Chennai Court October 1949 Judgments
Golden Knitting Co. Vs. Mural Traders (India) in Sind Market
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-26-1949
Reported in: (1949)2MLJ822
Raghava Rao, J.1. The question in this case is whether the District Court of Coimbatore in the Dominion of India has power to execute, after the 15th August, 1947, a decree passed by the Court of Small Causes at Karachi in the Dominion of Pakistan prior to that date and transmitted for execution after that date by that court to the, District Court of Coimbatore. The learned District Judge in the Court below held that he had the power. The learned District Judge is obviously wrong. After the appointed day the judgment of the Court at Karachi passed before then became a foreign judgment in respect of which execution could only be had if the territory in which the decree in question was passed has become, by an arrangement between the two Dominions, a reciprocating territory within the meaning of Section 44-A of the Civil Procedure Code. The precise point now arising for decision has been decided by a Bench of the High Court of Calcutta composed of Mookerjee and Chunder, JJ., in a case re...
Tag this Judgment!A. Ramalingaswami Naicker and ors. Vs. Venkitaswami Naicker
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-25-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Mad296
Yiswanatha Sastri, J.1. Two points have been argued by Mr. Thyagarajan, the learned advocate for the appellants in this second appeal. First he contends that there was no appeal to the lower appellate Court against the order of the District Munsif in E. P. No. 76 of 1944 dated 7th August 1945; secondly he argues that the learned District Judge erred in law in directing the sale of the properties in the order in which he has directed them to be sold. On the first-point I agree with the contention of the learned advocate for the appellant to this extent namely that if there is an order of Court merely settling the terms of the sale proclamation which does not in any way determine or affect the rights of parties, then the order is not open to appeal. But, if in settling the terms of sale proclamation the rights of the judgment debtors inter se who are the owners of the equity of redemption are affected by the order of the Court, then that would be a matter relating to the execution, disch...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Raja Velugoti Sarbagna Kumara Krishna Yachendra Bahadur Varu, Raja ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-25-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Mad347
Viswanatha Sastri, J.1. Defendant 1 is the appellant in this second appeal which has been filed against a decree awarding possession and mesne profits to the plaintiffs. The property described in the suit consists of two items, Section no. 492 of the extent of 3 acres 20 cents of wet land and Section No. 12 of the extent of 7 acres 43 cents of dry land. The plaintiffs claim to have purchased the ryoti interest in the lands. Defendant 1 (the Zamindar of Venkatagiri) is the land-holder and his defence is that the holding has been validly sold for arrears of rent at his instance and purchased by him through his agent. Defendant 2 disclaims all interest in the suit, but his wife, defendant 3, claimed that she had been admitted to possession of the first item as a ryot by defendant 1 after his purchase at the rent sale. The judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge is very meagre and unsatisfactory and does not deal either with the evidence or with the points that arise for decision.2. The ...
Tag this Judgment!R.M. Muthukrishnan Chettiar and anr. Vs. R.M. Muthalagiri Chettiar and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-24-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Mad295
ORDERKrishnaswami Nayudu, J.1. Plaintiff and defendant 3 are the petitioners. Plaintiff instituted O. S. No. 7 of 1946, for passing a decree in terms of an award, the dispute being between defendants 1 and 2 and defendant 3. This revision petition is against the order of the District Judge of Ramnad allowing an appeal filed by defendants 1 and 2 against the order of the Subordinate Judge of Devakottai dated 3rd February 1947, dismissing the application for setting aside an ex parte decree passed on 25th February 1946. The application I. A. No. 546 of 1946, was filed under provisions of Order 9, Rule 13 and Section 151, Civil P. C., for setting aside the ex parte decree passed against defendants 1 and 2 in O. S. No. 7 of 1946, the grounds alleged being that they were not served with notice. The learned Subordinate Judge found that notice had been served and dismissed the application. The appellate Court held on an examination of the evidence adduced before the trial Court that the evide...
Tag this Judgment!Lakshmi Ammal and ors. Vs. Narayanaswami Naicker and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-24-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Mad321
Viswanatha Sastri, J.1. This is a second appeal preferred by a wife against the decree of dismissal by the Courts below of her suit against her husband for separate maintenance. The suit was filed by the wife and her two minor unmarried daughters against defendant 1 for maintenance on the ground that he had brought another woman into the house and was ill-treating the plaintiffs. It was found by the courts below -- and this finding is not challenged in second appeal--that the 'other woman' referred to by the plaintiffs was the second wife of the defendant and the ill-treatment alleged by the plaintiffs was not true. Though the Hindu Married Woman's Rights to Separate Residence and Maintenance Act, XIX [19] of 1946 (hereinafter called the Act) came into force on 23rd April 1946 and the judgment of the appellate Court dismissing the plaintiff's suit was pronounced on 22nd October 1946 yet no reliance was placed on the Act in support of the claim of the plaintiffs. The Act was not in forc...
Tag this Judgment!M. Varadarajulu Pillai Vs. Gendapodinanniar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-24-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Mad392
Krishnaswami Nayudu, J.1. This is a revision petition against the order of the Subordinate Judge of Salem, granting permission to the decree, holder to bid at the sale of the properties ordered in E. P. No. 140 of 1947, in O. S. No. 6 of 1941. The decree is a mortgage decree and four items of the mortgaged properties are sought to be sold by virtue of the order for sale. The decree-holder filed E. A. No. 217 of 1948 for leave to bid under Order 21, Rule 72, Civil P. C. This application is supported by an affidavit by plaintiff 1 who states in para 3 of the affidavit that if the plaintiffs are not given leave to bid in the said auction sale, the properties might be sold for a low price and they are likely to suffer loss. This allegation was denied in the counter-affidavit filed by respondent 2 (judgment-debtor) where he stated that one of the items (Item No. 1) is a talkie theatre where one can expect certainly one kind of bidders and that two persons who are able to invest more than a ...
Tag this Judgment!Raja Suraneni Suryaprakasa Rayanimgar and anr. Vs. Dodla Balaramireddi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-24-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Mad766
Govinda Menon, J. 1. Defendants 1 and 5 in O. S. No. 62 of 1943 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Nellore, appeal against that portion of the learned Judge's decree by which relief under the Madras Agriculturists, Relief Act (IV [4] of 1938) had not been given in favour of defendant 5; and the question that arises for decision is whether defendant 5, admittedly a non-agriculturist is entitled to claim the benefits of Act IV [4] of 1938, in view of the circumstances of the present case. Defendant 1, the father and his three sons, defendants 2 to 4 are mortgagors of certain properties mortgaged in favour of the plaintiff. Defendant 4 was not actually an executant of the document. The mortgage was dated 30th October 1929. Subsequently on 4th October 1935, defendant 1 paid Rs. 5 towards the mortgage and acknowledged the existence of the debt by EX. P-1 (a). In the meanwhile, on 12th June 1933, by EX. P-4, defendant 1 made a gift of this property in favour of his son-in-law...
Tag this Judgment!M. Munuswami Naicker Vs. P. Kanniappa Naicker
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-20-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Mad273
ORDERPanchapakesa Ayyar, J.1. This is an interesting case. The first Class Bench Court, Tiruvottiyur, discharged the respondent Kanniappa, in a case under Section 504, Penal Code. The respondent abused the petitioner in obscene terms stating: 'May his wife be ravished. May the hydrocelic fellow (the petitioner is said to have hydrccele) be beaten till his hydrcocele is blown to bits.'This abuse was uttered in the absence of the petitioner, but the people who heard the abuse--they were members of the Panchayat--conveyed it to the petitioner, Muniswamni Naicker, who felt highly put out on hearing their report and felt like committing a breach of the peace but restrained himself with an effort. 2. The question is whether, in these circumstances an offence under Section 504, Penal Code, was made out prima facie. Mr. Asker Ali, for the petitioner, urged with great vehemence that there is really no distinction between a man who utters such words to Panchayatdars and ask them to convey the wo...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: K. Vedanta Desikan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-20-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Mad283
ORDERPanchapakesa Ayyar, J.1. This is a petition to revise the order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Cheyyar, refusing the request of the petitioner, who is accused in C. C. No. 108 of 1948, on the file of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Cheyyar, of the offence of failure to pay the sales tax due to Government, under Section 15, Madras General Sales Tax Act, to summon defence witnesses at Government expense, and directing him to pay the batta of Rs. 140, required for the defence witnesses he wanted to be summoned. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor contra. The learned Public Prosecutor strongly opposes this petition. I agree with him. The position in law is clear. Section 544, Criminal P. C., says: 'Subject to any rules made by the Provincial Government, any Criminal Court may, if it thinks fit, order payment, on the part of Government, of the reasonable expenses of any complainant, or witness attending for the purposes of any inqu...
Tag this Judgment!J.V. Venkatakrishna Ayyar Vs. the Official Receiver
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-20-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Mad311
ORDERChandra Reddi, J.1. This revision petition is filed by a successful bidder at an auction sale held by the Official Receiver, Salem, against the order of the District Judge, Salem, dismissing his appeal which was prefered against the judgment of the Subordinate Judge of Salem, setting aside the sale in his favour. A brief reference may be made to the facts of the case which are not in dispute.2. The Official Receiver, Salem, held an auction sale of the property of an insolvent in I. P. No. 15 of 1941 on 20th December 1946. In a proclamation of sale, he notified that the properties of the insolvent were subject to an encumbrance of Rs. 7000 due to the insolvent's brother. In a partition suit between the insolvent and his brother items 1 and 3 which were valued at Rs. 11,000 and which form the subject matter of the present litigation, were allotted to the insolvent, while item 2 which was valued at Rs. 4000 fell to the share of his brother. To equalise the value the insolvent had to ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »