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.
Koduru Kamalamma and ors. Vs. Koduru Pitchamma and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-07-1948
Reported in: (1948)2MLJ618
1. This second appeal arises out of a suit for partition and separate possession of lands set out in schedule A to the plaint. The dispute relates to a casuarina plantation which was in existence on about 100 acres of the suit land on the date of the institution of the suit. Plaintiffs 1 to 5 and 8th defendant who are the appellants here claimed 43 1/2 shares out of 77 shares in the lands in schedule A, including the casuarina trees standing on a portion of the lands. The first defendant was entitled to 21 1/3 shares, while the family of defendants 2 to 6 was entitled to 12 shares. We are not concerned in this second appeal with the seventh defendant, who claimed a half share in one of the items. The first defendant, who is the main contesting respondent, pleaded that there was an oral partition between the predecessors-in-interest of the plaintiffs and the 8th defendant on the one hand and defendants 1 to 6 on the other, at which the lands on which the casuarina plantations were raise...
In Re: Wahid
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-07-1948
Reported in: 1949CriLJ729; (1948)2MLJ625
ORDERSubba Rao, J.1. The Honorary Presidency Magistrates, convicted the first accused under Section 75 of the City Police Act and sentenced him to. pay a fine of Rs. 25 or in default to one week's rigorous imprisonment. In addition, the Court directed him to be bound over under Section 106 of the Criminal Procedure Code.2. The learned Counsel for the accused argued that the order under Section 106 of the Criminal Procedure Code was bad inasmuch as the provisions of Section 511 Criminal Procedure Code, had not been complied with. Under Section 511, Criminal Procedure Code, particular procedure has been prescribed for proving the previous convictions, and that procedure admittedly has not been followed in this case. Dealing with Section 511, Criminal Procedure Code, the learned Judges of the Calcutta High Court in Emperor v. Sheikh Abdul I.L.R. (1916) Cal. 1128 observed as follows:With regard to the statement of the learned Magistrate as to the procedure adopted in the Police Court for t...
M.K. Shanmugam Pillai and ors. Vs. Sri Sankaranarayanaswami, Through I ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-07-1948
Reported in: (1948)2MLJ637
Mack, J.1. This petition raises a question of Court-fee payable on a plaint filed in a suit under Section 44-B of the Hindu Religious Endowments Act for determining whether an inam comprises melwaram and the kudiwaram or only the kudiwaram. The District Collector of Tinnevelly confirmed in appeal an order of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Koilpatti, directing the resumption of an inam and its re-grant in the name of Sri Sankaranarayanaswami of Sankarankoil and holding further that the inam comprised both the land and the assessment. The plaintiffs who are the alienees filed the suit within the six months period prescribed by Section 44-B of the Hindu Religious Endowments Act for a declaration that the order of the District Collector was null and void, that the plaintiffs are the absolute owners of the property, and that the inam is only ' a portion of' the melwaram due to Government and not of the land at all. They paid in the first instance a fixed Court-fee of Rs. 100 under Article ...
Geddam Venkamma and anr. Vs. Geddam Venkataramayya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-07-1948
Reported in: (1948)2MLJ651
Mack, J.1. This petition raises an interesting question of jurisdiction and a Court-fee. The respondents were the plaintiffs who filed O.S. No. 61 of 1946 in the District Munsiff's Court of Razole praying for two declarations, (1) that they were the nearest reversioners of one Geddam Venkayya who died issueless and intestate in 1936; and (2) that a sale deed dated 30th October, 1936, executed by his widow, the 1st defendant, and the late Venkayya's foster daughter, the second defendant was not binding on them. Only Rs. 15 was paid on the plaint for one declaration, it is not quite clear for which. The District Munsiff in a considered order returned the plaint for re-presentation holding that the plaint impliedly sought to set aside a will by the late Venkayya, who admittedly died possessed of more than 3 acres of land. By the sale deed dated 30th October, 1946, defendants 1 and 2 sold only about an acre of land for Rs. 1,500. It is common ground that Venkayya's estate is worth more tha...
V. Damodara Menon and ors. Vs. P. Chathu Achan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-06-1948
Reported in: (1949)1MLJ50
Satyanarayana Rao, J.1. The 18th defendant in the suit, O.S. No. 402 of 1938 on the file of the District Munsiff's Court, Alatur, who is the father of the petitioners in this civil revision petition died and these petitioners applied in the lower Court to get themselves impleaded as the legal representatives of the deceased 18th defendant. Their mother also died sometime before 1932. The exact date of her death is not known. The petition was rejected on the ground that as there was no valid marriage between the mother and the father of the petitioners they were not entitled to come on record as the legal representatives of the deceased 18th defendant. This order was passed by the learned District Munsiff on 22nd July, 1947. Under the Marumakatayam law before it was altered by the statute the children of a Marumakatayam marriage were not treated as legitimate. To remedy this defect the Legislature intervened and finally the Madras Marumakatayam Act XXII of 1933 was passed. Under Section...
Ponnusami Goundan and ors. Vs. Alamelammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-06-1948
Reported in: (1949)1MLJ61
Satyanarayana Rao, J.1. The order of the learned Subordinate Judge is unsustainable in view of the decision of this Court reported in Mythili Ammal and Anr. v. R. Mahadeva Ayyar and Ors. : AIR1948Pat183 and the decisions referred to therein. Under Order XXX, Rules 5 and 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure as amended by this Court, the Court is not justified in shutting out evidence which the petitioners in this Court wanted to adduce in the lower Court. They wanted to show that the suit which was sought to be instituted and for which leave to sue in forma pauperis was applied for was barred by limitation as more than twelve years had elapsed from the date of the alienations which were impugned in the suit by proving that these alienations really were in discharge of earlier mortgages. The learned Subordinate Judge thought that the enquiry contemplated in Order XX, Rule 6, perhaps meaning Order XXXIII, Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure does not permit such an enquiry. In the light of t...
Public Prosecutor Vs. Nagappa Pujary and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-05-1948
Reported in: 1949CriLJ656
Subba Rao, J.1.This is an appeal by the Crown against the acquittal of accused l to 3 under Section 302, Penal Code. The learned Public Prosecutor argued that on the facts accused I should have been convicted under Part 1 of Section 304. But on the facts as found by us he rightly conceded that the offence should fall more appropriately under Section 335, There is no particular reason why a differentiation should be made between accused 1 and accused 2 and 3. They combined together and beat the deceased, and the evidence does not Bhow that accused 1 gave any particular blows which caused the death of the deceased. Indeed the evidence shows that he beat the deceased on the head whereas the medical evi-dence shows that the deceased did not die of the wounds on the head. Further it is also in evidence that the rice-pounder M. o. 3 was broken into two pieces, and it is impossible to say who used the other bit and with which bit the major wounds were caused. We therefore modify the sentence ...
N.V.R. Nagappa Chettiar and anr. Vs. the Madras Race Club by Its Secre ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-05-1948
Reported in: (1949)1MLJ662
1. This appeal arises out of an action by the members of the Madras Race Club. The action was tried on the original side by Bell, J., and by his judgment he dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs. Hence this appeal by the plaintiffs.2. The Madras Race Club is a body corporate registered under the Indian Companies Act of 1913 before it was amended in 1936. The object of the Club, as its name indicates, is to carry on the business of a race club and to provide certain amenities to its members. The Memorandum of Association and the Articles of Association are contained in Ex. P-29. The Memorandum of Association prohibits the division of profits by way of dividend amongst the members, and they have to be utilised only for the purpose of the club. There are two classes of members, namely, club members and stand members. There are about 260 club members, and they alone are entitled to vote, while the stand members have certain other privileges, but not the right to vote. The management of the ...
The Public Prosecutor Vs. Nagappa Pujary and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-05-1948
Reported in: (1948)2MLJ630
Subba Rao, J.1. This is an appeal by the Crown against the acquittal of the accused 1 to 3 under Section 302, Indian Penal Code. The learned Public Prosecutor argued that on the facts the first accused should have been convicted under Part I of Section 304. But on the facts as found by us he rightly conceded that the offence should fall more appropriately under Section 335. There is no particular reason why a differentiation should be made between the first accused and accused 2 and 3. They combined together and beat the deceased, and the evidence does not show that the first accused gave any particular blows which caused the death of the deceased. Indeed the evidence shows that he beat the deceased on the head, whereas the medical evidence shows that the deceased did not die of the wounds on the head. Further it is also in evidence that the rice pounder M.O. 3, was broken into two pieces, and it is impossible to say who used the other bit and with which bit the major wounds were cause...
In Re: G. Natesan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-01-1948
Reported in: 1949CriLJ917
ORDERGovinda Menon, J.1. These groups of applications arise out of three calendar cases nos. 91, 92 and 93 of 1946 on the file of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Kumbakonam. In o. O No. 91 of 1946 there are nine accused, of whom eight were the directors of a banking company known by the name of the Sankara Ramanuja Sidhantha Paripalana Nidhi Ltd. Kumbakonam and they are being prosecuted for an offence under 8. 282, Companies Act for having wilfully made certain statements false in material particulars knowing the same to be false in the balance sheet of the company for the year ended 81st December 1938. The remaining accused was an auditor of the eaid company. In C. o. No. 92 of 1946 there are seven accused of whom Six were directors and one the auditor and they are prosecuted for a similar offence under 8. 282 Companies Act in connection with the balance sheet foe the year ended 31st December 1939. In o. 0. No. 93 of 1946, again there are nine accused persons of whom eight were the dir...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›