 394 of 1930 was a suit for dissolution of partnership and for accounts. On the 12th May, 1934, a preliminary decree was passed, and a Commissioner appointed for examining the accounts ; after he had filed his report, the suit was posted to 10th October, 1940, for hearing objections to the Commissioner's report and for passing the final decree. Two days prior to that date, however, the second defendant had died and his death was reported by the plaintiff to the Court. When the suit came up for hearing on 10th October, 1940, the Court ordered the plaintiff to bring the legal representatives of the second defendant on record and posted the suit to the 24th October, 1940, for that purpose. As, however, according to the Commissioner's report nothing was due to the plaintiff, and a considerable sum was payable to the second defendant, the plaintiff naturally did not comply with the order of the Court. So on the adjourned date the suit was dismissed for default. At that...
Thummalapalli Viswanadham Vs. Sokalachand Chunnilal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-21-1947
Reported in: AIR1947Mad377; (1947)1MLJ228
Wadsworth, J.1. On 23rd November, 1937, a sale was held in execution of a decree. On 6th May, 1938, an application was preferred by the judgment-debtor under Section 23 of Madras Act IV of 1938 to set aside the sale on the ground that he was an agriculturist entitled to the benefits of that Act. The application was pending till 10th June, 1944, when the District Munsiff passed the following order:(1) Petitioner absent and his vakil reports no instructions.(2) Petition dismissed with costs.No attempt was made to get the application restored to file. The lower appellate Court assumes that the procedure under Order 9, Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure would not be available; but I am of the opinion that that assumption is wrong having regard to the decision in Satyanarayana v. Peddi Naidu : AIR1941Mad362 . Instead of taking the procedure of applying for restoration of the application, the applicant filed an appeal purporting to be under Section 25-A incorporated into Madras Act IV of ...
In Re: Tirumal Raju
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-21-1947
Reported in: AIR1947Mad368; (1947)1MLJ238
ORDERYahya Ali, J.1. The petitioner was convicted by the Stationary Sub-Magistrate, Puttur, under Section 498 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for four months. On appeal the Joint Magistrate, Chandragiri, while confirming the conviction converted the sentence of imprisonment to a fine of Rs. 1,000 and further directed that out of the fine, if collected, Rs. 500 should be paid to P.W 1 by way of compensation under Section 545 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Both the Courts have found that inducement was offered to the wife of P.W. 1 before she was enticed by the petitioner from the house of her husband. It is in evidence that some time prior to the occurrence the petitioner told P.W. 1's wife 'it is not possible to come and go like this, come along. I will take you and keep you as my concubine'. This amounts to saying that he could not continue the liaison in the house of P.W. 1 any longer and that if she wanted to maintain the friendship she should agr...
In Re: K. Subba Rao
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-21-1947
Reported in: AIR1948Mad466; (1947)1MLJ199
ORDERYahya Ali, J.1. The petitioner who is an Advocate practising at Vizagapatam has been convicted by the Bench Court, Anakapalle, under Section 199 read with Section 317(c) of the District Municipalities Act, 1920, and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 20, in default to simple imprisonment for one day. He appealed against the conviction and sentence to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Vizagapatam, who confirmed the conviction and sentence.2. The case against him is that he carried out and completed certain repairs and improvements to his house in contravention of the provisions of the Act. The petitioner filed an application on the 1st October, 1945, for making some additions to his house, and some correspondence was going on between him and the executive authority for proper plans drawn to scale and for other information which was necessary for the disposal of the application. The petitioner, however, without waiting for the permission of the executive authority, carried out the improvem...
Kashavlal Joshi Vs. M.K.A. Sankara Iyer and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-21-1947
Reported in: AIR1948Mad76; (1947)1MLJ305
1. The petitioner brought a suit in the Court of Small Causes, Madras, on a promisory note. An earlier suit had been, filed which had been settled out of Court by the execution of the suit promissory note. The Court noted that the matter had been settled (and presumably dismissed the suit). During the hearing of the present suit, the provisions of Section 3 of the Usurious Loans Act were invoked and the Court was asked to re-open the transaction, take an account between the parties, and relieve the debtors of all liability on account of the excessive interest already paid. The Court did so. On a point of law, an application for a new trial was made ; and the only question considered by the Full Bench was whether the transaction was one which attracted the provisions of the Usurious Loans Act. The Full Bench agreed with the trial judge and dismissed the application. The result was that the suit was dismissed.2. It is argued here that since the earlier transaction between the parties had...
Devadas (Minor) and ors. Vs. Maniyam Sadasiva Reddiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-21-1947
Reported in: AIR1947Mad411; (1947)1MLJ333
Frederick William Gentle, C.J.1. In this civil revision petition the plaintiff in the suit is the petitioner and he challenges the correctness of the learned Subordinate Judge of Salem in rejecting his suit for redemption of a mortgage on the ground that an insufficient amount of court-fees had been paid. The amount of court-fee which the petitioner had paid was calculated on the amount of the principal of the mortgage debt. The learned Subordinate Judge held that in addition to the amount already paid, Rs. 652-7-0, the petitioner was required to pay about Rs. 150 in respect of a claim which, the learned Judge held, was made for the balance due to him for acts of waste or wrong alleged to be committed by the mortgagee.2. A usufructuary mortgage was executed on the 5th May, 1926, by one Vasudeva Reddiar in favour of the first and second defendants and the father of the third defendant in the suit, as mortgagees, to secure a loan of Rs. 9,000 ; some property in a mitta in the District of...
Ghulam Ghouse Saheb Vs. Chowdri D. Raja Rao
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-21-1947
Reported in: AIR1947Mad436; (1947)1MLJ354
Happell, J.1. The appellant was directed by the House Rent Controllor to give possession of the house in which he lived to his landlord, the respondent, on 8th August, 1946. He did not obey the order and the respondent accordingly filed an execution petition in which he prayed for his eviction. On 3rd September, 1946, however, the appellant paid Rs. 44 to the respondent in respect of two months' rent and obtained a receipt. Having done this he filed a counter affidavit in the execution proceedings in which he maintained that a new tenancy had been created by his payment of the two months' rent so that he was not liable to be evicted. This contention was rejected by the Principal Judge, City Civil Court, Madras, and this appeal is laid against his order. The contention that a new tenancy was created is based on the supposition that the facts and circumstances of the case bring it under Section 116 of the Transfer of Property Act. This, however, is not the case. The appellant is not a le...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »