Chennai Court February 1948 Judgments
Sathya Engineering Contractors, Through the Proprietor, Sathappa Singa ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-27-1948
Reported in: (1992)2MLJ221
Bellie, J.1. Plaintiff is the appellant. The plaintiff was carrying on contract business in the matter of construction of houses. The first defendant is the wife and second defendant is the husband. The first defendant was the owner of the premises bearing Door No. 184, North Veli Street, Madurai in T.S. No. 752/1, and the second defendant was the owner of premises bearing Door No. 12, Goods Shed Street, Madurai.2. The case of the plaintiff is that on 11.10.1975 the plaintiff agreed to do contract work of constructing a ground floor in Door No. 184, North Veli Street, Madurai in T.S. No. 732/1 and an agreement Ex. A-1 was entered into containing the terms and conditions thereof. The plaintiff commenced and completed the work of constructing the ground floor on 22.2.1976, Then a second agreement Ex. A-7 was entered into on 18.5.1976 for construction of first and second floors in the same premises. During the subsistence of the second agreement an oral agreement was also entered into bet...
Tag this Judgment!Verkattil Unnyethamma's son Raman Nambiar and Anr. Vs. K.K. Govindan N ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-26-1948
Reported in: (1948)2MLJ381
Horwill, J.1. The first defendant was one in whose favour an othi demise had been executed. The plaintiff was the mortgagor. Defendants 2 and 3 were described as sub-kanomdars of the first defendant. The plaintiff filed a suit to redeem the mortgage, whereupon defendants 2 and 3, supported by the first defendant, filed an application for stay of the suit under Section 4(1)(a) of the Madras Act XVII of 1946, stating that they were tenants of the land within the definition of ' tenant' in Section 3(v) of the Malabar Tenancy Act, and that the suit was one in which their eviction was involved. The Court below held that the first defendant was an othidar and was not therefore a tenant. Defendants 2 and 3, it thought had no higher rights then the first defendant.2. The word 'tenant' in the Malabar Tenancy Act includes certain persons who have agreed to pay rent or other consideration, for being allowed to enjoy the land of another. If, however, they are in enjoyment of the land as security f...
Tag this Judgment!Karai Chinnappa Naidu Vs. B.K. Deenadayalu Naidu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-26-1948
Reported in: (1948)1MLJ411
Horwill, J.1. An ex parte decree was passed against the petitioner, who applied within time to set it aside. While the application was pending, he was arrested on the 4th February, 1946, and did not appear on the adjourned date, the 8th February 1946. His Vakil reported to instructions; and his application was dismissed. He was released from jail on the 17th October, 1946, and he filed the present application on the 28th October, 1946, to set aside the order of dismissal. The District Munsiff of Udumalpet held that he had no jurisdiction to set aside the dismissal for default; because the application had not been fieled within 30 days of his order.2. It has been held by this Court that when an application under Order 9, Rule 13, has been dismissed for default, an application under Order 9, Rule 9, to set aside the order of dismissal for default will lie. If so, then under Article 163 of the Limitation Act an application would have to be filed within thirty days of the order of dismissa...
Tag this Judgment!Musaliyam Veettil Kottulungal Muhammad Vs. Vallur Manakkal Akkiraman N ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-25-1948
Reported in: (1948)2MLJ428
Horwill, J.1. The fifth defendant, who is the petitioner here, filed an application (I.A. No. 3255 of 1946 in O.S. No. 585 of 1946 of the District Munsiff's Court, Ponnani) praying that the suit may be stayed, as it fell within the mischief of Section 4(1)(a) of Madras Act XVII of 1946. The application was dismissed.2. The suit in question was one for redemption of a mortgage under a document described as Kaivasam panayam. Rs. 500 were paid to the respondent, who demised the property to the petitioner, who was to hold the property in possession according to the custom of Muthal Kudima Nyayam. He was to deduct the interest on the panayam (mortgage) amount and Government revenue and to pay as purappad a bunch of plantains worth Rs. 0-9-5 and As. 4. He was directed not to make any improvements on the property nor erect any buildings. In default of payment, he had to pay interest. If' the panayam amount was tendered after one year, he was bound to surrender the property. The question is wh...
Tag this Judgment!Srirangam Municipality Vs. R.V. Palaniswami Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-25-1948
Reported in: AIR1948Mad479; (1948)1MLJ418
ORDERGovinda Menon, J.1. The Srirangam Municipality seeks to revise the order of the Special Bench of Magistrates, Srirangam, in S.T. No. 488 of 1946 acquitting the respondent therein of an offence under the District Municipalities Act in that he carried on the business of selling in retail grain, pulses, etc., without taking out a licence from the Municipality under Section 249 read with Schedule V of the District Munici-palities Act V of 1920. The prosecution case was that during the years 1945-46 the respondent was a dealer carrying on business, in retail, of purchase and sale of grains, pulses, etc., in shop Nos. 82 and 83, South Royagopuram Bazaar, Srirangam; and for the purpose of this business he did not take out a licence as contemplated by the statute. Therefore, he was guilty of an offence punishable under Section 313 of the District Municipalities Act. The Municipal Health Officer, Srirangam, was the complainant under the authority granted by the Commissioner of the Municipa...
Tag this Judgment!Kaliammal and ors. Vs. Sundarammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-23-1948
Reported in: (1948)1MLJ366
Rajamannar, O.C.J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit filed by the first respondent in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Salem to recover possession of the properties set out in Schedule A to the plaint as the sole surviving daughter and heir of her father, one Chinnaswarni Kandar, after the death of her mother, Meenakshi Ammal. Originally, there were ten defendants of whom the first defendant was the main contesting defendant and defendants 2 to 10 claimed to be lessees under him. The first defendant died soon after the institution of the suit and defendants 11 to 15 were brought on record as his legal representatives. But the 11 th defendant disclaimed all interest in the suit properties and therefore may be left out of consideration. The suit was decreed and hence the appeal by defendants 12 to 15 as the legal representatives of the first defendant.2. One Kolanda Karuppa Kandar had two wives. By his first wife, he had two sons, Kumarasami and Swami; and by his second wife two so...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Jayaraman and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-20-1948
Reported in: (1948)1MLJ341
ORDERGovinda Menon, J.1. The First Information Report regarding the offences alleged to have been committed under Sections 147, 148, 149 332, 224, 225, and 379 of the Indian Penal Code was filed against the 8 petitioners and 4 others before the Additional First Class Magistrate of Tiruvannamalai and after examining the witnesses for the prosecution the learned Magistrate discharged the 8 petitioners, who were accused 5 to 12, before him stating that no case which, if unrebutted, would warrant a conviction of these accused has been made out. As regards the other four he framed charges under various sections of the Code. At this stage the prosecution filed an application before the District Magistrate under Sections 435 and 436 of the Criminal Procedure Code requesting that the order of discharge be set aside; the learned Additional District Magistrate in a brief order has set aside the order of discharge and directed the Additional First Class Magistrate to enquire into the matter afres...
Tag this Judgment!Ellappa Naicken Vs. K. Lakshmana Naicken (Dead) and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-20-1948
Reported in: (1948)1MLJ383
ORDERGovinda Menon, J.1. This is an application to revise the order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Karur dated the 30th November, 1946, by which he refused to direct the handing over of the immoveable property in dispute between the parties, on the ground that the petitioner before him was not entitled to the possession of the properties because he has not got an order from a competent Court determining his rights or that he was entitled to possession thereof. Proceedings under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure had been initiated and were pending between the parties in 1941 and finally on the 20th February, 1942, the Joint Magistrate, Karur, passed an order under Section 146 of the Code of Criminal Procedure directing that the village munsiff of Alamanattupatti be appointed receiver for the purpose of holding possession of the disputed properties as that Court was unable to satisfy itself as to which of the parties was then in possession. Accordingly the village munsif...
Tag this Judgment!W. Kanniah Lal by His Duly Constituted Agent W. Narasingh Prasad Vs. t ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-20-1948
Reported in: AIR1948Mad508; (1948)1MLJ435
Horwill, J.1. For a long period the plaintiff has been the owner of a market at Mylapore. In the preceding year with which we are concerned, he leased the market to a contractor who, under the terms of the lease, paid him a fixed sum of Rs. 225 a month, the contractor being allowed to collect what he could from the various stall holders in the market. In 1936 there was an amendment to the City Municipal Act, whereby the Municipality was entitled to demand as licence fee 15 per cent. of the gross income of the owner from the market in the preceding year. Purporting to act under this section, the Revenue Officer of the Corporation demanded of the plaintiff a licence fee equal to 15 per cent. of the gross income from the market, although the plaintiff himself received a sum of only Rs. 225 a month. Criminal proceedings were instituted; and in order to settle the question that there arose the plaintiff filed the present suit for a declaration that the licence fee payable by him was only Rs...
Tag this Judgment!Nallai Chakravarthulu Andalamma Vs. P. Natesam Pillai and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-19-1948
Reported in: (1948)2MLJ85
P.V. Rajamannar, Officiating C.J.1. This is an appeal against the judgment of Chandra-sekhara Aiyar, J., in Second Appeal No. 1233 of 1945. The first respondent before us filed a suit in the Court of the District Munsiff of Ellore to set aside an order passed in E. A. No. 445 of 1941 upholding the claim of the appellant to the suit property which had been attached by the 1st respondent in execution of a decree obtained by him in O.S. No. 469 of 1928 against the husband of the appellant. The appellant based her claim on a sale deed, dated 24th August, 1928 (Ex. D-2) executed in her favour by her husband, the judgment-debtor. The first respondent alleged that the sale in favour of the appellant was a sham and nominal transaction not supported by consideration and executed to screen the property from the reach of creditors. The District Munsiff of Ellore who tried the suit held that the sale deed in favour of the appellant was not supported by consideration but that the appellant was in p...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »