Chennai Court September 1948 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
The Madura Sri Meenakshi Sundareswaral, Etc., Devasthanams, Through It ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-14-1948
Reported in: (1948)2MLJ592
Horwill, J.1. The suit out of which this appeal arises was one against the defendant for arrears of rent, claiming at the rate of the full taram assessment on the defendant's lands. The defendant resisted the claim and asserted that his predecessors-in-title from time immemorial had been paying rent at only one-fifth of the taram assessment and that any demand for an enhanced rent such as is claimed in the suit would be an illegal one. A further question was raised whether the defendant is a ryot. It was conceded in the lower appellate Court and is here--that she is. The learned Deputy Collector, after giving a finding that the defendant is a ryot, went on to analyse the documents; and concluding very briefly with a summary of Section 24 of the Madras Estates Land Act, which prevents the landholder from enhancing the rent, held that the plaintiff was not entitled to claim rent at the full taram assessment. The evidence let in afforded very little material upon which the Courts could ju...
Katikara Simhagiri Dora Alias Latchanna Dora and ors. Vs. Sri Vyricher ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-13-1948
Reported in: AIR1950Mad15
Horwill, J.1. On an application by defendant 6, the lower Court amended what is often described as the decretal part of the judgment to bring it into conformity with the earlier parts of the judgment. He thereupon amended the decree to bring it into confirmity with the amended judgment. Against that order, this revision petition has been filed under Section 115, Civil P. C., and a preliminary point has been taken that no civil revision petition lies.2. One of the earliest cases in which the question whether a revision petition lay against such an amendment or an appeal was considered was Raghunath Das v. Raj Kumar, 7 ALL. 276 : 1885 A. W. N. 256, which was followed by the same two Judges in Surta v. Ganga, 7 ALL. 411 : 1835 A. W. N. 88, Oldfield J. held that since the decree was amended, an appeal would lie against the amended decree. Mahmood J., in a long discussion of the various aspects of the case, did not directly say that no appeal would lie against the amended decree, but discus...
Choyi Vs. Kaitha Parambath Ayissabi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-13-1948
Reported in: (1949)1MLJ62
Panchapakesa Ayyar, J.1. The point for determination in this case is very simple. The suit property consisted of two items, one covered by a karaima chit, on which the petitioner had constructed a shop (as allowed by that chit itself) and was also living in the upstairs thereof. The other plot consisted of land on which he is alleged to have trespassed, and regarding which he is not setting up any tenancy of any kind. He applied for stay of the suit brought against him by the landlord regarding both these items. The lower Court held that the plot trespassed upon was clearly not covered by any tenancy under the Malabar Tenancy Act, and that even the other plot, covered by the karaima chit, could not be considered to be a case of tenancy, as a shop had been built on the land covered by it, and not a farm house, much less crops raised.2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner confined his arguments before me to the case of the land covered by the karaima chit and frankly conceded that the...
Katikara Simhagiri Dora Alias Latchanna Dora and ors. Vs. Sri Vyricher ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-13-1948
Reported in: (1949)1MLJ171
Horwill, J.1. On an application by the sixth defendant the lower Court amended what is often described as the decretal part of the judgment to bring it into conformity with the earlier parts of the judgment. He thereupon amended the decree to bring it into conformity with the amended judgment. Against that order, this revision petition has been filed under Section 115, Civil Procedure Code; and a preliminary point has been taken that no Civil Revision Petition lies.2. One of the earliest cases in which the question whether a revision petition lay against such an amendment, or an appeal, was considered was Raghunath Das v. Raj Kumar I.L.R. (1884) All. 276, which was followed by the same two Judges in Surta v. Ganga I.L.R. (1885) All. 411.-Oldfield, J., held that since the decree was amended, an appeal would lie against the amended decree. Mahmood, J., in a long discussion of the various aspects; of the case, did not directly say that no appeal would lie against the amended decree, but d...
R.M.S.M.P. Subramanian Chettiar Vs. the Official Receiver of Ramnad, R ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-10-1948
Reported in: (1949)1MLJ143
Satyanarayana Rao, J.1. The view of the learned Subordinate Judge that the present application falls under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure is correct. The petitioner purchased the property in Court sale on the 28th August, 1944, in execution of the decree in O.S. No. 77 of 1931, Subordinate Judge's Court, Devakottai, and obtained delivery of possession of the property on the 13th December, 1945, and 22nd September, 1946. The property was attached earlier in execution of a decree of the Rangoon High Court in C.R. No. 632 of 1929 in E.P. No. 73 of 1937. By reason of the insolvency of the judgment-debtors the execution petition. E.P. No. 73 of 1937 was not pursued and the petition was closed. After the adjudication was set aside, the decree-holder filed Application No. 46 of 1941 to continue the execution as prayed for in E.P. No. 73 of 1937. In this application the Court in the first instance directed the decree-holder to file a draft sale proclamation and after it was filed di...
Maragani Ramalingam and ors. Vs. Maridu Koteswara Rao
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-10-1948
Reported in: (1949)1MLJ144
Satyanarayana Rao, J.1. This civil revision petition is filed against the order of the learned Subordinate Judge, Masulipatam, excusing the delay in seeking to set aside the abatement caused by the death of the fourth defendant in the suit. The fourth defendant died on the 26th October, 1945. The application for adding the legal representatives was filed by the plaintiff on the 5th April, 1946. He became aware of the death of the fourth defendant only when the summons in the suit was returned with the endorsement that the fourth defendant died. This was made known to the plaintiff on the 13th March, 1946. Within less than a month from that day, he filed the application for impleading the legal representatives. He later filed applications to set aside the abatement and also to excuse the delay in seeking to set aside the abatement. In the affidavit filed in support of the application to set aside the abatement, the plaintiff definitely stated that he became aware of the death of the fou...
A. Ramachandra Naidu Vs. Kandaswami Mudaliar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-10-1948
Reported in: (1948)2MLJ577
Panchapakesa Ayyar, J.1. The facts are briefly these. The plaintiff, whose father and brothers are alive, brought a suit against the defendant, a village munsiff, for recovering Rs. 2,000 as damages consisting of Rs. 500, the estimated damages to sugarcane crop during the period of its attachment by the village munsiff for non-payment of kist, and Rs. 1,500, damages for personal reputation and mental suffering of the plaintiff caused by the attachment. The suit itself was filed in 1946, the attachment in question having been effected in April, 1945, and having ceased about May 1945. The plaintiff filed an amendment petition on 26th July, 1947, praying to amend the plaint by describing himself as the manager of the joint family consisting of himself, his father and brothers instead of the suit being brought only in his own personal capacity as plaintiff. The learned District Munsiff dismissed the amendment petition, holding that, if the amendment were allowed, it would amount to allowin...
The Indo Commercial Bank Ltd. Vs. the Corporation of Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-10-1948
Reported in: (1948)2MLJ626
Horwill, J.1. The plaintiff company has been paying company tax levied under section no of the City Municipal Act at the rate of Rs. 500 a half year and education tax at the rate of Rs. 75 a half year. Claiming that from 1st April, 1942, onwards the legitimate tax which could be demanded of it was Rs. 25 a half year and an education tax of Rs. 2-8-0, it has brought this suit for the recovery of the excess amount paid during the seven half years immediately preceding the suit. The amount due on this basis was Rs. 3,392-8-0. It, however, claimed on what is now admitted to be a mistaken basis, a further Rs. 75, which brought the suit claim up to Rs. 3,467-8-0. The Corporation contended that their assessment was correct and that the amount payable was what the plaintiff had been paying. They also claimed that the suit should be dismissed for the additional reasons that a claim for a refund of the first payment was barred by time, it having been made more than three years before suit, and t...
Muhammad Ibrahim Sahib Vs. Krishna Rao and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-09-1948
Reported in: (1948)2MLJ480
Panchapakesa Aiyar, J.1. The only point for determination in this petition is whether a private purchaser from a party in whose favour delivery of possession of properties was ordered in a preliminary decree on condition of his depositing certain moneys in Court by a certain date but who failed to satisfy the condition and get an unconditional order of delivery of possession of the properties, and who is afterwards obstructed by persons not parties to the suit, and filed a petition under Order 21, Rule 97, Civil Procedure Code, for delivery free from their obstruction, which petition was dismissed summarily without investigating into the question and he was directed to file a separate suit against the obstructors in the usual course for possession of the properties, can claim to pay a court-fee of Rs. 15 for such reliefs, under Article 17, Clause 1 of Schedule II of the Court-Fees Act, or has to pay court-fee on the admitted market value of the properties, namely, on Rs. 10,000. The lo...
In Re: W. Kanniah Lal by His Agent, N. Narasinga Prasad
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-09-1948
Reported in: (1948)2MLJ628
P.V. Rajamannar, C.J.1. The decision of the only question which arises in this Letters Patent Appeal turns on a construction of Section 304-B of the Madras City Municipal Act (IV of 1919). The appellant is admittedly the owner of a private market at Mylapore. Under Section 304 of the Act,no person shall without or otherwise than in conformity with an annual licence granted by the Commissioner in this behalf continue to keep open a private market.2. The appellant admits that in accordance with this section, he has to obtain a licence before he can keep open his private market. The licence so granted under Section 304 may permit the licensee to levy a fee or fees of the nature specified in Sub-section (2) of Section 301 of the Act. The appellant purported to grant a lease of the market to contractors who, under its terms, had to pay him a fixed sum of Rs. 225 a month. The transaction was really an arrangement by which the contractors were allowed to collect the fee or fees which the owne...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »