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: Kalyanam Veerabhadrayya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-10-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Mad243
ORDER1. These are applications under Section 491, Criminal P. C., to issue directions in the nature of habeas corpus directing the release of the petitioners who were detained under the Madras Maintenance of Public Order Act, 1947, (Act I [1] of 1947). As these petitions raised some common questions of law, we thought it convenient to hear and dispose of these questions before considering the merits of each application. The orders of detention under the Act in all the petitions except four, Cri. M. Ps. Nos. 1645 and 1651 of 1949, 1527 and 1611 of 1949 were passed after 12th March 1948, and according to the petitioners on the date on which the orders of detention in these cases were passed, the Madras Maintenance of Public Order Act, 1947, ceased to be in force and that therefore the orders of detention were without authority and were illegal.2. The maintenance of Public Order Act, 1947 (Madras Act I [1] of 1947), hereinafter called 'the Act' in the course of this judgment, received the...
Kandaswami Naick Vs. Ponnu Naick Alias Veerappa Naick and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-07-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Mad279
Govinda Menon, J.1. Defendant 5 in the trial Court who was a purchaser of the suit properties from defendant 4 who, in his turn was again a purchaser from defendant 3, appeals to this Court aggrieved by the decision of the Subordinate Judge of Ramnad at Madura in A. S. No. 178 of 1945 on his file. It is seen that defendant 3 had purchased the tenancy rights in the properties at a private auction held by the manager of the Mannarkottai Zamin to which estate the land belonged, for arreas of rent due to the estate. It is alleged that the plaintiffs who were the occupancy ryots under the Manarkottai Zamin had defaulted in paying the rent and therefore for the realisation of the arrears of rent the tenancy right had to be sold. The rent sale took place on 18th January 1932. It was confirmed on 11th March 1932 and a certificate issued in favour of the Zamindar who bought in the lands on 30th April 1933. After the estate purchased the occupancy rights, patta was sought to be granted to the pe...
Venkateswara Ettu Naicker Vs. Ayyammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-07-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Mad367
Krishnaswami Nayudu, J.1. This is an appeal against the order of the Subordinate Judge of Tuticorin in C. M. A. No. 8 of 1945 allowing the appeal against the order of the District Munsif of Koilpatti in E. A. No. 233 of 1944 in O. S. No. 186 of 1939. The appellant is defendant 2, defendant 1 being the father. In execution of a mortgage decree in O. S. no. 186 of 1939 the properties of defendants 1 and 2 were brought for sale. Sale was held on 15th September 1943, respondent 1 here being the auction purchaser. The sale was confirmed on 18th October 1943. On 24th February 1944 the appellantfiled an application under Section 47 and Order 21, Rule 90, Civil P. C., for setting aside the sale held on 15th September 1943. The grounds which he urged for setting aside the sale were (1) that there was no service of notice on him at any stage of the execution, (2) that there was no publication of the sale proclamation in the village as required by Order 21, Rule 67, Civil P. C., and (3) that the ...
Ayyammal and anr. Vs. Thangavelu Padayachi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-06-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Mad317
Krishnaswami Nayudu, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiffs in O. S. No. 395 of 1947 on the file of the Court of the District Munsif of Turaiyur against the appellate order in A. S. No. 887 of 1948 directing them to re-deliver possession of a house to the respondent in this appeal. The appellants who are plaintiffs in O. S. No. 395 of 1947 obtained a decree for possession of a house on 8th March 1948. The defendant respondent filed an application E. A. No. 194 of 1948 on 15th April 1948 for stay of execution of the decree pending his filing an appeal and obtaining an order of stay from the appellate Court. Notice of this application was served on the pleader for the plaintiffs, and this application, after several adjournments and after objection raised on behalf of the plaintiffs, was finally heard on 11th June 1948 when stay of execution of the decree was granted by the District Munsif of Turaiyur pending the obtaining of stay from the, appellate Court. The decree in O. S. No. 395 o...
Parisa Mudaliar and ors. Vs. Nataraja Udayar Alias Natesa Udayar and o ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-06-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Mad337
Krishnaswami Nayudu, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit by a Hindu reversioner for setting aside an alienation by the limited owners. Defendants 1 to 5 and 12 and 13 are the appellants and the plaintiff is the respondent. The suit properties belonged to one V. Kandaswami Udayar who died in 1901 leaving his widow Lakshmayi Ammal and three daughters Valliammal, Nallammal and Ponnaylammal, Nallammal was married to one P. Kandaswami Udayar and there were three sons by the marriage--Thangavelu, Ponnusami and Natarajan, minor, who is the plaintiff in the suit, O. S. No. 20 of 1943 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Salem. The suit was instituted on behalf of the minor by his next friend. Defendants 1 to 13 are the alienees and representative of the alienees. Nallammal and Ponnayammal, the two surviving daughters are defendants 14 and 15. Valliammal died in 1927 and Lakshmayi Ammal, widow of Kandaswami Udayar, died in 1928. Thangavelu, the eldest son of Nallammal died a s...
T.A. Menon Vs. K.P. Parvathi Ammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-05-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Mad373
ORDERKrishnaswami Nayudu, J.1. This revision petition raises, among others, an important question of jurisdiction for a petition under Section 6, Madras Marumakkatayam Act (XXII [22] of 1933). The petitioner is the husband. The respondent is the wife. They are persons governed by the Marumakattayam law of inheritance. They were married on 22nd March 1941. The marriage was celebrated at Behala, in West Bengal. The husband is a member of the Indian Civil Service permanently employed in West Bengal. The parties entered into a deed of dissolution of marriage on 10th October 1947, the validity of which is however not admitted by the petitioner. On 6th January 1948, the husband filed Title Suit No. 10 of 1948 on the file of the Third Court of Munsif of Alipore, 24 Parganas, against his wife and mother-in-law for restitution of conjugal rights and for a decree declaring that the deed of dissolution of marriage dated 10th October 1947 was obtained fraudulently and was not binding on the partie...
The Indian Sugars and Refineries, Ltd. Vs. V.M.P. Malaiperumal Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-05-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Mad755
ORDERPanchapakesa Ayyar, J.1. These are two connected petitions filed by the Indian Sugars and Refineries Ltd., Hospet, the first being a petition against Malaiperumal Pillai the plaintiff in O. S. No. 50 of 1947 on the file of the Sub-Court, Bellary. The suit was filed against the petitioner, claiming damages of 21/2 lakhs of rupees, in respect of an alleged contract in January 1949 relating to the sale of molasses. Malaiperumal Pillai was originally adjudicated insolvent in the Sub-Court, Negapatam, in I. P. No. 2 of 1932, and was subsequently adjudicated an insolvent by the High Court in I. P. No. 18 of 1936. The Negapatam insolvency was annulled in November 1938, and the claims therein were transferred to the Madras insolvency. One of the pleas taken by the petitioner in the suit was that the suit could not have been filed or continued by Malaiperumal Pillai as he was an insolvent. But the Court held that as the insolvency in the Negapatam Court, under the Provincial Insolvency Act...
Penujuri Govindappa Vs. D. Chayappa
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-04-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Mad277
Viswanatha Sastri, J.1. These two second appeals arise out of two suits instituted by a landlord, one for rent and the other for acceptance of patta by the ryot. S. S. No. 1 of 1911 from which S. A. No. 1474 of 1946 arises was a suit by the landholder, an Inamdar, for recovery of rent for fasli 1349 instituted under Section 77, Madras Estates Land Act. S. S. No. 3 of 1943 from which S. A. No. 2113 arises was a suit instituted by the same landholder against the same ryot as in S. S. No. 1 of 1941 for enforcement of acceptance of patta by the ryot. There was a second appeal to this Court (S. A. No. 1033 of 1943)* from S. S. No. 1 of 1941 in which it was held by Byers J. that the landholder was not entitled to charge water cess in addition to the rent payable by the ryot, because the water that was used by the ryot was not the landholder's water but that of the Government. S. S. No. 1 of 1941 was remanded to the trial Court by the learned Judge for determining the dry rate of rent payable...
Amaravathamma Vs. Chinna Venkat Reddi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-04-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Mad334
Krishnaswami Nayudu, J.1. The petitioner is the plaintiff in O. S. No. 53 of 1940 which was a suit for partition instituted in the Subordinate Judge's Court of Chittoor. The petitioner is the widow of one Anjaneyalu Reddi. She claimed one-third share of the joint family properties against her father-in-law defendant 1, defendant 2 who was her husband's minor brother and defendant 3, the mother of defendant 1. On 6th August 1940 a compromise decree was passed but defendant 2 being a minor the Court sanctioned the compromise. It was found later that the required certificate by the advocate as to the reasonableness of the compromise was not filed. A suit was filed on behalf of defendant 2 by his next friend for setting aside the compromise decree which is O. S. no. 44 of 1942 on the file of the same Court. In the plaint in that suit the present defendant 2 prayed for a declaration that the compromise decree in O. S. No. 63 of 1940 was invalid, inoperative and void and not binding on the p...
Penjuri Govindappa Vs. D- Chayyappa
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-04-1949
Reported in: (1949)2MLJ770
Viswanatha Sastri, J.1. These two second appeals arise out of two suits instituted by a landlord, one for rent and the other for acceptance of patta by the ryot. S.S. No. 1 of 1941, from which S. A. No. 1474 of 1946 arises was a suit by the landholder, an Inamdar, for recovery of rent for fasli 1349 instituted under Section 77 of the Madras Estates Land Act. S.S. No. 3 of 1943 from which S. A. No. 2113 arises was a suit instituted by the same landholder against the same ryot as in S. S. No. 1 of 1941 for enforecement of acceptance of patta by the ryot. There was a second appeal to this Court (S.A. No. 1033 of 1943) from S. S. No. 1 of 1941 in which it was held by Byers, J., that the landholder was not entitled to charge water cess in addition to the rent payable by the ryot, because the water that was used by the ryot was not the landholder's water but that of the Government. S. S. No. 1 of 1941 was remanded to the trial Court by the learned Judge for determining the dry rate of rent p...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›