Chennai Court February 1949 Judgments
Kunda Chenchurama Reddi Vs. Chintalapalli Ademma
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-04-1949
Reported in: (1949)1MLJ428
Raghava Rao, J.1. The subject-matter of the suit out of which this second appeal arises is an extent of 40 cents of the southern 3 acres, 75 cents, belonging to the plaintiff in S. No. 240 of the Pottempavdu village of the total extent of 4 acres, 75 cents. Alleging trespass on the 40 cents somewhere about 1938 on the part of the defendant, the owner of S. No. 241 lying to the south of S. No. 240, the plaintiff sued to recover possession of the 40 cents and mesne profits thereon. According to the plaintiff, it became possible for the defendant to trespass, because he happened to have become the lessee of the plaintiff's property under Ex. D-2 for a term of seven years and could abuse his possession as such lessee so as to annex a portion of the leasehold to his own property. The plaintiff alleged also that out of 3 acres, 75 cents, an extent of 3 acres, 60 cents, was mentioned in Ex. D-2 as the subject-matter of the demise on account of the fraud which the defendant played. In answer t...
Tag this Judgment!Tiruchendur Sivathwaja Matam Through Huqdars and ors. Vs. Sami Bhattar ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-04-1949
Reported in: (1949)1MLJ448
Rajagopalan, J.1. The short point for determination was whether the brother's daughter or the brother's daughter's son was the preferential heir to the estate of the late Subbiah Bhattar. The Hindu Law of Inheritance (Amendment) Act (II of 1929) enumerates certain classes of heirs specifically and gives them a defined place in the order of preference for purposes of inheritance. It may be that the logic that underlay that statutory change in the order of inheritance may justifiably be extended to provide for propinquity and not sex as the deciding factor for establishing rights of inheritance; but the statutory provisions specifically enumerating specified classes of heirs cannot be extended in that manner by Courts. It is for the Legislature to decide whether a brother's daughter should be given precedence over a brother's daughter's son.2. Act II of 1929 as the basis of the appellants' claim does not avail. There can be no other legal basis either. The learned advocate for the appell...
Tag this Judgment!The Province of Madras Vs. the Firm of Kanigolla Sivalakshminarayana a ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-04-1949
Reported in: (1949)1MLJ530
Govinda Menon, J.1. The judgment which my learned brother is about to deliver, which I have, with advantage and pleasure read before-hand, deals with adequate particularity of detail the questions in issue and therefore I propose to add only a few words as regards the legal question arising in the case.2. Though fiscal statutes resembling the Madras General Sales Tax Act of 1939, had been in vogue in at least three of the Nations constituting the British Commonwealth before the enactment of the Act in question by the Madras Legislature, and General Sales Tax Acts were in force in about 25 States of the U. S. A. as well as in various European countries, our attention has not been drawn to any provision of an enactment similar to Section 8 of the Statute which we have to interpret. Such being the case, the decision on the point should rest solely on the interpretation of the words of the section unhampered and uninfluenced by any notions of things prevalent in other countries.3. A strict...
Tag this Judgment!Mulugu Nagamma Vs. Mudigonda Aghorapathi Sastri and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-03-1949
Reported in: (1949)1MLJ456
Panchapakesa Ayyar, J.1. This is an appeal against the judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge of Tenali in O.S. No. 16 of 1946. The facts were briefly these. The deceased father of the defendants sold eight items of property to the plaintiff's son on 14th August, 1916, for a sum of Rs. 3,000. The vendee got possession of the properties and enjoyed them. On 6th November, 1924. he executed a will in favour of his mother, the plaintiff, and died soon afterwards. Thereafter, the plaintiff enjoyed the properties. She sold item 8 and a portion of item 7 to strangers. At the time of the sale by the father of the defendants to the plaintiff's son, he had only one son, namely, the first defendant; the other defendants are sons subsequently born to him. The first defendant filed O.S. No. 42 of 1935, asking for a partition of his one-seventh share of all the family properties, including these eight items, impleading his father and the other defendants and also the plaintiff in O.S. No. 16 o...
Tag this Judgment!Hasan Badsha, Minor by His Father and Next Friend K. Mahomed Ghouse Sa ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-02-1949
Reported in: AIR1949Mad772
ORDERViswanatha Sastri, J.1. C.R.P. No. 650 of 1948: This revision petition is preferred against an order of the learned Judge of the City Civil Court, Madras, in I.A. No. 1209 of 1947 in O.S. No. 706 of 1946, declining to allow the plaintiff to amend his plaint by withdrawing certain allegations made in Para. 5. The suit was laid by plaintiff, a minor, acting through a next friend, for partitiou and possession of a half share in a certain house property, the defendant being entitled to the other half share. In pares. 5 and 6 of the plaint, it is distinctly averred that as a division by metes and bounds was not possible, the property might be directed to be sold under the Partition Act and the proceeds divided. In Para. 9 of the plaint the plaintiff prayed for a sale of the house under the Partition Act between the parties. It is recorded by the lower Court that when the suit was taken up for trial on 26th September 1947 both parties conceded that the property was incapable of being di...
Tag this Judgment!Nagireddi Pothuraju Vs. Missula Veera Venkata Satyanarayana
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-01-1949
Reported in: (1949)1MLJ420
Mack, J.1. This is a petition to revise an order passed by the Additional Subordinate Judge, Vizagapatam, directing the sale of a rice mill in open auction on an application filed by the respondent who was the plaintiff in a suit for dissolution of a partnership firm, whose only business was the running of this rice mill. The suit was filed in 1935 and first dismissed on the ground that the plaintiff was not a partner. The plaintiff, however, succeeded in an appeal, A.S. No. 43 of 1940 judgment in which was delivered in February, 1941. Since then, the matter is said to have been pending before a Commissioner appointed to take accounts. In 1948, the plaintiff applied for the sale of the mill, which is now under lease to a third party by the first defendant for Rs. 4,000 for a period of one ear. The first defendant claims to have purchased the interests of the other partners and to hold a preponderant interest in the mill amounting to a 4/5th share. The plaintiff's right to a 1/5th share...
Tag this Judgment!Ahmed Ali and Co. Vs. the Commissioner, Corporation of Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-01-1949
Reported in: (1949)1MLJ455
P.V. Rajamannar, C.J.1. This case comes up on a reference by the Court of Small Causes under Rule 17 of Schedule IV to the Madras City Municipal1 Act in an appeal filed to that Court against the decision of the Taxation Appeals Committee relating to the levy of property tax on premises No. 19, Angappa Naick Street, George Town, Madras, on the appellants. The material half years in question are the second half year 1945-46 and the first half year 1946-47. The demand for these two half years was made at the rate of Rs. 74-15-11 per half year on the basis of the annual valuation of the property at Rs. 864. The tax due for these two half years was paid in accordance with the demand on 28th February, 1946 and 7th August, 1946, respectively. Later on, the property tax assessment registers of the Corporation were amended and the annual valuation of the' pro-property was enhanced from Rs. 864 to Rs. 5,460. Thereafter the Corporation called upon the appellant to pay for the two half years afore...
Tag this Judgment!S. Rajam Ayyar Vs. Pavanambal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-01-1949
Reported in: (1949)1MLJ419
Mack, J.1. The simple point which arises in this petition is whether a revision. lies to the Court against an order passed by a Subordinate Judge appointed under Section 12(1) of Madras Act XV of 1946 as the appellate authority for purposes of the Act. In the present case the Subordinate Judge of Cuddalore reversed, in an appeal to him, an order passed by the House Rent Controller and directed the eviction of the petitioner. The point has already been clearly decided by two single Judges of this Court who were in agreement. Yahya Ali, J., in Abdul Wahid Sahib v. Abdul Khader Sahib : AIR1947Mad400 , held that District and Subordinate Judges appointed under Section 12 by notification were not Courts and that such a District or Subordinate Judge was a persona designata, not being a Court subordinate to the High Court. Taking this view, Yahya Ali, J., dismissed an application under Section 24 of the Civil Procedure Code for transfer of an appeal before the District Judge of Bellary to the ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›