Chennai Court December 1949 Judgments
Kothandarama Reddiar Vs. Chokkammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-17-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Mad458
ORDERChandra Reddi, J.1. This civil revision petition raises a question relating to court-fee and jurisdiction, The suit which has given rise to this civil revision petition was instituted by the respondent herein for setting aside the compromise decree passed in O. S. No. 610 of 1944 on 13th December 1945. The short facts of the case leading up to this litigation may be stated. 2. The present respondent 1 filed O.S. No. 15 of 1927 on the file of the District Munsif of Madurantakam for recovering maintenance from the adoptive mother of the present petitioner and obtained a decree therein. In execution of that decree for maintenance the present respondent 1 brought the properties to sale and purchased them herself. Subsequently, the present petitioner filed O. S. No. 610 of 1944 for a declaration that the decree obtained in O. S. No. 15 of 1927 was not binding upon him for the reason that he was not impleaded as a party to that suit. That suit ultimately ended in a compromise decree und...
Tag this Judgment!Velu Padayachi Vs. Sivasooriam Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-16-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Mad444
Horwill, J.1. This civil revision petition has been referred to a Full Bench, because of a supposed deep cleavage of opinion in the decisions of this Court on the sole question of law that arises in this civil revision petition, i. e., whether a partner in a partnership entered into for the purpose of vending arrack can file a and for the balance due on settlement of accounts when only one of the partners has obtained a licence under the Abkari Act for the vending of arrack. It was found by the District Munsif that the suit did not contravene the provisions of the Madras Abkari Act (I [1] of 1886); and so he decreed the suit i for a sum of Rs. 56-19 9 with further interest at six per cent. per annum and costs. The matter came in revision under Section 25, Provincial Small Cause Courts Act before Subba Rao J. who in view of a conflict of opinion referred the matter to a Bench. When the matter came before Satyanarayana Rao and Govinda Menon JJ., many cases other than those cited before S...
Tag this Judgment!Marla Subrahmanyam Vs. Chelikani China Soorayya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-16-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Mad514
Rajamannar, C.J.1. I agree entirely with my brother Viswanatha Sastri J, both in his reasoning and in his conclusion. I only wish to add a few words about the decision of the Judicial Committee in Magniram Sitaram v. Kasturbhai Manibhai, 46 Bom. 481 : (A. I. R. (9) 1922 P. C. 163), because we made the reference to the Full Bench on account of certain observations in it which were understood in a particular way by the Division Bench in Govindu v. Venkatapathi, I. L. R. (1947) Mad. 105 : (A. I. R. (33) 1916 Mad. 427). In my opinion, that decision did not lay down any presumption of law which could be applied without reservation to the care of an alienation by a Hindu widow. The essential difference between an alienation by the trustee of a religious or charitable endowment and an alienation by a limited owner like a widow is that in the former case the alienation is either valid or invalid whereas in the latter case an alienation per se would not be invalid in so far as it is a transfer ...
Tag this Judgment!K.S. Perumal Mudaliar Vs. K. Ondipiliya Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-16-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Mad643
ORDERSomasundaram, J.1. Defendant 1 is the petitioner herein. The question involved in this revision is one under the Court-fees and Suits Valuation Act. The plaintiff filed the suit in the Sub-Court, Madura, for a mandatory injunction for the demolition of some structures made by the petitioner in a lane claimed to be common between the plaintiff and the defendants. The plaintiff valued the relief under Section 7(iv)(d), Court-fees Act at Rs. 3100 The defendant has taken objection to this valuation and contends that this has been deliberately overvalued for the purpose of filing this suit in the Sub-Court. The Subordinate Judge returned the plaint holding that the right of the plaintiff under Section 7(iv)(d) to value his claim at his discretion has been taken away by the notification issued by this High Court under Section 9, Suits Valuation Act, and relies for this purpose on the judgment of Krishnaswami Iyengar J., In re Ghosh Beevi, 1944 1 M. L. J. 340 : A. I. R. 1944 Mad. 406. He...
Tag this Judgment!Vummethala Rama Rao Vs. Mukta Appayya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-16-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Mad651
1. The question in these second appeals is whether the plaintiff is entitled to any and what trees on the suit holding. It is now conceded that the lands are situate in an estate under the amended definition introduced in 1936. The rights of parties are governed by Section 12, Estates Land Act. Section 12 Clause (1) as it now stands is as follows :'Subject to any rights which by custom or by contract in writing executed by the ryot before the passing of this Act are reserved to the landholder, every ryot shall have the tight to use, enjoy, cut down, carry away or otherwise dispose of all trees now in his holding and in the case of trees which after the passing of this Act may be planted by the ryot or which may naturally grow upon the holding, he shall have the light to use, enjoy, cut down, carry away or otherwise dispose of them notwithstanding any contract or custom to the contrary.'In the present case the finding is that all these trees have grown on the holding after 1st July 1908...
Tag this Judgment!The Coimbatore Kamala Mills Ltd., by Its Managing Agents, R.V. Lakshmi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-16-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Mad725
Rajamannar, C.J.1. The facts which led up to the suit out of which this appeal arises are not in dispute. Defendant 1 is a public limited company incorporated under the provisions of the Indian Companies Act. The plaintiff purchased from defendants 2 to 12, who were shareholders of the company, a total number of 172 shares and applied to the company to register the transfer of the shares in his name in the books of the company. On 9th January 1945, the company wrote to the plaintiff that the Board of Directors of the company had refused to register the shares purchased by the plaintiff in his name at a meeting held on 5th January 1945. The share certificates and the transfer deeds were therefore returned to the plaintiff On 19th January 1945 the plaintiff wrote to the company alleging that the Directors' refusal to register the transfers was arbitrary, unjust and opposed to law and gave them notice that unless they recognised the transits in his favour and registered them he would seek...
Tag this Judgment!R. Muniswani Goundar (Died) and anr. Vs. B.M. Shamanna Gouda and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-16-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Mad820; (1950)IIMLJ163
Subba Rao, J. 1. This is an appeal against the decree and judgment of the Court of the District Judge of North Arcot in O. S. No. 7 of 1945, a suit for specific performance of a contract of sale. The facts are rattier complicated, but it is necessary to give a resume for a correct appreciation of the contentious of the parties. One B. S. Muniswami Appa filed O. S. No. 125 of 1920 on the file of the District Court of C. and M. Station, Bangalore, to enforce his money claims against one China Muniswami Goundar and obtained a decree therein. The suit properties were brought to sale in execution of the decree and the decree-holder himself purchased the properties and took possession on 6th May 1924. Manioka Goundar, the son of China Muniswami Goundar preferred a claim in regard to his share in the suit properties. As the claim was allowed, Muniswami Appa filed O. S. No. 12 of 1924 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Vellore for a declaration that he was entitled to attach ...
Tag this Judgment!Periasami Kachirayar and ors. Vs. Varadappa Kachirayar (Died) and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-15-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Mad486
Raghava Rao, J.1. The question of law argued in this second appeal is whether the recital in a will that the property dealt with thereunder is the property of the testator is relevant evidence under the Evidence Act.2. Mr. Veeraraghavan contends that it is not, and relies on the decision in Satindra Kumar v. Krishna Kumari, 36 I. C. 882 : A. I. R. 1917 Cal. 805, a Bench decision of the Calcutta High Court. That case related to a suit for possession of land as Brahmottar in which there was a will produced by the predecessor-in-title of the plaintiff containing a recital of Brabmottar title. It was held that the will was inadmissible under Section 32(1) read with Section 13(a), (Evidence Act). There is to be found in that judgment no reasoning in support of the conclusion beyond what has just been stated.3. The learned counsel for the appellants seeks to justify that decision on the analogy of the decision in Gujjalal v. Fattehlal, 6 cal. 171: 6 C. L. R. 439 in which it was held that it ...
Tag this Judgment!Karumuri Surayya Vs. Thadepalli Pushpavalli Thayaramma and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-15-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Mad618
Chandra Redi, J.1. This civil revision petition raises a question of some importance regarding the interpretation of Order 9, Rule 13, Civil P. C. This petition is filed by the defendant seeking to revise the order of the District Judge who. confirmed the order of the District Munsif allowing his application to set aside an ex parte decree subject to certain conditions. 2. The petitioner filed C. M. P. No. 1014 of 1946 for setting aside an ex parte decree passed against him on 10th July 1946. The District Munsif allowed the application of the petitioner subject 'only to the condition that the costs of the suit and the mesne profits decreed were deposited into Court. The defendant who was aggrieved by that order preferred an appeal to the District Judge, Kistna, complaining that the conditions imposed were onerous. The District Judge dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order of the trial Court holding that the Munsif had a wide discretion in imposing such terms as he thought fit. 3. ...
Tag this Judgment!A.M. Mariappa Mudaliar Vs. the Governor General-In Council Owning the ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-15-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Mad700; (1950)IIMLJ27
Mack, J.1. The plaintiff, a piece goods merchant of Coimbatore with an office in Madras, sues the South Indian Railway for the recovery of Rs. 6981-10-0 as the value of three bales of sarees and cloths which were stolen from the Madras Beach Station goods shed.2. The admitted facts are these. On 29th May 1946 the plaintiff's clerk Rajagopalan (P. W. 1) consigned six bales through a cartman maistry one Pullayya P. W. 2 to be booked to Tuticorin. He placed these bales near the weighing machine in the goods shed without any formalities of booking being complied with. The nest morning the forwarding note, Ex. P-1, and the risk notes Exs. P-2 and P-3 were numbered and, entered by the railway gate clerk D. W. 1 in the gate book Ex. D-2 in which the forwarding note EX. P-1 was assigned a number 294. In the meantime one of the bales kept in the goods shed was stolen the previous night. Rather a belated complaint was made about this disappearance by Pullayya. Rajagopalan made a complaint (EX. P...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »