Chennai Court January 1949 Judgments
K.V. Govindan Nair and anr. Vs. Appukutty
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-21-1949
Reported in: (1949)1MLJ475
P.V. Rajamannar, C.J.1. The only question in this Civil Revision Petition is whether there should be a stay of a suit pending in the Court of the Additional District Munsiff of Calicut for ejectment against the petitioners under Section 4 of the Madras Tenants ind Ryots Protection Act (XVII of 1946). The document under which the petitioners claimed cheir rights is described as an othi deed bearing date of the Malayalam year corresponding to 14th January, 1920. The District Munsiff held that the petitioners were not entitled to the benefit of the provisions of that section and dismissed their application for stay of the suit. When the Civil Revision Petition came on before Panchapagesa Sastry, J., he directed the petition to be posted for hearing and determination by a Bench, because of a conflict between the decision in Ranga Aiyar v. Subbayya Gounder : (1942)2MLJ739 and the decision in Raman Nambiar v. Govindan Nayar : (1948)2MLJ381 .2. Under Section 4(1) of the Madras Act XVII of 194...
Tag this Judgment!T.D. Ramayya Pantulu, Vs. Kutty and Rao (Engineers), Ltd. and
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-20-1949
Reported in: (1949)0LLJ13Mad
Horwill, J.1. On the 5th March 1948, by G.O. Ms. No. 1115, the Government issued a notification which runs:Whereas industrial disputes have arisen between the workers and managements of certain Engineering firms and Type foundries in the Province of Madras and whereas industrial disputes are apprehended in the rest of the Engineering firms and Type foundries in respect of certain matters;...in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 7(1) and (2) read with Section 10(1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.... His Excellency the Governor of Madras hereby constitutes an Industrial Tribunal consisting of one person, namely, Sri T.D. Ramayya Pantulu...and directs that the said industrial disputes be referred to that Tribunal for adjudication. 2. It is seen that in this notification there is no reference to any specific disputes between any group of workers and managements; nor is there any specification of the firms in which disputes between the management and workers existed. The s...
Tag this Judgment!T.R. Govindaraja Mudaliar Vs. Saravana Mudaliar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-20-1949
Reported in: (1949)1MLJ331
Balakrishna Ayyar, J.1. The plaintiff is the petitioner. He sued for a declaration that he is the owner of the superstructure bearing door No. 68, Saravanaperumai Mudaly Street, Purasawalkam, as well as of the ground on which the super building stands and prayed for possession of both the properties. 2. Objection having been taken to the valuation adopted by the plaintiffs, a commissioner was appointed and on receipt of his report, the plaintiff was directed to pay deficit court-fee amounting to Rs. 202-7-0. Time till the 7th January, 1947, was given to comply with the order. The deficit court-fee was not paid by that date; instead the plaintiff applied for leave to amend the plaint by substituting a prayer for a declaration that he is entitled not to the absolute right in the land but only to a leasehold interest in it. The learned Judge in the Court below dismissed the application on the ground that an amendment of the plaint could not be granted after an order had been made for paym...
Tag this Judgment!Varrey Tulasamma Vs. Nandula Buchiramaiah
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-20-1949
Reported in: (1949)1MLJ314
Satyanarayana Rao, J.1. The defendant is the appellant. The plaintiff and the defendant are adjacent owners of house property. The plaintiff is the owner of a one-third portion of a site on the west shown in the plaint plan and the defendant is the owner of the site and the house on the east which occupies two-third portion of the site marked in the plaint plan. The plaintiff purchased the site in 1938 and the defendant purchased it in 1936. In the year 1928 when the plot was under a common owner, a house was constructed in plot B of the plaint plan with the eaves projecting into site A to an extent of 2 feet 6 inches along the length of the wall for about 10 yards 2 feet; and from the eaves rain water was dropping into the site A. This state of affairs continued until disputes arose and the present suit was instituted by the plaintiff against the defendant for a mandatory injunction directing the defendant to remove at her expense the eaves on the western side of the house in plot B b...
Tag this Judgment!Punukollu Parandhamayya Vs. Punukollu Navarathna Sikhamani
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-20-1949
Reported in: (1949)1MLJ467
Subba Rao, J.1. This is an appeal against the order of the Subordinate Judge of Masulipatam, giving a decree in the terms of the award. The appellant is the husband of the respondent. They were married in the year 1930, and in 1944 disputes arose between them, and the wife was living apart from the husband from May 1944. She filed O.S. No. 64 of 1944 on the file of the Subordinate Judge of Masulipatam for recovery of Rs. 30,182-15-7 and also for return of movables. The relief was based upon a claim which is stated in paragraph 10.of the plaint as follows:Cash, immovable and movable properties mentioned in paragraphs 5 and 6 were intended as stridhanam for the benefit of the plaintiff and her children by the first defendant and were declared as presents in the name of the plaintiff even. If the first defendant's story is that any of the presents were declared in name for the first defendant at the time of the marriage, since they were intended by the givers only for the benefit of the p...
Tag this Judgment!Paramban Mammadu and ors. Vs. the King
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-19-1949
Reported in: (1949)2MLJ544
Horwill, J.1. The four appellants and three others who were acquitted by the lower Court were charged by the Sessions Judge of South Malabar under Section 120-B read with Section 302, Indian Penal Code, of conspiring with P.W. 10 to commit the murder of one Ramasimhan. There was also a charge under sectioii 148 of being armed with dangerous weapons and rioting. They were further charged under four separate counts for the murder of the said Ramasimhan, his brother Narasimhan, the wife of Narasimhan, and one Raju Iyer, a Brahmin cook of Ramasimhan. These four persons will be referred to during the course of the judgment as deceased Nos. 1 to 4 respectively. The learned Judge found the first accused only guilty of conspiracy and the four appellants guilty under Sections 147 and 34, read with Section 302, Indian Penal Code, on all the four counts. He sentenced the four appellants to death and, as already stated, acquitted the other three.2. The motive for the offence is said to have been t...
Tag this Judgment!Kaliappa Goundan Vs. Valliammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-19-1949
Reported in: (1949)1MLJ248
Panchapakesa Aiyar, J.1. This appeal is against the order of the District Judge, Coimbatore, appointing the respondent, the mother of the minor girl, aged about two and a half years, as the guardian of her person, giving the appellant, the father, only the right to visit her at all convenient times, and expressing the hope that the appellant and his first wife, the minor's mother, would again join together in spite of the appellant's having taken for himself a second wife.2. The learned Counsel for the appellant urged that the lower Court's order cannot be sustained as the parties are Hindus governed by the Mitakshara law and the father's right to be the guardian of his minor children cannot be taken away unless he is proved to be unfit to be the guardian. He relied on the ruling in In the matter of the petition of Prankrishna Sarma I.L.R. (1882) Cal. 969. That was a criminal case, and there the learned Judges were unable to find any authority for the proposition that the mother can ev...
Tag this Judgment!M.V.P. Paramanandaswami Alias Pichumuthu Pillai Vs. A.K. Shanmugham Pi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-19-1949
Reported in: (1949)1MLJ318
Subba Rao, J.1. This is an appeal against the order of the lower Court directing the arrest of the appellant in execution of the decree in O.S. No. 72 of 1946, on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Tinnevelly. The respondent obtained a decree in the above suit against the appellant for a sum of about Rs. 5,800. In execution of the decree the properties of the judgment-debtor were attached. His sons filed a claim petition. It was dismissed. The sons then filed O.S. No. 22 of 1947 for setting aside the order on the claim petition and for a declaration that the properties belonged to them. In that suit on 24th July, 1947, a consent order was passed to the effect that on the plaintiffs depositing into Court a sum of Rs. 300 the suit properties should not be sold till the disposal of the suit. On 18th December, 1947, the decree-holder filed another E.P. No. 138 of 1947 for the arrest of the judgment-debtor. On 17th February, 1948, one month's time was granted to the judgment-...
Tag this Judgment!Tirumalai Aiyangar Vs. Arunachala thevar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-19-1949
Reported in: (1949)1MLJ436
Panchapagesa Sastri, J.1. The defendant is the appellant. Respondents 1 and 2 filed the suit for declaration of their title to item No. 2 of the plaint schedule and for an injunction or alternatively for possession of the same. The said item is an extent of 68 cents in the southernmost portion of the northern half of S. No. 455/1, the total extent of which is 4 acres and 8 cents. One Narayana Rao and his. two brothers owned the northern portion of S. No. 455/1, to the extent, of two acres and 5 cents. It is not quite clear whether the extent really is 2 acres. 4 cents, or 2 acres 5 cents. In 1921 there appears to have been a partition, in and by which the southernmost portion was allotted to Narayana Rao. There was an attachment before judgment of Narayana Rao's interest in 2 acres and 5 cents belonging to himself and his brothers in common in O.S.. No. 248 of 1932. The attachment was apparently on the footing of an undivided coparcenary interest of Narayana Rao in the family propertie...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Paramban Mammadu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-19-1949
Reported in: AIR1951Mad737
Horwill, J. 1. The four applts & three others who were acquitted by the lower Ct were charged by the Ses J. of South Malabar under Section 120B read with Section 302, I. P. C., of conspiring with P. W. 10 to commit the murder of one Ramasimhan. There was also a charge under Section 148 of being armed with dangerous weapons & rioting. They were further charged under four separate counts for the murder of the said Ramaslmhan, his brother Narasimhan, the wife of Narasimhan, & one Raju Iyer, a Brahmin cook of Ramasimhan. These four persons will be referred to during the course of the judgment as deceased Nos. 1 to 4 respectively. The learned Judge found accused 1 only guilty of conspiracy & the four applts guilty under Sections 147 & 34, read with Section 302, I. P. C. on all the four counts. He sentenced the four applts to death &, as already stated, acquitted the other three.2. The motive for the offence is said to have been the enmity borne by the Moplah community in general & the seven...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »