Chennai Court January 1948 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.
Nagupudi Krishnamma Naidu and ors. Vs. Polidili Chinna Venkapathi Naid ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-16-1948
Reported in: AIR1948Mad450; (1948)1MLJ359
Chandrasekhara Aiyar, J.1. In the suits for rent brought under Section 77 of the Madras Estates Land Act, the landlord claimed rent also for excess areas said to be in the holdings of the tenants. The excess area was ascertained, it is said, at a survey under the Surveys and Boundaries Act, to which the tenants were not parties. Both the lower Courts have decreed the suits even as regards rent for the excess areas, holding that the cases fell under Clause (3) of Section 42 of the Madras Estates Land Act. The learned District Judge has proceeded upon the footing that the rent was fixed with reference to the area in the old pattas and that a glance at them would show that the rent varied in exact proportion to the extent. Exs. D-4, D-4 (e), D-4 (b) and D-5 are the old pattas. They do not bear out this statement of the learned District Judge; there is nothing in them to show that the rents were fixed with reference to the area, or that the rents were varied in exact propotion to the exten...
Mohammed Haji Gani Vs. A. MohsIn Raja
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-16-1948
Reported in: AIR1948Mad440; (1948)1MLJ456
Happell, J.1. The question in this Civil Revision Petition is whether the respondent was entitled to maintain a suit for the ejectment of the petitioner under Section 41 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, in view of the provisions of the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act of 1946 (Madras Act XV of 1946). The respondent had let No. 5, Anderson Street, George Town, Madras, to one M.S. Moosa Sait., and Moosa Sait had sublet a godown attached to No. 5, Anderson Street to the petitioner. Before the application was made under Section 41 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act the respondent had sent a notice to Moosa Sait terminating his tenancy. The learned Small Cause Court Judge held that Section 41 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act was applicable to a sub-tenant, and in support of his conclusion referred to the case of Suryanarayana v. Narasimha : AIR1929Mad396 and he held also that although Moosa Sait himself might have resisted the action by virtue of Madras A...
Swarnavalli Achi and anr. Vs. P.L.N.K.M. Nagappa Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-09-1948
Reported in: AIR1948Mad331; (1948)1MLJ230
Frederick William Gentle, C.J.1. This is an application for leave to appeal to His Majesty in Council against a decision on appeal of this Court which reversed a decision of Kunhi Raman, J., given in the exercise of Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction of this Court which, in turn, reversed a decision of the learned Master.2. The relevant facts are the following : A decree was passed by the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Devakottah in O.S. No. 112 of 1934 for approximately a sum of Rs. 9,000 together with interest and costs. That decree was transferred to this Court for execution. The learned Master, before whom the execution petition came, held that the petition was barred by the provisions of the law of limitation and dismissed the application. Kunhi Raman, J., reversed the learned Master's order and directed execution to issue. At the date of the disposal of the matter before the learned Judge a sum approximately of Rs. 13,000 was due in respect of the decree, the addition of abo...
Muthuvenkatasubba Reddiar and anr. Vs. Thangavel Chetti and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-09-1948
Reported in: AIR1948Mad462; (1948)1MLJ327
Frederick William Gentle, C.J.1. This appeal arises out of an execution petition filed on Nov-ember 21, 1941, in a mortgage suit, O.S. No 26 of 1927, on the file of the Subor-dinate Judge's Court of Cuddalore in which the final decree was passed on November 25, 1929. This is the judgment-debtor's appeal against the learned Subordinate Judge's order directing execution to issue.2. The sole question arising is whether the execution petition is barred by the provisions of Article 182(5) of the Limitation Act. It was filed a few days before the expiration of twelve years following the passing of the decree and the only point for consideration is whether the filing took place within three years of the final order in an earlier execution petition.3. The execution petition, out of which this appeal arises, is the fifth of such petitions filed since the final decree in the suit was passed. The first four petitions were filed on (1) November 21, 1932, (2) November 19, 1935, (3) November 21, 193...
Gadiraju Srirama Sarma and ors. Vs. Gadiraju Venkatappa and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-09-1948
Reported in: AIR1948Mad334; (1948)1MLJ334
Clark, J.1. The petitioners were the plaintiffs in the Court of the District Munsif of Tenali. They sued for partition of certain property and for possession from the alienees. The respondents objected that the value of the suit was beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court. The District Munsiff upheld this objection and returned the plaint to the petitioners for presentation to the proper Court. They appealed to the Subordinate Judge of Tenali who upheld the decision of the District Munsiff. The petitioners now ask that these orders may be set aside.2. Before the Subordinate Judge it was conceded that the claim falls within Section 7 (v) of the Court-Fees Act, and before me it has been conceded that so far as concerns the claim to partition and possession it is one falling within Clause (b) of that provision. I desire to make it clear that this was conceded only with reference to the claim for partition and possession and not as regards the suit generally, because counsel for the...
In Re: Chinnayya Goundan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-07-1948
Reported in: (1948)1MLJ448
ORDERGovinda Menon, J.1. This is an application to revise the appellate order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Namakkal, confirming the conviction and sentence passed on the 25 petitioners herein, of an offence under Section 143 read with Section 188, Indian Penal Code and the sentence of a fine of Rs. 100 on each of the petitioners.2. On the 13th and 14th January, 1946, the Sub-Magistrate of Attur passed orders under Section 144, Criminal Procedure Code, restraining all the petitioners who belong to one of the factions in the Keeripatti village in Attur taluk from conducting the ' bull play' in connection with the Pongal festival in a village temple. In defiance of this prohibitory order, the petitioners formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and in spite of the warning given by the police officers on the spot, conducted the ' bull play ' on the occasion of the festival. For this offence, they were charge-sheeted for being members of an unlawful assembly with the common object o...
Pemmani Rangappa Naidu Vs. Gurram Venkalakshamma and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-07-1948
Reported in: (1948)1MLJ462
Frederick William Gentle, C.J.1. This appeal arises out of an execution petition, E.P. No. 19 of 1946, in O.S. No. 47 of 1929 on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court of Nellore. The suit was one for partition instituted by the plaintiffs, who are respondents 1 to 3 here against three defendants. The second defendant was the karta of the family and is the appellant. The other defendant-respondents can be ignored.2. On 1st February, 1933, a compromise decree was passed and it is in respect of that decree that the execution petition out of which this appeal arises was issued. The relief sought by the petition was for a division of moveable and immoveable properties belonging to the family, amongst the members according to their shares. Three lots of property are concerned--(1) promissory notes representing debts due to the family, (2) cattle which belonged to the family, and (3) items of immoveable property similarly possessed. The suit was instituted in 1929, and in 1933, when the d...
Nakka Appala Naidu Vs. Nakka Latchu Naidu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-06-1948
Reported in: (1948)1MLJ280
ORDERGovinda Menon, J.1. The point by Mr. Dikshitulu, novel and interesting as it is and bereft of any direct authority in our Courts, did seem at first blush to be one of substance, but on a careful and critical examination, did not appear to be a difficult one. On the 18th March, 1947, my learned brother Yahya Ali, J., in C.M.P. No. 88 of 1947 (S.A. No. 1809 of 1946) made the following Order :Interim stay of the passing of final decree is made absolute on condition that petitioner furnishes security ot the satisfaction of trail Court for the sum of Rule 1, 200 towards mesne profits within eight weeks.2. The trail Court was the District Munsiff of Chicacole. In pursuance of this order the petitioner in C.M.P. No. 88 of 1947 offered a half share of the properties involved in the second appeal as security for the said sum of Rs. 1,200. The sufficiency of this was objected to by opposite party but the learned District Munsiff after ascertaining the value of the property and considering t...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›