Chennai Court February 1948 Judgments
Kalahasti Veeramma Vs. Prattipati Lakshmayya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-19-1948
Reported in: (1948)1MLJ427
Horwill, J.1. The suit with which we are concerned was one for possession and mesne profits. The trial was a lengthy one. 18 witnesses were examined and a very large number of documents filed. The District Munsiff who pronounced the judgment was not the Munsiff who recorded the evidence; and after hearing the arguments he wrote a very long judgment extending to more than 11-1/2 pages. Although 9 issues were framed, the learned District Munsiff did not discuss separately under the heading of the individual issues the evidence bearing on each issue. His long judgment discusses from paragraph 14 the various questions that arose in the suit and at the very end he recorded his findings on the several issues without giving any summary of the evidence relating to the various issues. In view of these defects in the judgment, the learned Subordinate Judge in appeal did not discuss the evidence at all and in a few brief paragraphs disposed of the appeal by saying that the District Munsiff did no...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Arunachala Goundan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-18-1948
Reported in: (1948)1MLJ444
ORDERGovinda Menon, J.1. It is more convenient to deal with these cases by one and the same judgment as the facts are, to a large extent, interrelated and four petitioners are common in both. In Crl. R.C. No. 557, the petitioners have been convicted of the offence of assaulting a public servant in the discharge of his duties, an offence punishable under Section 353 of the Indian Penal Code and the first petitioner is sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for five months and the others to. rigorous imprisonment for four months. In Crl. R.C. No. 558, the 57 petitioners of whom petitioners 1 to 4 are the same as in the previous case, have been convicted of an offence under Section 147, Indian Penal Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for four months each. In the case of petitioners who are common to both, the sentences are to run concurrently.2. The circumstances under which the petitioners were convicted are rather unusual and peculiar. In Crl. R.C. No. 557, the first information re...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Ganeshmal Sait and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-18-1948
Reported in: AIR1948Mad513; 1949CriLJ33; (1948)1MLJ412
ORDERGovinda Menon, J.1. On the findings of the learned Sessions Judge it seems to me that no offence under Section 384, I.P.C., has been committed. The learned Sessions Judge in paragraph (3) of his judgment gives the following finding:The first accused and the other members were apparently convinced that P.W. 1 had received the bag containing the money from the third accused, and had misappropriated it for his own purposes. They would not therefore listen to the denial made by P.W. 1.Accepting this finding, the question is whether the offence of extortion as defined in Section 383, I.P.C., can be said to have been made out. The chief element in the offence of extortion is intentionally putting a person in fear of any injury to that person, or to any other, and thereby dishonestly inducing the person so put in fear to deliver to any person any property or valuable security, etc. So the inducement must be dishonest. If the first accused dishonestly induced P.W. 1 by putting him in fear...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Pedda Iswara Reddy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-17-1948
Reported in: AIR1948Mad520; (1948)1MLJ310
Rajamannar, O.C.J.1. The question for decision is whether appeals lie to the District Court of Kurnool from two orders made by the Subordinate Judge of Kurnool, viz., an order granting an application made under Order 1, Rule 10, Civil Procedure Code, praying that certain alienees from the insolvent may be added as party respondents to an insolvency application, and an order excusing delay in filing the former application. Two revision petitions have been filed in this Court against the said two orders, and they will be incompetent if appeals lie to the District Court.2. These two orders were passed by the learned Subordinate Judge in the course of an insolvency application. They must therefore be deemed to have been passed in the exercise of insolvency jurisdiction. Section 75 of the Provincial Insolvency Act specifically provides for appeals and revision petitions against orders made in the exercise of insolvency jurisdiction. Under Section 75(1), the debtor, any creditor, the receive...
Tag this Judgment!A. Vedachala Mudaliar Vs. the Central Road Traffic Board and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-17-1948
Reported in: AIR1948Mad454; (1948)1MLJ322
Rajamannar, O.C.J.1. This is an application for the issue of a writ of certiorari calling upon the Central Road Traffic Board, Madras, to send the records in its proceedings No. 9820-A 1/47 and to quash the order made by it on 26th June, 1947.2. The petitioner is the proprietor of a bus transport service named Sri Gandipan Bus Service. He had been granted permits to run three buses on the route from Madras to Mahabalipuram. On the 1st of December, 1946, the petitioner applied to the Regional Transport Officer, Vellore, for permission to divert his buses on the route between Madras and Mahabalipuram at a village named Yechur to a village called Manamady, 2-1/2 miles from Yechur. Prior to this application there was a petition from the villagers of Manamady praying for a diversion of the buses plying from Madras to Mahabalipuram to their village. The Regional Transport Authority published a notification on the 25th March, 1947, under Section 57(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, intimati...
Tag this Judgment!Mohammed Ibrahim Maracayar Vs. Ismail Maracayar, Power-of-attorney Age ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-16-1948
Reported in: (1949)1MLJ445
ORDERSomasundaram, J.1. The accused is the petitioner herein. The petition is to quash the proceedings in C.C. No. 2328 of 1948 on the file of the Special Honorary Magistrate of Egmore.2. The complainant is the daughter of the petitioner herein. There were some misunderstandings between her husband and her father over some money transaction and when a claim was made for the return of the moneys alleged to have been advanced by the complainant, the petitioner herein wrote a letter to his daughter in which he has stated that as he has got only old and torn shoes he has placed an order for better ones and that as soon as he gets them he will send them over to her and her husband. He also stated that old ones may not be satisfactory and therefore he was arranging to send new shoes. On this, the complainant's husband as her power-of-attorney agent, has filed the complaint against the petitioner for an offence under Section 504, Indian Penal Code.3. The petitioner has filed this revision pet...
Tag this Judgment!Nalluru Veera Raghavayya and anr. Vs. Nalluru Koti Rattamma and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-16-1948
Reported in: (1948)1MLJ425
Horwill, J.1. An application was filed by the petitioners in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Bezwada to stay the execution of the decree of that Cour pending in appeal to the District Court, Kistna. Despite the mandatory provisions of Order 41, Rule 6(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, the stay was refused. Hence this petition.2. A preliminary objection has been taken that no revision petition lies; because the order complained of is an appealable one, it being a decree, since it falls within the mischief of Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure.3. In the old Code under Section 244 ' the executing Court was bound to decide all questions arising between the parties to the suit in which a decree was passed relating to the execution, discharge or satisfaction of the decree or to the stay of execution thereof. ' The words in italics were omitted from the revised provision in the new Code (Section 47); and it naturally became a matter of contention whether the omission of these wo...
Tag this Judgment!Munuswami Chetti and anr. Vs. Muniswami Chetti and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-13-1948
Reported in: AIR1948Mad477; (1948)1MLJ395
ORDERGovinda Menon, J.1. The lower appellate Court is not justified in thinking that a person can abate a nuisance with a bona fide intention. Section 36 of the Easements Act clearly enacts that notwithstanding Section 24 of that statute a dominant owner cannot himself abate a wrongful obstruction of an easement. Though Sadasiva Aiyar, J., in Re Dharmalinga Mudaliar I.L.R. (1914) Mad. 57, was of the view that where a wall built by a complainant on a public road was pulled down by the accused in the bona fide exercise of their right of way, the accused were not guilty of mischief or criminal trespass, a later Bench decision of this Court reported in Narasimhalu v. Nagur Sahib (1933) 66 M.L.J. 31 : I.L.R. 57 Mad. 351 following Emperor v. Zipru (1933) 66 M.L.J. 31 : I.L.R. 57 Mad. 351 and other decisions lays down the contrary view in view of the express provision of Section 36 of the Easements Act. In this case the finding of the lower Court is that the land where the wall was built belo...
Tag this Judgment!Potru Subbiah Vs. Palaparthi Venkteswarlu (Minor) and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-13-1948
Reported in: AIR1948Mad464; (1948)1MLJ478
Horwill, J.1. According to the findings of fact of the lower appellate Court, the father of a joint family consisting of himself and his minor sons sold the suit item of property to one Katta Subbayya, who subsequently became an insolvent. The rights of Katta Subbayya thereupon passed to the Official Receiver, who sold the land in auction to the present appellant. Later on, a collusive partition suit was instituted; and as one would expect, the suit item fell to the share of the minor in partition. He thereupon through his guardian alienated the property in favour of the first respondent in A.S. No. 1137 of 1946 (hereafter termed the first respondent). The appellant filed O.S. No. 291 of 1943 for an injunction) restraining the first respondent from interfering with his possession; in the alter-native, he asked for a general partition. The first respondent and the minor filed O.S. No. no of 1944 for possession. The Courts below found that the appellant had been in possession of the suit...
Tag this Judgment!Katragadda Rajagopala Rao, Publisher of the Abovesaid Newspaper prajas ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-11-1948
Reported in: AIR1948Mad326; (1948)2MLJ165
P.V. Rajamannar, Officiating C.J.1. This is an application under Section 23 of the Indian Press (Emergency Powers) Act, 1931, as amended by the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1932, to set aside the order of the Provincial Government, dated 7th August, 1947, passed under Section 7(3) of the said Act, directing the petitioner who is the publisher of a newspaper entitled, ' Prajasakthi ' to deposit with the District Magistrate of Kistna on or before 25th August, 1947, security to the amount of Rs. 2,000. The ground on which the order was passed is contained in the preamble to the order of the Government which runs thus:Whereas it appears to the Government of Madras that the issues, dated 7th, 12th March, and 8th, 26th and 28th July, 1947, of the newspaper entitled ' Prajasakthi ' published at the ' Prajasakthi Press ', Bezwada and in respect of which newspaper security under the provisions of the Indian Press (Emergency Powers) Act, 1931, has not been required, contained matter of which a tr...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »