Chennai Court March 1948 Judgments
K. Kannabhiran Mudaliar Vs. Mullangi Lakshmana Perumal Chetty, Trustee ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-23-1948
Reported in: (1948)2MLJ174
P.V. Rajamannar, Officiating C.J.1. The facts which give rise to these two connected appeals are fully set out in the judgment of Yahya Ali, J., and therefore need not be repeated. On the date when Madras Act XV of 1946 came into force, i.e., on the 1st October, 1946, there was a valid execution application pending before the Principal Judge of the Madras City Civil Court to execute an order for eviction obtained by the respondent. Under Section 18, Sub-section (1) of the Act:all proceedings commenced and action taken under the Madras House Rent Control Order, 1945, and the Madras Non-Residential Buildings Rent Control Order, 1945, and pending at the commencement of this Act, shall so far as may be, be deemed to have been commenced or taken under the corresponding provisions of this Act and be continued subject to the provisions of this Act. The execution filed by the respondent was certainly a proceeding which was so pending and must be deemed to have been commenced or taken under Sec...
Tag this Judgment!In Re : Rao Saheb C. P. Kuppuswami Mudaliar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-22-1948
Reported in: (1949)1MLJ333
P.V. Rajamannar, C.J.1. In Original Petition No. 220 of 1947 on the original Side of this Court, one Kuppuswami Mudaliar was appointed guardian. Of the person and property of four minors and he was directed to furnish security to the satisfaction of the Registrar of this Court for a sum of Rs. 30,000 for duly accounting for what he may receive in respect of the property of the minors and for otherwise complying with the orders of this Court that may be passed therein from time to time. As directed by this Order, the guardian filed a security bond offering as security certain immoveable property. The question now before this Full Bench is what is the proper stamp duty leviable on it.2. On the authority of the Full Bench decision of this Court in Amirthammal v. Ramalinga Goundan : (1920)38MLJ503 stamp duly calculated under Article 33 of the Madras Stamp Amendment Act of 1922 which corresponds to Article 40 of the Indian Stamp Act was demanded. But it was contended for the guardian that t...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Antony D' Silva and Ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-19-1948
Reported in: 1949CriLJ70
Govindarajachari, J.1. The above criminal revision case and criminal miscellaneous petitions arise out of seven cases on the file of the Special First Class Magistrate of Mangalore and involve an important question of jurisdiction. They have been placed before a Bench by order of Govinda Menon J, It is unnecessary at this stage to set out the several charges framed against the various petitioners.2. The arguments before us proceeded on the footing that there are only two classes of cases involved, that the first charge in C. C. No. 10 of 1947 out of which Cri. R. C. no. 133S of 1947 arises is typical of one of these classes while the other is typified by the second charge in the same calendar case.3. Under the first charge the petitioners in Cri. Rule 0. no. 1338 of 1947 are charged with cheating P. w. 13 by sending him certain lottery tickets without running a lottery and thereby inducing him to deliver money which act of cheating was partly committed in South Kanara and partly in Tri...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Antony D'Silva and Ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-19-1948
Reported in: (1948)2MLJ132
Govindarajachari, J.1. The above Criminal Revision Case and Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions arise out of seven cases on the file of the Special First Class Magistrate of Mangalore and involve an important question of jurisdiction. They have been placed before a Bench by order of Govinda Menon, J. It is unnecessary at this stage to set out the several charges framed against the various petitioners.2. The arguments before us proceeded on the footing that there are only two classes of cases involved, that the first charge in C.C. No. 10 of 1947 out of which Crl. R.C. No. 1338 of 1947 arises is typical of one of these classes while the other is typified by the second charge in the same Calendar case.3. Under the first charge the petitioners in Crl. R.C. No. 1338 of 1947 are charged with cheating P.W. 13 by sending him certain lottery tickets without running a lottery and thereby inducing him to deliver money which act of cheating was partly committed in South Kanara and partly in Trichur....
Tag this Judgment!Arjuna Goundan and ors. Vs. Jayakeerthi Nainar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-19-1948
Reported in: (1948)2MLJ99
Happell, J.1. The appellants were the plaintiffs in O.S. No. 145 of 1943 in the Court of the Principal District Munsiff of Arni. They brought the suit in representative capacity on behalf of the villagers of Uttur for declaration that they were entitled to take water by means of a sluice at a certain point from a supply channel before it reached the tank which it supplied and which belonged to the villagers of Othalavadi. The learned Principal District Munsiff of Arni decreed the suit but on appeal the Subordinate Judge of Vellore set aside the decree and remanded the suit for the Government to be brought on record as a party defendant. It is not disputed that the Government is the paramount owner of the channel in question in the suit and that the entire right to it vests in the Government. That being so, the learned Subordinate Judge was of the opinion that there could be no complete and effective adjudication in the absence of the Government since any declaration given or injunction...
Tag this Judgment!Kambham Ramamurthy Vs. Sagiraju Tirupatiraju
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-19-1948
Reported in: (1948)2MLJ287
Rajamannar, Officiating C.J.1. This is an appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent from the judgment of Happell, J., allowing an appeal filed against the order of the learned Subordinate Judge of Coconada who reversed the order of the District Munsiff of Peddapuram on an application filed by the respondent to enforce a security bond executed by the appellant. The respondent, when he was a minor represented by his maternal grandfather, obtained a decree in O.S. No. 351 of 1927 on the file of the Court of District Munsiff of Peddapuram for a sum of Rs. 1,020. The maternal grandfather as next friend was allowed to draw out the money under Order 32, Rule 6, Civil Procedure Code, on the execution of a security bond by the appellant. By that bond, the appellant undertook to pay any amount that may be found to be payable to the plaintiff if within 3 years of his attaining majority he raised any dispute and churned to recover any money from his guardian in respect of the decree amount. Unf...
Tag this Judgment!D. Gnanambal and anr. Vs. Sreemathi Meenambal Sundaram and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-18-1948
Reported in: (1948)2MLJ202
Govindarajachari, J.1. This is an appeal against the judgment of Chandrasekhara Aiyar, J., in an originating summons converted into a suit.2. One Dr. Doraiswami Pillai died on 26th January, 1930, after having executed a will dated 9th September, 1929. Probate was issued to Nagammal, the widow of the testator and the sole executrix under his will. It is unnecessary to set out the terms of the will in any detail. By paragraph 7 of the will the testator bequeathed the house described as 'Meena Lodge', No. 3, Audiappa Mudali Street, Vepery, to his daughter Meenambal Animal for a one-fourth share, the remaining three-fourths share being bequeathed to his sons Ramalingam, Gopa-laswami, Arunachalam and Rathnam and another daughter Gnanambal Animal for their absolute use and benefit. Meenambal is the plaintiff in the suit. Nagammal is the first defendant while Gnanambal, Rathnam, Ramalingam and Gopalaswami are respectively the 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th defendants. Arunachalam survived the testator...
Tag this Judgment!Abdul Shukoor Sait Vs. the Official Assignee of Madras and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-18-1948
Reported in: (1948)2MLJ274
P.V. Rajamannar, Officiating C.J.1. This is an appeal from the order of Clark, J., giving directions to the Official Assignee of Madras to execute a sale deed in favour of one Dr. M.A. Hussain of an extent of about 10 grounds comprised in a property known as ' Rutland Gate.' The property belonged to one P. Veeraperumal Pillai who had been adjudicated an insolvent in 1926. It was the subject of a mortgage and with the consent of the mortgagee there was an order by the insolvency Court to dispose of it in favour of the appellant for a sum of Rs. 1,60,000. The appellant paid an advance bf Rs. 10,000 but defaulted in payment of the balance of consideration. The Official Assignee thereupon applied to Court for an order cancelling the contract of sale in favour of the appellant. An order by consent was passed on this application by Mockett, J., on 14th September, 1938. The Court directed that in spite of the default, the property might be treated as sold to the appellant for a sum of Rs. 1,6...
Tag this Judgment!Pyndah Ramakrishnaiah Vs. the Official Receiver and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-18-1948
Reported in: (1948)2MLJ285
Horwill, J.1. This second appeal is by the first defendant, who contends that under the will of his father, the second defendant was not entitled to any exclusive right in the family house under clause 12 of the will.2. The two material clauses are clause 5 and clause 12. Clause 5 is as follows:The entire moveable and immoveable properties belonging to me, excluding what I have given herein and what I am going to give in future, the remaining entire properties shall pass to my wife Pydah Sattiraju. Clause 12 is as follows:The house wherein I am residing shall, after the death of my wife, pass to my fourth son Pydah Satyanarayanamurthi (second defendant). The argument of Mr. Raghava Rao for the first defendant is that clause 12 does not expressly give the wife a life interest; so that Clause 12 could not operate immediately on the death of the testator and so under clause 5 the wife obtained an absolute interest in the property, which ultimately devolved upon her sons. Pydah Sattiraju d...
Tag this Judgment!Rose Mary Vs. T.S. Arulswamy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-18-1948
Reported in: AIR1948Mad509; (1948)1MLJ399
ORDERGovinda Menon, J.1. On the question regarding the maintenance of the petitioner, I am not satisfied that on the evidence there is such ill-treatment or cruelty as would justify her in living apart from the husband. There is some justification for the petitioner's complaint about the respondent's liaison with the woman Sitalakshmi.2. But the occasional lapse from virtue of a husband does not entitle the wife to ask for maintenance under Section 488 of the Criminal Procedure Code, (vide Amaldoss v. Mrs. Kamala Amaldoss1), where King, J., holds that even when the parties are Christians the fact that the husband keeps a mistress will not give the wife a right to insist that he should give up the mistress as a condition precedent to her living with him. Further a wife cannot refuse to go and live with the husband solely on the ground of his having a mistress. In an earlier case in Arunachala v. Anandayammal : AIR1937Mad794 , Burn, J., has held that under Section 488 of the Criminal Pro...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »