Chennai Court September 1947 Judgments
Jasti Basavayya and ors. Vs. Lingam Raghavayya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-26-1947
Reported in: (1948)1MLJ338
Satyanarayana Rao, J.1. This is an appeal by defendants 1 to 9 against the amended decree disallowing the junior counsel's fee of Rs. 62-5-4 to the appellants and refusing to allow Rs. 270 as senior's fee instead of Rs. 187. Defendants 1 to 9 were represented in the suit by a senior counsel assisted by a junior; but unfortunately that junior died after the framing of the issues and the defendants engaged another junior. The decree as originally drafted allowed a sum of Rs. 62-5-4 for the junior pleader and Rs. 187 for the senior pleader. Defendants 1 to 9 made an application for amending the decree by allowing a sum of Rs. 270 for the senior and Rs. 90 for the junior. The application was opposed by the second plaintiff. The learned Subordinate Judge, while finding that the appellants were entitled to Rs. 270 for the senior as the other defendants 18 and 20 to 22 were not entitled to any costs since they were also equal reversioners along with the plaintiffs and supported them, did not ...
Tag this Judgment!Manuaru Veeraswami Vs. the Provincial Government of Madras, Represente ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-24-1947
Reported in: AIR1948Mad379; (1948)1MLJ6
Horwill, J.1. This is an appeal against the decree of the Subordinate Judge of Nellore, dismissing the suit filed by the appellant, a peon in the Forest Department, for a declaration that his dismissal from service by the District Forest Officer was wrongful; for a direction to the Government to reinstate him in office, or in the alternative for Rs. 6,000 as damages. The suit was brought against the Government and also against the District Forest Officer, because it was alleged that the District Forest Officer had acted with malice. The learned Subordinate Judge found that the dismissal was not wrongful; and so he dismissed the suit with costs.2. Four main objections have been raised to the decree of the lower Court. One is that fundamental principles of justice were violated in withholding from the appellant certain papers which had a bearing on the case and the absence of which hampered him in his defence. The second was that he was not allowed to appear by a vakil, the third was tha...
Tag this Judgment!K. Shyamalambal Ammal Vs. M.S. Ramamurthi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-24-1947
Reported in: AIR1948Mad318
Gentle, C.J.1. This is an appeal from dismissal by Kunhi Raman J.of an application made to him by the appellant seeking that the Courtshould direct the filing of a complaint against the respondent or, in the alternative, sanction the appellant prosecuting the respondent.2. The respondent was the receiver appointed by the Court of some villages in the moffussil which were the subject-matter of proceedings to which the appellant was a party. The order appointing him receiver was made on 8-8-1941, whereupon he took possession of two villages, and was responsible for the receipts and expenditure in respect of them. By order of Court made on 24-4-1945, the receiver was directed to deliver possession of the villages to the appellant, and, in substance, the receiver-respondent complied with that order, and he was discharged subject to filing and passing his accounts.3. Thereafter, the appellant, upon examination of accounts, was dissatisfied with regard to them, and she issued applications ag...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: A.K. Gopalan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-23-1947
Reported in: 1949CriLJ258; (1948)2MLJ383
ORDERGovind Menon J.1. For a speech delivered on l4th July .1946, presiding over a meeting held at a cinema shed and situated in Kottaparamba in Badagara,. the petitioner has been convicted under 8, 606, Penal Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for sis months which conviction and sentence were upheld on appeal by the Sessions-Judge of North Malabar, who, in addition, directed the petitioner to execute a security bond for Rs. 200 with two sureties for a like amount-each to keep the peace for a period of IS months-under Section 106, Criminal P. C.2. Whether the speech in question comes-within the mischief of Section 503, Penal Code, is the only question argued before me. The petitioner's case is that the speech was a criticism of the police force in general in the interests of the-public and not that he threatened with injury any person or class of persons with regard to their person, reputation or property. Portions of the speech extracted by the learned Sessions Judge show tha...
Tag this Judgment!The Catholic Mission Presentation Convent by Mother Superior, Coimbato ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-22-1947
Reported in: (1948)1MLJ11
Patanjali Sastri, J.1. This is a second appeal preferred by defendants 6 and 7 from a decree of the District Judge of Coimbatore affirming the decree of the Subordinate Judge of the same place whereby the title of the respondents 1 to 4 to certain immoveable properties was declared, and the appellants were directed to deliver possession of them to the said respondents with mesne profits.2. One Nanjappa Goundan was the original owner of the properties, and on his death many years ago his widow Palaniammal inherited the properties and was in enjoyment thereof till the 10th January, 1931, when she died. Thereupon disputes arose regarding succession to the properties of Nanjappa between the fifth respondent, who was the first defendant in the suit who claimed title to be the nearest sapinda and reversioner of Nanjappa on the one hand and defendants 8 and 9 who are the grandsons of Palaniammal's sister and set up title as devisees under her will on the other. The first respondent's father, ...
Tag this Judgment!Krishna Udayan Vs. Chinna Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-22-1947
Reported in: AIR1948Mad416; (1948)1MLJ119
Shahabuddin, J.1. This petition arises out of an application for setting aside an order passed ex parte on a reference (L.A.C. No. 7 of 1945) under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act. The petitioner and the respondent were claimants in respect of the amount awarded and the reference made in that connection to the Sub-ordinate Judge of Salem under Section 30, stood posted to the 24th of August, 1945, when the respondent filed his statement. The proceedings were then adjourned to 19th September, 1945. On that day, the respondent was absent and an adjournment asked for on his behalf was granted till 2nd October, 1945, on condition that he paid Rs. 4 to the petitioner as costs for the day. But on 2nd October, 1945, the respondent was again absent and his vakil reported 'No, instructions. The day costs was not paid. The petitioner then proved his claim and an order was passed in his favour, the Court holding that he was entitled to the amount in dispute. The respondent thereupon filed a...
Tag this Judgment!Syedamian Sahib Vs. Janaki Ammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-19-1947
Reported in: AIR1948Mad498; (1948)1MLJ385
Tyagarajan, J.1. This appeal arises in execution proceedings and is from an order of the learned Subordinate Judge of Dindigul confirming the dismissal of an execution application by the learned District Munsiff of Palni. The facts leading up to this appeal are the following.2. The decree-holder who is the appellant before this Court obtained a decree in O.S. No. 1417 of 1928 on the file of the District Munsiff's Court, Udumalpet, for about Rs. 2,500 on the 30th July, 1929, against one Ayyathurai Mudaliar. The judgment-debtor died subsequent to this decree and an execution application E.P. No. 404 of 1931 was filed on the 16th July, 1931, for attachment and sale of an item of property, R.S. No. 1194/2 and two other items. No question arises in this appeal as regards the two other items and the only question is with, reference to the relief prayed for in respect of item R.S. No. 1194/2. Attachment of the property was ordered and a claim was filed by two persons, namely, Sornammal and he...
Tag this Judgment!Pulla Subbaramiah Vs. Palagari Balarami Reddy and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-17-1947
Reported in: (1948)1MLJ346
Govindarajachari, J.1. This is an appeal by the second defendant in O.S. No. 72 of 1929 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Nellore, against the order in E.P. No. 98 of 1943. The decree was a money decree against the appellant and two others who were defendants 1 and 3 in the suit. The appellant was adjudged an insolvent on 12th April, 1933, in I.P. No. 82 of 1932, on the file of the District Court of Nellore. The adjudication was annulled on the 8th July, 1937, but the properties were vested in the Official Receiver, Nellore, by an order under Section 37 of the Provincial Insolvency Act. The execution petition out of which this appeal has arisen was first filed against the three defendants. The Official Receiver was subsequently added as the fourth respondent. The prayer in the execution petition so far as the appellant was concerned was two-fold. One was that certainimmoveable property which belongs to the second defendant and which is vested in the fourth defendant ...
Tag this Judgment!K. Narayanan Nair Vs. A. Kunhan Mannadiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-16-1947
Reported in: (1947)2MLJ559
Frederick William Gentle, C.J.1. This is a Letters Patent Appeal from the decision in second appeal of Shahabuddin, J. The subject-matter is four items of landed property to which the Malabar Tenancy Act (hereinafter called ' the Act ') applies. The property had been leased by the jenmi to the Peralikunnath tarwad ; at the end of the term of the lease (whenever it may have been), the lands were thereupon held upon a tenancy from year to year ; on May 15, 1912, the tarwad sub-leased the property to defendants 2 to 5, who assigned their interest to the first defendant, who, in turn, sub-let item 4 of the four items of property to defendants 6 to 12; the tarwad fell into arrear with the rent due to the jenmi, who assigned those arrears to the plaintiff; he obtained a decree for the amount of those arrears and, in execution of his decree the rights of Peralikunnath tarwad were sold and purchased. by the plaintiff; whereupon, in effect, he stood in the shoes of the tarwad. In the suit in th...
Tag this Judgment!Vangayil Madhavan Nayanar Vs. V. Parameswara Ayyar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-15-1947
Reported in: AIR1948Mad373; (1948)1MLJ68
Govindarajachari, J.1. The facts necessary for the disposal of the above civil miscellaneus appeals and civil revision petition can be shortly stated. In O.S. No. 15 of 1933, on the file of the District Judge of Morth Malabar, which was a suit for sale on a mortgage, a preliminary decree was passed on 13th September, 1934, followed by a final decree on 27th January, 1936. The mortgaged property was sold in execution and purchased by one Vengayil Madhavan Nayanar who is the appellant in the civil miscellanous appeals and the petitioner in the civil revision petition and who will hereinafter be referred to as the appellant. On 16th November, 1944, the first defendant in the mortgage suit applied in E.A. No. 52 of 1944 under Order 21, Rule 90 of the Code of Civil Procedure for setting aside the sale. This application underwent several adjournments. On 6th March, 1945, the decree-holders applied in E.A. No. 25 of 1945 under Order 21, Rule 2 for recording full satisfaction of the decree all...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »