Chennai Court October 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.
Moodananchu Borrayya and ors. Vs. Kasa Vajjulu Ramakoti Sastri
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-27-1948
Reported in: (1948)2MLJ641
Panchapakesa Ayyar, J.1. The only point for determination in this petition is whether the lower Court erred in law in ordering some witnesses cited by the plaintiff to be examined on commission. The learned Counsel for the petitioners urged that the lower Court erred in three ways. The first was that the witnesses in question were living in Nandalur which, though about 300 miles by train from Markapur where the lower Court is situated, is less than 200 miles from Markapur if a person is to travel by buses, and that Order XVI, Rule 19 (b) Civil Procedure Code, covers also other ' established public conveyance,' like buses. I cannot agree. There is no ' established public conveyance ' or ' through buses ' from Markapur to Nandalur, and not even a certainty of catching a series of buses, changing from one to the other. There are, it is said, buses from Markapur to Cumbum, Cumbum to Cuddappah and Cuddappah to Nandalur. It is obvious however, that a man going from Markapur to Cumbum in a bu...
Kotha Venkatasubba Rao Vs. Majeti Sreeramulu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-27-1948
Reported in: (1948)2MLJ648
Panchapakesa Ayyar, J.1. The only point for determination in this petition is whether the lower Court erred in law in directing the petitioner to be arrested and sent to a civil jail without recording its reasons in writing regarding its being satisfied, under Section 51 Civil Procedure Code, as amended, that the judgment-debtor had rendered himself liable to be arrested and sent to a jail on any one of the grounds mentioned therein. The lower Court has not recorded the reasons contemplated in Section 51, Civil Procedure Code. It has simply rejected the contention of the petitioner that he was unable to pay the debt. It has not found positively that he has had, since the date of the decree, the means to pay the amount of the decree or some substantial part thereof and has refused or neglected to pay the same, or that, after the institution of the suit in which the decree was passed, he has dishonestly transferred, concealed or removed any part of his property, or committed any other ac...
K. Krishna Nair Vs. Valliammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-26-1948
Reported in: (1949)1MLJ74
Panchapakesa Ayyar, J.1. The facts of this case are briefly these: The petitioner is living in a house in Madras City formerly owned by one Baggiammal, wife of one Babu Mudaliar, from whom the respondent has subsequently bought it for residential-purposes. The respondent got an order from the Additional Rent Controller, Madras, on 6th September, 1947, directing the petitioner to vacate and hand over possession of the premises to her on or before 31st October, 1947. Before the' Additional Rent Controller the petitioner had contended that a portion of the house was used by him for non-residential purposes, viz., for making appalams, or pappadams, and that, therefore, the Additional Rent Controller could not order eviction under the Act since the respondent wanted the house only for residential purposes. The Additional Rent Controller has remarked as follows in the course of his order:Further, a premises is residential or not residential according to the main purpose for which it was take...
Kamalammal Vs. Rajarathna Naicker
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-26-1948
Reported in: (1949)1MLJ66
Somasundaram, J.1. This is a civil revision petition against the order of the District Judge of Vellore confirming the order of the District Munsiff of Vellore. This arises out of execution proceedings and the question for determination is whether the application made for execution is barred by limitation. The material facts are these. A decree was passed on 21st July, 1932, by the Court of the District Munsiff of Ranipet. In February, 1935, the village to which the parties belong was transferred from the jurisdiction of the Ranipet Court to that of Vellore Court. On 21st July, 1935, the last day of limitation, an execution petition for transmission of the decree was filed in the Court of the District Munsiff of Ranipet. The petition was returned with an order of Court on 25th July, 1935, that the decree-holder should produce a copy of the decree and seven days' time was granted for the same. The petition was re-presented on 31st July, 1935, with an endorsement ' not pressed.' The peti...
Pydipalli Joga Rao Vs. Pydipalli Venkata Rao
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-26-1948
Reported in: (1949)1MLJ648
Satyanarayana Rao, J.1. This is an application by the second defendant in the suit, O.S. No. 35 of 1945 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Cocanada, to revise the order of the learned Subordinate Judge dated 1st April, 1947, directing him to pay court-fee in respect of his one-third share in the properties which were alleged by him to have been purchased benami in the name of defendants 4 to 11 by the plaintiff. The plaintiff, first defendant and second defendant are brothers. In this suit for partition, the plaintiff, according to the case of the defendants, omitted certain items. The second defendant in his written statement pleaded that some of the family properties were purchased in the name of defendants 4 to 11 by the plaintiff fraudulently and collusively and benami with a view to defeat the rights of the several members to the family property. He therefore claimed that these items also should be brought into the hotchpot. Having taken this objection in the written stateme...
Sri Vasudevandra Saraswathiswami Vs. Sridhara Sivarama Moorthy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-26-1948
Reported in: AIR1949Mad630; (1949)1MLJ110
Bell, J.1. In this suit the plaintiff claims a sum of Rs. 9000 which he says the defendant must repay him in the following circumstances. In January 1945, according to the plaintiff he came to Madras from Bezwada, which is his permanent residence in order to take part in a scheme in insolvency whereby he was to be the guarantor. He says that he came to Madras with the sum of Rs. 9000 but found, on arrival that the scheme was not going to materialise. Happening to meet his son-in-law, the defendant, he decided to send the money back to his son who lived in Tenali, the defendant representing to him that he was proceeding in a few days to Tenali on his own business. According to the plaint, the money was therefore handed to the defendant for the purpose of delivering it to the son in Tenali. The plaint says that the defendant failed to pay the money over and has retained it ever since. Hence this suit.2. The defence denies the whole of the plaintiff's story except and in so far as the def...
Cherukur China Venkatasubba Naidu and ors. Vs. Kandadi Sundara Varadac ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-07-1948
Reported in: AIR1950Mad12
ORDERMack, J.1. The petitioners are 30 plaintiffs who sued to have their occupancy rights declared to several items of property detailed in plaint Schedule A. After issues were framed, the District Munsif in a considered order found that the plaint was bad for multifariousness and misjoinder of parties so far as plaint Schedule A lands were concerned. The petitioners all sought the same relief as regards Schedule. B lands holding that they were lands enjoyed in common. The learned District Munsif found that the suit was not bad as regards Schedule. B either for multifariousness or for misjoinder.2. The plaint is interesting and has been keenly argued before me. Mr. Kuppuswami for the petitioners contends that the pleadings raise in question a common issue, namely, whether this shrotriam estate comes within the definition of Section 3(2), Madras Estates Land Act, and urges that if that is so, Section 6, Estates Land Act will automatically confer occupancy rights on the plaintiffs, He al...
Vembu Ammal Vs. Esakkia Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-07-1948
Reported in: (1949)1MLJ71
Panchapakesa Ayyar, J.1. This is a petition for revising and setting aside the order of the District Munsiff of Tinnevelly dated 27th September, 1946, in I.A. No. 143 of 1946, a review petition, in S.C.S. No. 99 of 1946. The facts are briefly as follows:2. S.C.S. No. 99 of 1946 was a suit filed by the petitioner Vembu Ammal, against the respondent, Esakkia Pillai, for recovering the amount due on a promissory note, Ex. P. 1, dated 17th Feburary, 1945, for Rs. 190 with subsequent interest and costs. Vembu Ammal had alleged that Esakkia Pillai had written the whole promissory note, Ex. P. 1, himself, and had signed in it, and that the amount was due. She had examined three witnesses, P.Ws. 2 to 4, who swore that Esakkia Pillai had written the promissory note himself and signed in it. Esakkia Pillai had denied that he had written the suit promissory note or signed in it.3. Mr. B.R. Charkrawarthi, the District Munsiff, who tried the suit first gave a decree to the petitioner for the suit a...
Kommineni Kotiah Vs. Muvva Narasimham
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-07-1948
Reported in: (1948)2MLJ596
Panchapakesa Ayyar, J.1. The facts are briefly these. The petitioner put in a petition, under Order 9, Rule 13, Civil Procedure Code, praying that the ex parte decree passed against him, on 18th February, 1946, in O.S. No. 796 of 1945 on the file of the District Munsiff's Court, Guntur, be set aside and the suit restored to file. The learned District Munsiff passed an order dated 3rd July, 1946, the material portion of which runs as follows:This Court doth order and decree that the ex parte decree passed on 18th February, 1946, against the petitioner be set aside on condition of petitioner depositing the costs of suit Rs. 128-4-0 on or before 2nd August, 1946, and also paying Rs. 10 as day costs to the respondent's (plaintiff's) vakil on or before that date and (2) that in default of the one or other of the two conditions, the petition stands dismissed automatically.2. By 2nd August, 1946, the petitioner, admittedly, paid only Rs. 10, the day costs, to the respondent's vakil. He did no...
In Re: Angamuthu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-07-1948
Reported in: 1949CriLJ665; (1948)2MLJ598
ORDERSubba Rao, J.1. The 73 accused, who are petitioners before me, were convicted under Sections 41 and 75 of the City Police Act and sentenced to varying terms of imprisonment. In addition they were also fined. The accused, who included women, went in a procession of Fort St. George to demonstrate before the Minister of Law for getting the release of their relatives who were at that time imprisoned in Vellore Jail. They pushed past the sentry at the gate and entered the premises of the Fort. When the police officer arrested three of the ring-leaders, they made a forcible attempt to extricate them from their custody. They also raised slogans against the Ministry in power. The learned Chief Presidency Magistrate, on a consideration of the entire evidence, held that they were guilty of disorderly behaviour. The Chief Presidency Magistrate also found that there was an order of the Commissioner of Police under Section 41 of the City Police Act prohibiting the holding of any meeting, 'gath...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »