Chennai Court February 1949 Judgments
Pydah Suryanarayanamurthy Vs. Pydah Ramakrishnayya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-23-1949
Reported in: (1949)1MLJ513
Mack, J.1. The petitioner was the first defendant in a suit for dissolution of partnership and accounts. A decree was passed against him to pay Rs. 52,958-15-4. In an appeal against this decree he tried to get away with court-fee on the appeal memorandum valued at Rs. 3,100 adopting the tentative valuation in the plaint. The appeal memorandum was objected to by the District Court office and ultimately the District Judge directed the appeal to be numbered. The Court-fee Examiner subsequently took objection to the valuation and the District Judge upholding his objection directed the appellant to pay a deficit court-fee of Rs. 1,522-7-0, ad valorem court-fee, on the decree he sought to avoid.2. Mr. Somasundaram concedes that the court-fee on the appeal memorandum is correct and in accordance with the Full Bench decision in Dhanukoti, In re (1938) 1 M.L.J. 638 : I.L.R. 1938 Mad. 598. The only point he takes is that under Section 12(1) of the Court-Fees Act the District Judge had given a de...
Tag this Judgment!Chunilal Vs. the Governor-general in Council as Representing G.i.P. Ra ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-23-1949
Reported in: (1949)1MLJ538
Mack, J.1. Appellant is the plaintiff; One Chunilal, who consigned by goods train a dealwood-box containing goods to Bombay on 12th May, 1945. The box was lost in transit. He sued the M. & S. M. and the G.I.P. Railways represented by the Governor-General in Council to recover the value of its contents, namely, Rs. 2,031-12-0. The Principal City Civil Judge gave him a decree only for Rs. 142 with proportionate costs against the G.I.P. Railway only, it not being disputed that it actually received the box in transit from the M. & S. M. Railway. The learned Judge found that the box in question actually contained the following articles as claimed by the plaintiff (1) two gross red-blue pencils worth Rs. 72, (2) 5 gross black lead pencils worth Rs. 70, (3) 20 gross swadeshi brass nibs worth Rs. 480, (4) 700 dozen sewing machine English needles worth Rs. 1,400, (5) 3 dozen playing cards worth Rs. 9-12-0. Plaintiff examined P.W. 2, the proprietor of the shop who supplied these goods to the pla...
Tag this Judgment!Narayanaswami Reddi and ors. Vs. Al. Vr. St. Veerappa Chettiar and anr ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-23-1949
Reported in: (1949)1MLJ656
Mack, J.1. The petitioners were respondents I to 4 in an application filed by the decree-holder under Order 21, Rule 97, Civil Procedure Code, impieading them as obstructors to his taking delivery. They out forward the position that it was barred by a previous application under the same provision of law E.A. No. 59 of 1946 filed in a previous execution petition E.P.R. No. 158 of 1945 which was dismissed as 'not pressed' on 17th March, 1947, and that the decree-holder's remedy was only by a suit within one year under Order 21, Rule 103, Civil Procedure Code. The District Munsiff negatived this contention and held that a fresh application for removal of obstruction, was maintainable.2. The short relevant facts are these. The obstruction the decree-holder encountered took place on 26th December, 1945. He filed E.A. No. 159 of 1946 against the present petitioners under Order 21, Rule 97 on 26th January, 1946. This execution application after several adjournments was dismissed as 'not press...
Tag this Judgment!Mahalingam Asari Vs. Lakshmana Reddiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-22-1949
Reported in: (1949)1MLJ612
Mack, J.1. The petitioner in both these revision petitions is a goldsmith of Thirukkarangudi village in Tirunelveli District. They raise for resolution an interesting conflict of decision between the Subordinate Judge of Tirunelveli in S.C.S. No. 92 of 1946, and the Village Panchayat Court of Kalakkad in a suit before them. On what appears precisely the same evidence they came to different findings of fact in the following curious circumstances.2. Lakshmana Reddiar, the respondent, it is common ground, gave this goldsmith a lump of gold weighing 15.9/4 kalanjis on 12th June, 1945, to make a pair of bangles for his daughter. This is also evidenced by a receipt admittedly signed by the goldsmith and produced from Lakshmana Reddiar's custody. Lakshmana Reddiar's case set out in a notice Ex. P-2, dated 20th June, 1946, was a demand on the goldsmith to make and deliver the bangles or to return the gold. This was countered by a reply, Ex. D-I, dated 28th June, 1946, by the goldsmith to the e...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Padmaraja Shetty and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-21-1949
Reported in: (1949)2MLJ428
Subba Rao, J.1. Accused 1 to 9 are the appellants. Accused 1 to 3 were convicted by the Sessions Judge of South Kanara under Section 302, Indian Penal Code and under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Code. The first accused was sentenced to death, and the other two accused to transportation for life. Accused 1, 2, 4 and 5 were convicted under Section 201 of the Code and' sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a term of three years each. Accused 3 and 6 to 9 were convicted of the same offence but sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a term of two years each.For a correct appreciation of the facts and the contentions of the parties the following genealogy may usefully be referred to: Seshappa |__________________________________| | |Padmavathi Marudevi Nemiraja Shetty. | | | Chandravathi=Ramanna Semitha________________ (deceased).| |Amirthavathi Padmaraja.2. The second accused is a brother of Ramanna Semitha. The third accused is the brother-in-law of the first accused. Accused 4 ...
Tag this Judgment!Padmaraja Shetty and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-21-1949
Reported in: AIR1951Mad746
Subba Rao, J. 1. Accused 1 to 9 are the applts. Accused 1 to 3 were convicted by the Ses J. of South Kanara under Section 302, I. P. C. & under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Code. Accused 1 was sentenced to death, & the other two accused to transportation for life. Accused 1, 2, 4 & 5 were convicted under Section 201 of the Code & sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a term of 3 years each. Accused 3 & 6 to 9 were convicted of the same offence but sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a term of two years each.2. For a correct appreciation of the facts & the contentions of the parties the following genealogy may usefully be referred to: SESHAPPA | ______________________________________________________________ | | | Padmavathi Marudevi Nemiraja Shetty | | | Chandravathi = Ramanna ________________________ Semitha (deceased) | | Amirthavathi Padmaraja3. Accused 2 is a brother of Ramanna Semitha. Accused 3 is the brother-in-law of accused 1. Accused 4 to a are connected with a...
Tag this Judgment!Salagrama Subramanyam and ors. Vs. Salagrama Narayanamma and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-21-1949
Reported in: (1949)1MLJ537
P.V. Rajamannar, C.J.1. Plaintiffs are the appellants. The first defendant's husband was their undivided brother who died leaving him surviving the first defendant his widow. The suit relates to certain lands, which according to the learned Subordinate Judge's finding which has not been challenged, have been and are being used as salt pans for producing salt under licences granted by the Government. The licences in respect of the suit lands were issued in the name of the plaintiffs. and the first defendant's husband; but on his death the licences were renewed in the name of the plaintiffs and the first defendant. The suit is for a declaration that the order of the Central Excise Collector dated 18th October, 1944, including the first defendant as joint owner of the suit property is illegal.2. The case of the plaintiffs rests entirely on the ground that the suit lands are agricultural lands in which the first defendant would not be entitled to any right under Act XVIII of 1937 because a...
Tag this Judgment!Koyithodi Amikutty Umma Vs. Viruthiyam Parambath Ramochen Nedungadi an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-19-1949
Reported in: (1949)1MLJ486
Panchapakesa Ayyar, J.1. There are two points for determination in this second appeal. The first is whether the lower appellate Court was right in holding that the petitioner, conceding that he is entitled to restitution of any amount owing to the-alleged variation of the decree in O.S. No. 256 of 1937 could get the decree transferred from the Parappanangudi District Munsiff Court, which passed the decree, to the District Munsiff's Court, Calicut, for getting such restitution. The second is whether in fact, the decree in O.S. No. 256 of 1937 against the appellant was varied, and he was entitled to restitution of the original decree amount which he-had deposited. The first is a question of law, and the other is a mixed question of law and fact.2. By consent of both sides the question of law has been argued here. I am unable to agree with the finding of the lower appellate Court that a person entitled to restitution, by virtue of a variation in the decree amount, due to scaling down unde...
Tag this Judgment!A. Unnooli Vs. M. Subramaniam and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-19-1949
Reported in: (1949)1MLJ527
Subba Rao, J.1. The respondents filed O.S. No. 1158 of 1946 on the file of the Court of the District Munsiff of Calicut for possession of the suit property. The 1st defendant is the usufructuary mortgagee. The second defendant is a lessee under the first defendant. The second defendant applied for stay of trial of the suit under Section 4(1) of Act XVII of 1946, but the learned District Munsiff dismissed the application on the ground that the first defendant was not a tenant within the meaning of the Act. The second defendant has preferred this revision petition.2. Subsequent to the filing of the revision petition a Bench of this Court held in Govindan Nair v. Appu Kutty Since reported in : (1949)1MLJ475 . (C.R.P. No. 1090 of 1947) that a usufructuary mortgagee is a tenant who is entitled to relief under Madras Act XVII of 1946. As this is a Bench decision I am bound by it. Mr. Ramakrishna Aiyar argued that even so the petitioner is not entitled to the relief, because he is only a subl...
Tag this Judgment!The Goripalayam Durga Through Its Present Manager, Sheik Ibrahim Sahib ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-18-1949
Reported in: (1949)2MLJ153
1. These four second anneals arise out of four suits, two of which were instituted by two ryots for the grant of patta under Section 55 of the Madras Estates Land Act for Fasli 1353 and two by the landholder against the same two ryots for arrears of rent due for fasli 1352 to fasli 1353 under Section 77 of that Act. The ryots were the appellants in all the four appeals preferred to the District Judge of Madura from whose decision the landholder has preferred these four second appeals. The main question which arose for determination in all these four suits and appeals was whether the landholder was entitled to levy a charge for water drawn by the ryots from the tank of the Landholders for cultivating dry lands comprised in their holdings with wet crops. It has been found by the learned District Judge that the solum of the tank vested in the landholder; that the water stored in the tank became his and that for water drawn form the tank by them, the ryots were liable to pay water rate to ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »