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.
Arunachala Pillai Vs. Ponnusami Naidu and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-14-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Mad404
Raghava Rao, J.1. It is objected for the respondent that this appeal does not lie. This appeal is one preferred against an order of the learned District Judge of Salem declaring a certain temple non-excepted, the order was made on 13th March 1946, and on 2nd April 1946, Section 84 of Madras Act II [2] of 1927 came to be modified by Section 40 of Madras Act X [10] of 1946, which abolished the distinction made by the former Act between excepted and non-excepted temples.2. The order would doubtless be unappealable under the original Act, but, it is urged for the appellant, that the right of appeal given by Sub-section (3) of Section 84 as amended covers the order. This, in my opinion, is not a correct way of reading the sub-section of the amended section. The right of appeal given by the sub-section must be understood in the context and setting of the amended section only as referring to an order, as such declaring or not declaring a trustee, a hereditary trustee. It cannot obviously refe...
In Re: the Calicut Hosieries and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-13-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Mad231
ORDERPanchapakesa Ayyar, J.1. This is a petition by the Calicut Hosieries Ltd. (accused 1) and three Directors of that firm (accused 2 to 4) for setting aside their convictions under Sections 23 and 24, Industrial Disputes Act, XIV [14] of 1947, read with Section 26(2) for having declared and carried on an illegal lock-out after a reference had been made by the Government of Madras to the Industrial Tribunal, Coimbatore, consisting of one person, viz, Sri C. R. Krishna Rao, for deciding certain Industrial disputes between certain hosiery factories in the Province of Madras and the workmen employed therein and a letter of the District Magistrate of Malabar to the accused drawing their attention to the fact that all disputes between hosiery employers and workers had been referred to the Industrial Tribunal, Coimbatore and that the lock-out during the pendency of the reference was illegal and should be terminated. The first petitioner firm has been ultimatly sentenced to pay a fine of Rs....
Mukkamalla Venkatasubba Reddi, Minor by Mother and Guardian Venkatamma ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-13-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Mad297
ORDERKrishnaswami Nayudu, J.1. This is a revision against the order of the District Judge of Cuddappah allowing the application of the plaintiff respondent for leave-to institute a suit in forma pauperis. The defendants-respondents in the application for leave to sue as a pauper have preferred this revision petition. 2. The suit is one for partition and in the petition the respondent who is a minor and who is represented by his maternal grandfather as next friend stated that excepting the clothing that was mentioned in the Schedule o to the plaint he had no means to pay the court-fee. It was alleged on behalf of the defendants that the petitioner was possessed of immovable properties worth Rs 2000/- at Bhimagundam village inherited by him from his father ; besides the father left some four seers of gold and silver and Rs. 2000/- in cash and therefore the respondent was in a position to pay the court-fee payable on the plaint. The learned Judge held that in so far as the cash and jewel ...
Minor Veluchami Pillai by Next Friend, Chellathayee Alias Meenakshi Am ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-13-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Mad353
ORDERKrishnaswami Nayudu, J.1. The question that arises for decision in this civil revision petition is whether Article 17B of Schedule II, Court-fees Act, applies to an appeal filed against the final decree in a suit for partition in respect of which court-fee under Article 17B of Schedule II was charged. 2. The plaintiff is the petitioner. He instituted the suit for partition claiming an one-fourth share in the properties, but, as the plaint was incapable of valuation he paid a court-fee of Rs. 100 under Article 17B of Schedule II, Court-fees Act. The preliminary decree for partition was passed and the plaintiff was given a fourth share in the suit properties. A commissioner was appointed for division of the properties and the final decree was passed in pursuance of the commissioner's report whereby it was directed that the parties were to pay and receive certain sums to make up the inequalities in the value of the properties allotted to the respective parties. The final decree provi...
Ramaswami Naicken Vs. Viswanatha Chetty Alias Subramania Chetty and or ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-13-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Mad343
Viswanatha Sastri, J.1. The Courts below have differed on the question whether the plaintiff, here respondent, is entitled to reimbursement of a sum of Rs. 1007 together with interest subsequent to the suit, from defendant 1, the appellant in this second appeal. The relevant facts are these.2. Subramania Chetti (defendant 2) and Rajagopapala Chetti (the deceased father of defendants 3 and 4 and the husband of defendant 5) were brothers and sons of Chinnu Chetti alias Muniappa Chetti on whose death they inherited an extent of 3 acres 95 cents of land as the heirs of their father. The two brothers sold this land to one Kandaswami Chetti who not having been put in possession of the land, filed a suit O. S. No. 741 of 1939 on the file of the District Munsif's Court of Salem for recovery of possession of the property sold. He impleaded as parties to the suit Subramania the present defendant 2 and his brother Rajagopala Chetti, as defendants 1 and 2. Rajagopala Chetty died pending the suit w...
R. Venkatesachary and ors. Vs. the Judge, Court of Small Causes and or ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-13-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Mad366
1. There is no error- of jurisdiction or an apparent error of law on the face of the record. The appellate tribunal has found that the landlord required the entire house for his occupation. Though the definition of a building in the Act includes a portion of a building, it does not mean that the owner of a house, portions of which have been let separately, cannot file an application for obtaining possession of the entire house as a building. What is sufficient for the landlord is not the real question, but whether he requires the entire building bona fide for his occupation. The finding that he requires it in this case is a finding of fact. The application is therefore dismissed with costs. ...
Minor Veluchami Pillai by Next Friend Chellathayee Alias Meenakshi Amm ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-13-1949
Reported in: (1949)2MLJ782
Krishnaswami Nayudu, J.1. The question that arises for decision in this civil revision petition is whether Article 17-B of Schedule II of the Court-Fees Act applies to an appeal filed against the final decree in a suit for partition in respect of which court-fee under Article 17-B of Schedule II was charged.2. The plaintiff is the petitioner. He instituted the suit for partition claiming an one-fourth share in the properties, but, as the plaint was incapable of valuation he paid a court-fee of Rs. 100 under Article 17-B of Schedule II of the Court-Fees Act. The preliminary decree for partition was passed and the plaintiff was given a fourth share in the suit properties. A commissioner was appointed for division of the properties and the final decree was passed in pursuance of the commissioner's report whereby it was directed that the parties were to pay and receive certain sums, to make up the inequalities in the value of the properties allotted to the respective parties. The final dec...
Vadakumpprath Pillai's Son, Muthu Vs. Kulathinkol Kuppan's Son Narayan ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-13-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Mad351
Balakrishna Ayyar, J.1. This appeal raises a question of Hindu law of particular interest to the Ezhava community in Malabar. This is how the question comes up. The properties which form the subject-matter of this litigation belonged to an Ezhava woman called Kalu. She died issueless in 1936. Chathu her husband then took possession of the properties and subsequently sold them to defendant 1, in the suit. The plaintiff is the brother of Kalu and he claimed that the marriage of Kalu to Chatu had been in the asura form, that he was therefore in law the real heir of Kalu and as such entitled to the properties. On this basis he sought to recover possession of the properties from defendant 1, the vendee from Chathu. The learned District Munsif who tried the suit and the learned Subordinate Judge on appeal took the view that the marriage of Kalu had been in the asura form and decreed the suit. In second appeal Patanjali Sastri J. held that the marriage was not an asura marriage and allowed th...
R. Venkatesachary and ors. Vs. the Judge, Court of Small Causes and an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-13-1949
Reported in: (1949)2MLJ784
ORDER1. There is no error of jurisdiction or an apparent error of law on the face of the record. The appellate tribunal has found that the landlord required the entire house for his occupation. Though the definition of a building in the Act includes a portion of a building, it does not mean that the owner of a house, portions of which have been let separately, cannot file an application for obtaining possession of the entire house as a building. What is sufficient for the landlord is not the real question, but whether he requires the entire building bona fide for his occupation. The finding that he requires it in this case is a finding of fact. The application is therefore dismissed with costs....
Korada Atchanna Vs. Jayanti Seetharamaswami
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-13-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Mad387
Viswanatha Sastri, J.1. The defendant is the appellant in this second appeal. The suit was filed by a landholder for ejectment of his tenant on the expiry of the term of his lease and for rent. The appellate Court passed a decree in ejectment, but dismissed the claim for rent on the ground that it was cognizable only by the revenue Court. The tenant has preferred this second appeal against the decree in ejectment while the landlord has preferred a memorandum of cross-objections regarding the disallowance of the claim for rent. The land which is the subject-matter of the suit is part of and situated in a whole inam village which became an 'estate' by reason of Madras Act, XVIII [18] of 1936. In O. S. No. 197 of 1933 on the file of the District Munsif's Court, Vizianagaram, the landholder obtained a decree dated 5th July 1933 for ejectment of the tenants then occupying the land without any contest on the part of those tenants, The defendant was let into possession of the land by the plai...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »