Chennai Court April 1948 Judgments
Talangare Mammunhi Vs. P. Abbul Rahiman
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-22-1948
Reported in: AIR1949Mad524
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 1 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 Talangara 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 5th July 1946 of a notice (Ex. P-2) in the following terms:Poyakkara Abdul Rahiman of Theruvath, Kasaragod hereby gives notice as follows:Khan Bahadur Mahammad Sehamnad Sahab, Talangare Mamunhi Sahib on one side 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-potailShekali, Potail Mahammad Kunhi, T. Hassan Kutti, Kapi Abdul Khander, Met...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Major F.K. Mistry
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-21-1948
Reported in: (1949)2MLJ44
ORDERGovinda Menon, J.1. The petitioner Major F.K. Mistry who was an Ordinance Officer in charge of the Returned Stores Depot, Almadi, Avadi Sub-Area, along with two others was prosecuted firstly for having conspired to remove and continually misappropriate, tentage from the Returned Stores Depot; and secondly in pursuance to that conspiracy for having with his two associates managed, in their capacity as officers belonging to the Ordinance Department in the Indian Army, to remove quantities of tentage from the Returned Stores Depot; and in compensation for which act, the petitioner was paid Rs. 800 out of the sale proceeds of these articles on or about the 31st August, 1946. The charge-sheet was filed on the 24th July, 1947, alleging that the offences were committed on 28th August, 1946, and the petitioner received his share of the proceeds of misappropriation on the 31st August, 1946. Fourteen witnesses were examined for the prosecution and thereafter charges were framed on the 1st o...
Tag this Judgment!Periyasami Padayachi and anr. Vs. Minor Ulaganathan by Next Friend Mot ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-21-1948
Reported in: (1948)2MLJ150
Yahya Ali, J.1. The minor first respondent filed an application under Order 33, Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code, for leave to sue the petitioners who were respondents 1 and 2 in that petition and others, for partition and separate possession of his one-third share in the properties mentioned in the schedules attached to the petition. His father who is the first petitioner here objected to the grant of leave on the ground inter alia that the value of the suit properties is more than Rs. 3,000 and if the petition was to be admitted and registered as a suit, the subject-matter of the suit would be beyond the limits of the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court of the District Munsiff of Ariyalur.. The objection was overruled by the District Munsiff. This civil revision petition is against that order. The learned District Munsiff relying upon a Bench decision of the Allahabad High Court reported in Nur Muhammad v. Maulvi Jamil Ahmad A.I.R. 1919 All. 213 was of the opinion that the question...
Tag this Judgment!M. Narayanaswami Naidu (Died) and ors. Vs. Parvati Bai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-20-1948
Reported in: (1948)2MLJ211
P.V. Rajamannar, Officiating C.J.1. The only question which arises for decision in this appeal from the judgment of Kunhi Raman, J., sitting on the Original Side is whether one Ammani Animal had any right to or interest in the suit property which is a house No. 65, Ashtabujam Street, Choolai, Madras., If she had, then the respondents who were tie plaintiffs before Kunhi Raman, J., would be entitled to relief on the basis of a deed of settlement executed by Ammani Ammal on. 1st June, 1943.2. The property in suit was purchased on 14th December, 1922, by a deed of sale bearing that date executed in favour of the said Ammani Animal and her brother, T. Perumal Naidu. The agreement of sale entered into before the completion of the sale was in favour of Perumal Naidu only. It appears from the evidence that Perumal Naidu was himself at Rangoon and he had executed a power of attorney in favour of his sister Ammani Ammal, Ex. D. 17, to manage Iris affairs. Perumal Naidu died on 16th June, 1924, ...
Tag this Judgment!Koduri Krishnamma Vs. Koduri Chennayya and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-20-1948
Reported in: (1948)2MLJ365
Satyanarayana Rao, J.1. The defendant has filed this application to revise the decree of the District Munsiff of Tanuku which was passed on the basis of an award. After the issues in the suit were framed the matter in difference between the parties to the suit was referred to arbitration. The arbitrators were directed to file the award by 10th July, 1947. An award was filed into Court on the 10th July, 1947. On that day the District Munsiff passed an order ' Award filed; objections, if any, 12th July, 1947.' As no objections were filed on 12th July, 1947, a decree in terms of the award was passed on that day.2. In this revision petition, the main point urged on behalf of the petitioner is that the learned District Munsiff acted illegally in the exercise of his jurisdiction in not giving 30 days time for filing objections to the award from the date of service of notice of the award as provided by the amended Article 158 of the Indian Limitation Act. As the question whether the District ...
Tag this Judgment!Vepa Nagasurya Venkata Joga Kusuma Harnath Being Minor by His Mother, ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-19-1948
Reported in: (1948)2MLJ164
1. The order out of which this civil revision petition arises was passed by the Subordinate Judge of Vizagapatam on an application made by the Petitioner under Section 20 of the Agriculturists' Relief Act. A mortgage decree had been passed against the joint family to which the petitioner now belongs, but on the date when the decree was passed the petitioner was not born. Section 20 of the Agriculturists' Relief Act provides that:Every Court executing a decree passed against a person entitled to the benefits of this Act, shall on application, stay the proceedings until the Court which passed the decree has passed orders on an application made or to be made under Section 19.The learned Subordinate Judge dismissed the application on the ground that as the petitioner was not born when the decree was passed, he could not be regarded as a person against whom the decree is passed as to be able to maintain the application under Section 20. Section 19 of the Agricultures' Relief Act provides th...
Tag this Judgment!Kotha Appa Rao Vs. M. Mohammad Haneef
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-16-1948
Reported in: (1948)2MLJ236
Horwill, J.1. A reference was made to arbitration in a suit. The award was received on the day when, the Court re-opened after the summer vacation. The pleaders for the parties were present in Court and the plaintiff at once expressed his intention of accepting the award; but in the absence of the defendant, the defendant's pleader asked for an adjournment, which was refused. Upon his reporting no instructions, the award was accepted and a decree passed at once.2. Even for arbitration in suits, the general rules relating to arbitration proceedings have to be followed as far as possible; so that it is necessary for an arbitrator to inform the parties that he, has made the award; and it is the duty of the Court under Section 14(2) of the Act upon receiving the award, to inform the parties of its having been filed. Since the pleaders who represented the parties were present, we may take it that this direction was complied with by the District Munsif by informing the pleaders that it had b...
Tag this Judgment!Rajam Naidu and anr. Vs. Meenakshi Ammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-16-1948
Reported in: (1948)2MLJ215
1. This is an appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the judgment of Chandraseldiara Aiyar, J., confirming with slight modification rite decision of the Subordinate Judge of Cuddalore holding that the application for execution was in time.2. On the 25th September, 1926, one Muthukornaraswami Chettiar obtained a preliminary mortgage decree in O.S. No. 68 of 1925 in the Sub-Court, Cuddalore, against three persons, Thayammal, Govindarajulu Naidu and Rajam Naidu. Against that decision the defendants preferred an appeal to the High Court in App. No. 132 of 1927. When the decree-holder applied for the passing of a final decree, the defendants filed C.M.P. No. 1393 of 1927 in the High Court for stay of the proceedings. Stay was granted by this Court on condition of the judgment-debtors furnishing security. In pursuance of the order of the High Court defendants 1 to 3 executed a security bond on 5th January, 1928. The relevant clause in that security bond is in these terms : We f...
Tag this Judgment!Ratnaswami Padayachi and ors. Vs. Kuppuswami Ayyar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-16-1948
Reported in: (1948)2MLJ234
Panchapagesa Sastri, J.1. This second appeal arises out of the execution proceedings in E.P.R. No. 90 of 1943, on the file of the District Munsif's Court of Chidambaram in O.S. No. 289 of 1930, on the file of the District Munsif's Court, Pattukottai. The judgment-debtors are the appellants here. There was a decree against them for Es. 1,200 and odd passed by the District Munsif of Pattukottai on 29th November, 1930. This decree was assigned over to the present first respondent, Kuppuswami Iyer. He had the decree transferred for execution to the District Munsif's Court, Chidambaram and filed E.P.R. No. 90 of 1943 therein on 30th November, 1942. The twelve years period fixed under Section 48, Civil Procedure Code would expire by 29th November, 1942, but as it happened to be a Sunday on which the Court was closed the execution petition was filed on the next day. Objection was taken by the judgment-debtor that no order could be passed on the execution petition by reason of the provisions o...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Seraje Narayana Bhatta and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-12-1948
Reported in: 1949CriLJ80; (1948)2MLJ138
P.V. Rajamannar, Officiating C.J.1. In Sessions Case No. 36 of 1947 in the Court of Sessions, South Kanara Division, there were four accused. The first accused was charged for an offence under Section 302, Indian Penal Code. Accused 1 to 3 were charged for an offence under Section 201, Indian Penal Code and the fourth, accused for an offence under Section 201 read with Section 109, Indian Penal Code. The learned Sessions Judge acquitted the first accused of the offence under Section 302 but convicted him of an offence under Section 326, Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for five years. He found accused 1 to 3 guilty under Section 201 and sentenced each of them to rigorous imprisonment for 18 months, the sentences on the first accused to run concurrently. The fourth accused was acquitted. C.A. No. 683 of 1947 is by the first accused and C.A. Nos. 627 of 1947 and 664 of 1947 are by accused 2 and 3 respectively. C.A. No. 91 of 1948 is by the Crown against the ac...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »