Chennai Court March 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.
Nataraja Pillai Vs. U. Narayanaswami Iyer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-07-1947
Reported in: AIR1947Mad385; (1947)1MLJ393
Wadsworth, J.1. This petition raises a question of limitation in execution. A decree was obtained on 4th May, 1934. The first execution petition was filed on 4th May, 1937. The Court ordered its return on 21st June, 1937, for supplying certain information, giving time till 3rd July, 1937. In fact, the decree-holder did not take a return of the petition with the result that on 16th July, 1937, the petition was rejected by the Court. It is contended that this order of rejection cannot be treated as a final order on a petition in accordance with law on the ground that, after the order for return had been ordered and the time had expired, the petition had no legal existence, the argument being based on the decision in Kadir Sahib v. Viswanatha Iyer : AIR1943Mad297 . The present case is identical with that dealt with by King, J., in Parankusa Naidu v. Ayyanna Naidu (1943) 1 M.L.J. 445. In that case the learned Judge distinguished the Bench decision just cited and pointed out that there was ...
Ramalingam Alias Karuppanna Koundar Vs. Peria Kali Goundan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-06-1947
Reported in: AIR1948Mad173; (1947)2MLJ109
Patanjali Sastri, J.1. These two connected appeals arise out of a suit brought in the District Court of Salem for setting aside or, in the alternative, for modifying the scheme framed by the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Board (hereinafter referred to as the ' Board ' (for the management of a group of four temples situated in the village of Pudupatti, Rasipuram taluk, Salem District. The temples had all along been managed as a single religious institution by the ancestors of the plaintiff and the second defendant, and in 1939 they were declared by the Board to be ' excepted temples ' as defined in the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Disputes and quarrels, however ensued between the plaintiff and the second defendant on whom the right of management had devolved, and the second defendant applied to the Board under Section 62 of the Act for settling a scheme for the management of the temples in question, alleging various acts of mismanagem...
The Public Prosecutor Vs. Chakka Kondappa
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-06-1947
Reported in: AIR1947Mad397; (1947)1MLJ317
Yahya Ali, J.1. This is an appeal by the Public Prosecutor from the acquittal of the respondent, Chakka Kondappa, in C.C. No. 237 of 1946 in the Court of the Stationary Sub-Magistrate, Gooty. The respondent was prosecuted under Rule 33(2) of the Rules in Schedule IV attached to the Madras Local Boards Act for nonpayment of profession tax due by him and payable to the District Board, Anantapur in respect of the exercise of money-lending profession during the years 1944-45 and 1945-46. The total amount of tax which was demanded from him was Rs. 18-2-0 including a warant fee of two annas. In the charge sheet filed by the District Board President it was mentioned that the tax and the warrant fee due by the assessee could not be collected as he had refused to pay the tax when demanded by the Licence Inspector and also obstructed him in executing the warrant. The accused denied that he exercised the profession of money-lending during the periods in question within the limits of the District ...
Bollam Venkataramudu Vs. Rayala Krishnayya and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-05-1947
Reported in: AIR1948Mad204; (1947)2MLJ244
Bell, J.1. The petitioner who was the judgment-debtor filed a petition to set aside a sale under Order 21, Rule 90 and Sections 47 and 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The petition was dismissed on the nth October, 1943, as the petitioner and his pleader were not present in Court at the time when it was called on for hearing. He applied then under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to the District Munsiff to revise the order of dismissal, to set aside the sale and to reopen the said petition and enquire into the same.2. The District Munsiff held that the application would not lie in law. On appeal the Subordinate Judge came to the same conclusion and referred to the decision in Sivasubramania v. Adaikkalam (1944) 1 M.L.J. 259 where it was held that if an execution petition is dismissed for default the provisions of Order 9 cannot be invoked in order to get the said order set aside. The application was set aside in the exercise of the inherent jurisdiction of the Court as po...
Kumara Sri Ramulu Pantulu Vs. the Province of Madras Represented by th ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-05-1947
Reported in: AIR1948Mad197; (1947)2MLJ296
Bell, J.1. The appeal arises out of a suit against the Government for the recovery of land-cess said to have been over-collected from the plaintiff during the years 1940 to 1943.2. The plaintiff originally agreed to buy some forest lands at Karakambadi village for a sum of Rs. 91,000, Rs. 20,000 thereof to be paid in advance (Exhibit P-4 dated 26th June, 1938). On the same day was executed a lease, Exhibit P-5, whereby the plaintiff took the forest lands with the right to cut timber pending payment of the balance of the purchase price under Exhibit P-4. By 1st November, 1940, he had paid the balance and he obtained a sale deed executed in his favour becoming thereby the proprietor of the lands in question in every sense of the word. His name was not, however, registered in the Government accounts until 25th February, 1942 and by that time he had granted to third parties rights to cut and carry away the timber from the forest, covered by Exhibit P-3, dated 2nd March, 1942.3. The Governm...
The Public Prosecutor Vs. Kodali Arjuna Rao and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-04-1947
Reported in: AIR1947Mad374; (1947)1MLJ327
Yahya Ali, J.1. This is an appeal by the Crown from the acquittal of the respondents in C.C. No. 27 of 1946 on the file of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Gudivada. The case was first tried by the Stationary Sub-Magistrate, Gudivada and he subsequently forwarded it under Section 349(1), Criminal Procedure Code, to the Sub-Divisional First Class Magistrate, Gudivada, for disposal as he was of the opinion that since the second respondent was a child within the meaning of the Madras Children Act, his case called for a different punishment from that which he was empowered to inflict. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate on a review of the evidence came to the conclusion that no case had been made out against either of the respondents and he accordingly acquitted both of them.2. The charge sheet in the case was filed by the executive authority of the Gudivada Municipality and the respondents were alleged to have committed offences under Rules 27 and 29 of the rules framed under Section 20 of the Ma...
Ramaswamy Tevar Vs. Chinniah Tevar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-04-1947
Reported in: AIR1948Mad15; (1947)1MLJ398
Lakshmana Rao, J.1. The sale cannot be set aside as to 4/9ths of the property sold and upheld as to 5/9ths as done by the District Judge and as found by the District Judge the price for which the property was sold, i.e., Rs. 1,125 was proper. There was legal necessity for the sale to the extent of Rs. 651 and the sons are liable for the balance of Rs. 474 under the Rule of pious obligation. The vendee was not cross-examined regarding the representation made by the vendor and it is clear from what precedes in Ex. P-1 (a), the reply notice, that the word ' brothers' was a slip for' sisters'. The marriage of two of the daughters was celebrated about 2 years before the sale and there is no ground for doubting that the vendee acted honestly and after due enquiry as to the existence of necessity. He is not bound to see to the application of the purchase money and as held by the Privy Council in Sri Krishna Das v. Nathu Ram and Ram Sunder Lal v. Lachmi Narain (1929) 57 M.L.J. 7 : I.L.R. 51 Al...
Rajarajeswari Ammal Vs. S. Sankaranarayana Aiyar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-03-1947
Reported in: AIR1948Mad155; (1947)2MLJ93
Rajamannar, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit filed by the first respondent in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Tinnevelly to recover a sum of Rs. 16,350-14-8 in respect of two promissory notes for Rs. 18,000 (Ex P-1) and Rs. 3,400 (Ex. P-3) respectively executed on 30th October, 1922 and 18th August 1927, by the father of the first defendant (the appellant before us) in favour of the second defendant. The plaintiff is the younger brother of the second defendant and the moneys due under the promissory notes belonged to the joint family of which they were members. There was a partition in 1929 and thereafter the plaintiff and the second defendant became each entitled to a moiety of the amounts due under the two promissory notes. On 28th June, 1943, the second defendant made an endorsement in favour of the plaintiff for half of the amount due in respect of each of the promissory notes. The plaintiff instituted the present suit on the 1st July, 1943.2. In the trial Court there we...
Ramaswami Reddi Vs. Deivasigamani Pillai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-03-1947
Reported in: AIR1947Mad395; (1947)1MLJ371
Chandrasekhara Aiyar, J.1. A decree was passed by the District Munsiff in favour of the 8th defendant who was transposed at the fag end of the trial of the suit as 2nd plaintiff, notwithstanding the opposition of the defendants 1 to 7 on the one hand and the 1st plaintiff on the other. This decree has now been upset by the Subordinate Judge, Cuddalore and the second appeal has been preferred by the 8th defendant-2nd plaintiff.2. The procedure followed in the District Munsiff's Court was, to say the least, extraordinary. The plaint was originally only against defendants 1 to 7. Later, the plaintiff filed a petition to implead the 8th defendant as a party on the ground that he was claiming some right in the suit properties and that he might be allowed to state his objections. This petition was allowed and the 8th defendant came on record and he set up title to the property in himself as against the plaintiff and as against the 1st defendant. He also suggested by means of a petition that ...
The Crown Prosecutor Vs. R.K. Pillai and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-03-1947
Reported in: AIR1948Mad281; (1948)1MLJ142
Yahya Ali, J.1. These are appeals by the Crown Prosecutor under Section 417, Criminal Procedure Code, from the orders of acquittal passed by the Chief Presidency Magistrate in C.C. Nos. 3397 and 3398 of 1945. In the former case two persons, R.K. Pillai and Jayaram Naidu, were charged with having committed offences under Section 161 read with Section 114, Indian Penal Code and under Rule 38(5) read with Rule 34(6)(c) of the Defence of India Rules and in the latter case, one of these two persons, viz., Jayaram Naidu was charged under the same two provisions. They were acquitted in both the cases in respect of both the counts.2. Although the two cases were tried separately, there is a good deal of common ground between the two and a considerable amount of evidence is also common involving common contentions of fact and of law. It will therefore be convenient to set out generally the facts of the case and the material features and contentions before examining the correctness or otherwise o...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›