Chennai Court October 1949 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.
In Re: K.S.M. Mohammad Abdul Kadar Marakayar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-20-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Mad300
ORDERPanchapakesa Aiyar, J.1. The petitioner in all these petitions is one Muhammad Abdul Kadar Marakayar. He has been convicted under Section 282, Penal Code and sentenced to pay a fine of RS. 40/-, Rs. 75/-and Rs. 100/-, respectively, in these three cases, for having knowingly and negligently conveyed or caused to be conveyed for hire persons so loaded on his three boats as to endanger the life of the persons travelling in the boats. In Cri. R. C. No. 451, 36 passengers were carried as against 24 passengers allowed under the rules. In Cri R. C. No. 453 of 1949 also there was even more gross overloading, the number of passengers conveyed being 30 instead of the 12 allowed. In Cri. R. C. No. 452, 52 passengers were carried instead of the 30 allowed. The learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Ahmed Meeran, has raised three main contentions.2. The first is that the petitioner is not the owner of the boat concerned in Cri. R. C. No. 452, and that he has also denied the ownership in the C...
M. Muniswami Naicker Vs. P. Kanniappa Naicker
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-20-1949
Reported in: (1949)2MLJ767
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, Indian 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 hydrocele) be beaten till his hydrocele 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, Muniswami 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, Indian Penal Code, was or was not 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 an...
N.V. Kuppuswami Ayyar Vs. P. Mahadeva Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-20-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Mad746
Horwill, J.1. The appellant has been the tenant of the respondent for the past ten years. As he did not pay rent for August and September 1916 the respondent, on 1st February 1947, filed an application under the Rent Control Act for eviction. Very shortly afterwards, on 6th March 1947, the appellant filed an application before the Rent Controller under the same Act for fixing a fair rent. An order of eviction was obtained by the respondent on 15th September 1917; but no action could be taken by him in execution of that order, because the appellant immediately filed an appeal and obtained on 3rd October 1947 a stay order. On 1st November 1947, on the appellant's application, a fair rent was fixed at Rs. 41-4-0 from 1st October 1916 as against the contractual rent of Rs. 30, the order being passed 'without prejudice to the order of eviction and the order that might be passed in the appeal,' In pursuance of the order of the Rent Controller fixing the fair rent at Rs. 41-4-0, the appellant...
In Re: M. Abraham
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-19-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Mad233
ORDERPanchapakesa Ayyar, J.1. This is a petition against the conviction of the petitioner under Section 341, Penal Code, by the Additional First Class Magistarte, Chingleput, and a fine of Rs. 50 imposed on him therefor.2. The facts are briefly these. The petitioner was the first accused in C. C. No. 686 of 1947 on the file of the Additional First Class Magistrate, Chingleput. He was the driver of bus No. MDH 787- The prosecution case is that, on 27th September 1947, he purposely made his bus stand across the Thirukkalikundram Road, at Chingleput, near the Chowki post in such a manner as to prevent another bus, MDH 1167, which was coming from behind, to proceed further. When P. W. 1, the driver of MDH 1167 turned his bus to the right, to avoid and pass the petitioner's bus, the petitioner deliberately and intentionally drove his bus MDH 787 in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against bus No. 1167, causing damage, and thereby committing an act endangering the life of the passenger...
In Re: Devata Lakshminarayana
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-19-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Mad266
Horwill, J.1. The petitioner is said to have transported explosive substances, such as potassium chlorate, potassium nitrate, and sulphur from Bezwada to Jeggayyapet. He was arrested on 1st January 1949 for having committed an offence punishable under the Explosive Substances Act (Act VI [6] of 1908); but instead of being brought to trial for this offence, he was served on 30th January 1949, with an order of detention under Act, I [1] of 1947. Grounds of detention were served on 1st March 1949; and nine days later a charge-sheet was filed against the petitioner and two other. On 17th March 1949, the petitioner made the usual representations, denying that he had any connection with communists, saying that he had always been a staunch supporter of the Congress Party, and had contributed to their funds. These representations were sent to the District Magistrate by the Government for report; and three months elapsed before the District Magistrate sent in his report on 21st June 1949. The m...
In Re: Ponnuswami
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-19-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Mad308
ORDERPanchapakesa Ayyar, J.1. This is a petition to interfere in revision with the conviction ,of. the petitioner under Section 304A, Penal Code and the sentence of six months simple imprisonment awarded on him.2. The facts are briefly these. The petitioner was a lorry driver. On 10th October 1947, at about 6.45 p. m., on the road between Tambaram and Vandalur, he was driving his lorry, M. S. P. 3163, at a fast and dangerous pace. He was taking furniture to a School. He wanted to overtake three bullock carts heavily laden with hay, and with that object, first swerved swiftly to the right and then quickly to the left, with the inevitable consequence that the deceased, a man aged 30 going along the road in the opposite direction, and a bit tipsy, got knocked down and killed. Both the lower Courts, after exhaustive discussion of the evidence, have come to the conclusion that the petitioner was certainly guilty of rash and negligent driving, and brought about the death of the deceased by s...
Penumetcha Annapurnamma Vs. Polisetti Jagannadham
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-18-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Mad298
Krishnaswami Nayudu, J.1. This revision petition is againt the order of the District Munsif of Narasapur dismissing the petitioner's application for execution as barred under Article 182, Clause (5), Limitation Act.2. The petitioner obtained a decree in a small cause suit on 9th March 1936. He filed an execution petition, E. P. No. 903 of 1936, on 21st September 1936 for issue of a warrant for arrest of the judgment-debtor. On 23rd September 1936 an order for arrest was passed, returnable on 20th October 1936. On 21st October 1936 the following order was passed by the learned District Munsif of Narasapur. 'Judgment-debtor not found for arrest. Struck off.' The present E. P. was filed on 31st March 1947, more than 11 years after the order referred to was passed on the previous E. P. prima facie the petition is barred under Article 182, Clause (5), Limitation Act.3. The learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the order made on 23rd September 1936 in the terms referred to and the p...
Appat Krishna Poduval Vs. Lakshmi Nathiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-18-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Mad751
ORDERKrishnaswami Nayudu, J.1. Defendant 10 in O. S. No. 543 of 1933 on the file of the District Munsif's Court, Ottapalam is the petitioner. O. S No. 643 of 1938 was filed by the respondents who are jenmies for recovery of Michavaram against some of the defendants who are the kanomdars. The respondents represented two thavazhis, the tarwad consisting of three branches. The other thavazhi is represented by the other defendants. A simple mortgage decree was passed in favour of the plaintiffs on 9th August 1934. The final decree was passed on 27th July 1936. E. P. No. 1277 of 1935 was filed by the plaintiffs for bringing the property to sale and a Commissioner was appointed to report as to the survey numbers and the property that was sought to be sold and in his report it is stated that the parties are not at issue in respect of items 1 and 4 of the schedule to the decree. In E. P. No. 1277 of 1935 an order was made directing the plaintiffs to have the survey numbers given in the decree ...
Kuthiravattath Kottayil Kotharayan Alias Nallapata Nayar Alias Prabaka ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-14-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Mad355
Govinda Menon, J.1. The appellant, who is the present second stani of Kuthiravattath Swarupam, brought the suit, out of which the second appeal arises, for recovery of possession with mesne profits of the suit properties from defendant 1. It is necessary to set out in brief outline the previous transactions regarding this property. By Ex. P-2 dated 7th June 1905, one Kunhunni Thamban, who was then the second stanom-holder of Kuthiravattath Swarupam, executed a karipanayam deed in favour of one Alu alias Karumankutti for a sum of Rs. 1500. On 31st July 1920 under Ex. P-1, the same Kunhunni Thambam granted a registered kanom over the same properties to defendant 1 and defendant 1 is now admitted to be in possession of the properties after having redeemed the previous mortgage under Ex. P.2. This Kunhunni Thamban became the first stani in 1927 as a result of which, the person who succeeded to the second stanom was one Appu Thamban. This gentleman lived till 1942 when the present plaintiff...
Avudainayagam Pillai Vs. Pitchiah Chettiar Alias Pitchiah Pillai and o ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-14-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Mad358
Pachapagesa Sastri, J.1. These two second appeals raise questions relating to the validity of rent sales of ryots' holdings under chap. VI, Madras Estates Land Act of 1908. S. A. No 915 of 1946 is by the plaintiff against the judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge of Tinnevelly in A. S. No. 112 of 1945 confirming the judgment and decree of the District Munsif's Court, Tenkasi in O. S. No. 205 of 1944. S. A. No. 981 of 1945 is filed by defendant 1 in O. S No. 206 of 1944 on the file of the District Munsif's Court, Tenkasi, against the judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge in A. S. NO. 113 of 1945 reversing the decree of the District Munsif. 2. In Kottayur village of Sivagiri Estate one Sundaram Pillai was a ryot holding patta NO. 406. It comprised amongst others S. No. 220 of the extent of 16 acres and 52 cents. The land-holder was the zamindar of Sivagiri. Sundaram Piliai had two daughters. In 1913 he gifted S. No. 220 to his son-in-law, one Kosalaram. There appears to hav...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »