Chennai Court February 1949 Judgments
Chunduru Kanniah Gupta and anr. Vs. Pallamparthi Subbarami Reddi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-15-1949
Reported in: (1949)2MLJ390
Govinda Menon, J.1. Defendants 1 and 3 are the appellants in this second appeal. The plaintiff's suit was for specific performance of a contract, Exhibit P-2, dated 27th April, 1942, for sale of certain piece of land belonging to the joint family of defendants 1 and 2. This agreement though it was intended to be executed by both the defendants, was, in fact, signed only by the first defendant. The second defendant is alleged to have later entered into another agreement with the plaintiff, Exhibit P-I, dated 25th May, 1942, but the finding of the lower courts is that this is not a document which could be enforced as it has not been proved to be genuine. On the 6th August, 1942, defendants 1 and 2 sold the same property to the third defendant under Exhibit D-5 and the present suit for specific performance of the contract, Exhibit P-2, was filed, making the purchaser under Exhibit D-5 also a party.2. The trial court found that the entire document, Exhibit P-2, is unenforceable because, ac...
Tag this Judgment!Mohammed Yusuf Bannay Sahib and ors. Vs. Khadir Badsha Sahib and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-15-1949
Reported in: (1949)1MLJ503
ORDERPanchapagesa Sastri, J.1. These suits are posted before me for orders as to whether they can be transferred to the City Civil Court, Madras, under Section 16(2) of the Madras City Civil Court Act VII of 1892.2. In G.O. No. Ms. 4175 (Home) dated 11th November, 1948, the Government of Madras made the following notification:In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 3-A of the Madras City Civil Courts Act, 1892 (Central Act VII of 1892) and in supersession of Law (General) Department Notification No. a 16, dated the 22nd March, 1935, published at page 488 of Part I of the Fort St. George Gazette, dated the 26th March, 1935, His Excellency the Governor of Madras hereby invests with effect on and from 1st day of December, 1948, the Madras City Civil Court subject to the exceptions specified in Section 3 of the said Act, with jurisdiction to receive, try and dispose of all suits and other proceedings of a civil nature arising within the City of Madras and of value not exceeding ten ...
Tag this Judgment!T.C.A. Anandalwar Vs. the Second Judge, Court of Small Causes and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-15-1949
Reported in: (1949)1MLJ528
P.V. Rajamannar, C.J.1.These two applications for issue of writs of certiorari arise in respect of the same subject-matter, namely, Premises No. 118, China Bazaar Road, Madras. The petitioner is the landlord, the contesting respondent is the tenant. The petitioner filed two successive applications before the Rent Controller, Madras, for eviction. The first application was on the ground that the tenant had committed default in payment of rent for February, March and April, 1948. The other application was on the ground that the tenant had committed default in payment of rent for July August and September, 1948. The Rent Controller passed orders of eviction on both the applications, and there were two appeals to the Court of Small Causes. Both the appeals were allowed by the learned Third Judge of that Court, on practically the same reasoning. The landlord has filed the above two applications to quash the two orders of the learned Judge.2. It is sufficient to state the following facts for...
Tag this Judgment!Yajju Adinarayana Vs. Gurala Jagannadha Rao
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-15-1949
Reported in: (1949)1MLJ557
Viswanatha Sastri, J.1. The first defendant is the appellant in this second appeal On the 11th February, 1943, defendants 1 to 4, the owners of the suit property agreed to sell the same to the plaintiff for Rs. 380 under an agreement for sale marked as Ex P-1, On the date of the said agreement a sum of Rs. 50 was paid as advance and the balance was made payable at the time of the execution of the sale deed Time for performance was fixed at six months. Shortly after the agreement defendants 3 and 4 sold their moiety of the property to the fifth defendant' under Ex. D-2 dated x 11th March, 1943. On the same day, the fifth defendant purported to purchase from D.W. 2, in the case, a quarter share of the property under Ex D-I It is found by the lower appellate Court that D.W. 2 had no title to the and that the purchase by the fifth defendant was merely a make believe affair On 24th November, 1943, defendants 1 and 2 purported to sell a fourth share of the property to the fifth defendant. Th...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: N.R. Sreenivasan a Detenu in the Central Jail
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-14-1949
Reported in: 1950CriLJ183
Rajagopalan, J.1. The petitioner applies Under Section 491, Criminal P.C. for his release from detention. The petitioner was arrested and taken into judicial custody on 25th October 1947. He was charged in two cases with the commission of specific offences punishable under the Penal Code, namely, SSection 147,148,823, 426 and 452, Penal Code, He continued in such judicial custody apparently till 2lst March 1948. Some time before 21st March 1948 he applied for release on bail with reference to those specifia charges levelled against him under the Penal Code. Bail appears to have been granted by the Sessions Judge, but on what date it was granted we have not been told. Meanwhile, on 5th March 1948, an order was passed by the District Magistrate of Coimbatore Under Section 2 (1)(a) of Madras Act I [l] of 1947. The order ran :Whereas I...am satisfied that with respeot of N. E. Srinivasan...that he is acting in a manner prejudicial to the Public safety and with a view to preventing him from...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: N.R. Sreenivasan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-14-1949
Reported in: (1949)1MLJ581
Rajagopalan, J.1. The petitioner applies under Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for his release from detention. The petitioner was arrested and taken into judicial custody on 25th October, 1947. He was charged in two cases with the commission of specific offences punishable under the Penal Code, namely, Sections 147, 148, 323, 426 and 452 of the Indian Penal Code. He continued in such judicial custody apparently till 21st March, 1948. Some time before 21st March, 1948, he applied for release on bail with reference to those specific charges levelled against him under the Penal Code. Bail appears to have been granted by the Sessions Judge, but on what date it was granted we have not been told. Meanwhile, on 5th March, 1948, an order was passed by the District Magistrate of Coimbatore under Section 2(1)(a) of Madras Act I of 1947. The order ran:Whereas I * * * am satisfied that with respect of N.R. Sreenivasan * * * that he is acting in a manner prejudicial to the public safe...
Tag this Judgment!Puzhavakath Madathil Gopala Pattar's son Subramanya Iyer and Anr. Vs. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-11-1949
Reported in: (1949)2MLJ785
Viswanatha Sastry, J.1. In order to understand the contentions of the several parties in these two second appeals the earlier history of these-litigations has to be set out in brief outline. The suit of which these two second appeals arise was instituted as early as 12th February, 1937, by the plaintiff, the youngest of five brothers, against his elder brothers for a partition of the family properties some of which are situated in India and spine in Cochin State. The family was of a humble origin but later on, through the exertions of some of the brothers, acquired considerable landed properties. There was also a lucrative Coffee Hotel business carried on at Trichinopoly by some of the brothers. Misunderstandings arose between the brothers which resulted in a demand for partition by one of them On 8th September, 1936. All the brothers then met together and after some deliberation settled their disputes in a way. On 15th September, 1936, they entered into an agreement evidenced by Exhib...
Tag this Judgment!Alla Subba Reddi Vs. Vanga Koti Reddi and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-11-1949
Reported in: (1949)1MLJ425
Raghava Rao, J.1. I am of opinion that these civil revision petitions must fail. The point raised is one with reference to the power of the Court under Order 41, Rule 33, Civil Procedure Code, which the leaded Subordinate Judge of Tenali refused to exercise by his orders under revision.2. I shall state a few facts in order to make the legal position arising for decision clear. There were two suits each one of which was by different plaintiff against the same two defendants, for damages for malicious prosecution. It was alleged in the plaint in each suit that the two defendants had conspired to initiate a criminal prosecution. The cause of action alleged in each suit was, it may by taken, identical. The suits were decreed by the trial Court and two sets of appeals were taken to the appellate Court by each of the two defendants in the suit. One set of appeals. that is by the petitioner before me was dismissed for default and the C.M.A.s preferred to this Court against the order of refusa...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. Edward Mathuram and ors. Vs. G.T.S. Abdul Latiff Sahib and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-11-1949
Reported in: (1949)1MLJ447
Govinda Menon, J.1. When this petition was taken up for hearing it was noticed that the order of the lower Court is appealable under Order 43, Rule (1)(j) of the Civil Procedure Code and when that was discovered, Mr. Venugopalachari for the petitioner filed an application for leave to convert the civil revision petition into a civil miscellaneous appeal. As the civil revision petition itself was filed before the expiry of the period of limitation and as no question of bar of time arises and since the court-fee in the civil revision petition was more than what would have to be paid in a civil miscellaneous appeal, I allowed the petition and the civil revision petition was converted into a civil miscellaneous appeal, the jurisdictional value of which being below Rs. 5,000 it is permissible to have the civil miscellaneous appeal disposed of by a single Judge. It is on the basis that the proceedings before me are in the nature of a civil miscellaneous appeal that I dispose of the case now....
Tag this Judgment!Puzhavakkath Madathil Gopala Pattar's sons Subramanya Iyer and Anr. Vs ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-11-1949
Reported in: AIR1951Mad742
Viswanatha Sastri, J. 1. In order to understand the contentions of the several parties in these two second appeals the earlier history of this litigation has to be set out in brief outline. The suit out of which these second appeals arise was instituted as early as 12-2-1937 by the pltf. the youngest of 5 brothers, against his elder brothers for a partition of the family properties some of which are situated in India & some in Cochin State. The family was of a humble origin but later on, through the exertions of some of the brothers, acquired considerable landed properties. There was also a lucrative coffee hotel business carried on at Trichinopoly by some of the brothers. Misunderstandings arose between the brothers which resulted in a demand for partition by one of them on 8-9-1936. All the brothers then met together & after some deliberation settled their disputes in a way. On 15-9-1936 they entered into an agreement evidenced by Ex. XX to divide the properties in the manner set out...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »