Chennai Court April 1948 Judgments
In Re: P. Venkatachala thevar; in Re: M.V. Sivasankara thevar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-23-1948
Reported in: (1948)2MLJ76
ORDERHorwill, J.1. By an order, dated the 25th March, 1948, this Court dismissed an application on behalf of the petitioner under Section 491, Criminal Procedure Code. The petitioner has now filed this civil miscellaneous petition on the civil side praying for grant of a certificate for filing an appeal to the Federal Court of India.2. Section 3 of the Federal Court (Enlargement of Jurisdiction) Act, 1947 (Act I of 1948) gives a right of appeal to the Federal Court from any judgment to which this Act applies; and Section 2 (b) defines the expression 'judgment to which this Act applies ' as meaning ' any judgment, decree or final order of the High Court in a civil case....'3. The preliminary question arises whether the order passed by us was in a civil case.4. Section 491 empowers any High Court whenever it thinks fit, to direct,(a) that a person within the limits of its appellate criminal jurisdiction be brought up before the Court to be dealt with according to law; and (b) that a pers...
Tag this Judgment!Gopalakrishna Chetty Vs. R. Dorai Babu Being Minor by Mother and Next ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-23-1948
Reported in: (1948)2MLJ221
Rajagopalan, J.1. This is an appeal by the sixth defendant against the preliminary decree in the suit for partition of the family properties instituted by the plaintiff and tried on the original side by Rajamannar, J.2. Tirumalai Chetti, the first and second defendants and Chinnadorai were the sons of one Ramiah Chetti. Chinnadorai died issueless in 1931. Tirumalai died in 1944. Both were undivided in status from their brothers at the time of their death. The plaintiff is the grandson of Tirumalai and the son of Raghava Chetti was pre-deceased Tirumalai. The plaintiff claimed that he along with the first and second defendants and their sons, the third and fourth defendants, constituted a coparcenary. The fifth defendant is the widow of Tirumalai. The sixth defendant is the son of Janaki, who he claimed, was the lawfully wedded second wife of Tirumalai; the sixth defendant was their legitimate son. The alternative claim of the sixth defendant in the suit was on the basis, that he was a ...
Tag this Judgment!Kizhekke Kizhukkott Kunhothi and anr. Vs. Payikkat Mammad Koya and ors ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-23-1948
Reported in: (1948)2MLJ293
ORDER1. The question raised in this second appeal is whether a second suit for redemption of a kanom is maintainable after the right of the plaintiff to execute the decree in the first suit had become barred by limitation. If there is no complication of the provisions of the Malabar Compensation for Tenants' Improvements Act, 1899 (I of 1900), in view of the decision of the Privy Council in Raghunatha Singh v. Hansraj Kunwar (1934) 67 M.L.J. 813 : L.R. 61 L.A. 362 : I.L.R. 56 All. 561 (P.C.) overruling the decision of a Full Bench of this Court in Vedapuratti v. Vallabha Valia Raja (a case of kanom) the answer must be in the affirmative. In Viroopaksham v. Chem,bu Mayar the subsequent Full Bench had left open the question of the effect of the provisions of the Act on the decision of Raghunath Singk v. Hansraj Kunwar (1934) 67 M.L.J. 813 : L.R. 61 L.A. 362 : I.L.R. 56 All. 561 (P.C.) as on the facts of that case the plaintiff in the earlier suit was different from the plaintiff in the l...
Tag this Judgment!Kurapati Radhakrishna and anr. Vs. Kurapati Satyanarayana and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-23-1948
Reported in: (1948)2MLJ331
Satyanarayana Rao, J.1. This is an appeal against the judgment and decree of the learned District Judge of Rajahmundry modifying the decree of the learned Subordinate Judge of Rajahmundry in O.S. No. 34 of 1938 on his file.2. The plaintiff and the first defendant are the appellants. They are the sons of one Kurapati Venkataratnam by his second wife. Jaggarao, the father of; the fourth defendant, the second defendant and the third defendant are the sons of the said Venkataratnam by his first wife. Venkataratnam died in 1922. Thereafter Jaggarao and the second defendant managed the properties of the family and also continued the trade. During the course of their management the properties of the family were alienated to various defendants in the present suit. The immovable properties of the family are described in schedules A to F attached to the plaint in the present suit. The A schedule property was sold under Ex. III on the 27th May, 1930, to defendants 5 to 7. The B schedule property ...
Tag this Judgment!Talangare Mammunhi Vs. P. Abdul Rahiman
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-22-1948
Reported in: 1949CriLJ710
ORDERGovindarajachari, J.1.This revision case has been filed by one Talangare Mammunhi against the judgment of the Additional First Class Magistrate of South Kanara acquitting accused l who was charged under Section 500, Penal Code. The petitioner who filed the complaint out of which this revision case arises is a landlord and merchant residing in Talangare in Kasargod taluk. The respondent (accused 1 in the lower Court) is a merchant of Kasargod. The defamation is said to consist in the publication in a Malayalam newspaper called 'Chandrika' dated 6th July 1946 of a notice (ex. P-2) in the following terms:Poyakkara Abdul Rahiman of Theruvath, Kasara-god hereby gives notice as follows:Khan Bahadur Mahammad Sehamnad Saheb, Talangare Mamunhi Sahib on one aide and myself on the other, have been at loggerheads owing to several differences. Both of them are rich and influential and they have as their partisans ex potail Shekali, Fotail Mahammad Kunhi, T. Hassan Kutti, Kapi Abdul Khander, Me...
Tag this Judgment!V.R. Ramanatha Aiyar Vs. the Corporation of Madras by Its Commissioner
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-22-1948
Reported in: (1948)2MLJ144
1. The appellant is the proprietor of two coffee hotels known as the Ramakrishna Lunch Home and the Sankar Cafe. In respect of each of these hotels, he had paid a licence fee of Rs. 50 to the Corporation of Madras upto 31st March, 1944. In February, 1944, when he applied for renewal of the licences in respect of the same premises and sent a cheque for Rs. 100 he was informed that the licence fee in respect of the Ramakrishna Lunch Home had been enhanced to Rs. 250 while the licence fee for the Sankar Cafe had been enhanced to Rs. 100. He paid these amounts under protest and then filed the suit out of which this appeal arises for a declaration that the scale of licence fees fixed by the Council for the official year 1944-45 was arbitrary and unreasonable and ultra vires and for an injunction restraining the Commissioner of the Corporation from levying the fees on the new scale or on any scale in excess of Rs. 50 for each coffee hotel. The suit was dismissed.2. It is argued for the appel...
Tag this Judgment!Kunda Chinna Dasappa and anr. Vs. Gopalakrishna Co., by Managing Partn ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-22-1948
Reported in: (1948)2MLJ312
Panchapagesa Sastry, J.1. This is an appeal against the order of the District Judge of Cuddappah in I.A. No. 71 of 1944 in I.P. No. 28 of 1939. The respondent herein filed O.S. No. 75 of 1935 in the Court of the District Munsiff of Prodattur and obtained a decree against the defendants therein for payment of certain sums. There was an attachment before judgment during the pendency of the suit, and in connection with those proceedings one Seshagiri Rao stood suretyfor the payment of any amount for which a decree might be passed either ex parte or upon contest in the suit or in the appeal or in revision against all the defendants or any of them.That document is E.P. No. 1 dated 15th April, 1935. In due course the suit ended in a decree on 12th July, 1937. It appears that the judgment-debtors filed a petition for stay of execution, and they were allowed to do so on their furnishing security of immovable properties which they did under the document Ex. P-2 dated 7th August, 1937. Meanwhile...
Tag this Judgment!Sivagaminatha Pillai Vs. S.A. Venkitaswami Naicker
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-22-1948
Reported in: (1948)2MLJ367
Yahya Ali, J.1. I have no doubt that the order of the learned District Munsiff granting leave to the plaintiff to institute a fresh suit for the same subject matter is incorrect. It is not necessary to go into the question whether the expression 'other sufficient grounds' in Sub-rule (2)(b) of Rule 1 of Order 23 is ejusdem generis with the expression 'some formal defect' in Sub-rule (2)(a). This is a case where an appreciable portion of the material evidence was adduced and the plaintiff found that the evidence was insufficient to establish the case propounded by him in the plaint. To permit the plaintiff in these circumstances to institute a fresh suit on the same subject matter would be contrary to the letter as well as the spirit of Sub-rule (2). The revision petition is allowed with costs and the order of the District Munsiff granting leave is reversed. O.S. No. 71 of 1945 will be restored by the District Munsiff to his file and proceeded with from the stage at which it was discont...
Tag this Judgment!M.S. Chockalingam Chettiar Vs. Vimala and Co.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-22-1948
Reported in: (1948)2MLJ479
ORDERSubba Rao, J.1. This is an application for issuing a third party notice to N.K.M.S.P. Valliyappa Chettiar. C.S. No. 194 of 1947 was filed on the file of the Court by Vimala & Co., against Sivam & Co., by three partners (1) N.K.M.S.P. Valliyappa Chettiar, (2) M.S. Chockalingam Chettiar and (3) K.RM.T.T.V. Vedachalam Chettiar. The suit notice was served on M.S. Chockalingam Chettiar and he filed a written statement. In the connected appeal I held that the written statement filed by him must be treated as one filed on behalf of the firm.2. This application is filed for issuing a third party notice to N.K.M.S.P. Valliyappa Chettiar under Rule 8 of Order V-A of the Original Side Rules, In the affidavit in support of the application it is alleged that the three partners agreed to dissolve the partnership and the major partner Valliyappa Chettiar agreed to take over the entire business and carry it on his own account on the terms and conditions set out in the agreement of dissolution dat...
Tag this Judgment!Vimala and Co. Vs. Sivam and Co., by Partners, N.K.M.S.P. Valliyappa C ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-22-1948
Reported in: (1948)2MLJ477
ORDERSubba Rao, J.1. This is an appeal against the order of the learned Master dismissing the application filed by the plaintiffs in C.S. No. 194 of 1947 for striking out the written statement and vakalat of the second defendant. The facts that led up to the application may be briefly stated. The plaintiffs are stock and share brokers carrying on business in the name of Vimala & Co. The defendants Messrs. Sivam & Co. are a partnership firm registered under the Indian Partnership Act; There are three partners in the firm: (1) N.K.M.S.P. Valliyappa Chettiar, (2) M.S. Chockalingam Chettiar and (3) K.RM.T.T.V. Vedachalam Chettiar. The plaintiffs filed C.S. No. 194 of 1947 on the file of this Court for the recovery of Rs. 13,312-1-3 with interest from the defendants, the balance due in regard to the dealings they had in shares. In the plaint the defendant was described as Sivam & Co. by the aforesaid three partners. The records show that summons was taken out on Messrs. Sivam & Co. represen...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »