Chennai Court April 1949 Judgments
CaptaIn S. Sunkavally Vs. Singaraju Malaparaju
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-22-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Mad60
Mack, J.1. The appellant is the defendant, a medical practitioner, who from 1st April 1942 rented a house in Bezwada from the plaintiff, respondent at a rent of Rs. 50. There was at the time evacuation from Madras, where the defendant was in practice and also to a lesser extent from Bezwada owing to a war scare from Japanese military potentialities which led to a decrease in rents in both places. The appellant, in this house he rented in Bezwada, started a medical practice and a nursing home which he is said to be still carrying on. On 31st July 1948 his landlord filed Original Suit No. 580 of 1943 after notice to quit or pay enhanced rent of Rs. 140 a month, for ejectment and recovery of rent at this rate from 1st April 1942. The District Munsif of Bezwada dismissed the suit so far as it related to ejectment in view of Section 7(A) (1) and (2), House Rent Control Order, 1941, as amended in 1944 holding that it deprived him of jurisdiction to pass a decree for eviction. He however gave...
Tag this Judgment!C.M. Mathu Kutty Vs. Varee Kutty
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-22-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Mad64
Satyanarayana Rao, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff in O. S. No. 15 of 1946, Subordinate Judge's Court, Ottapalam, against the order of the learned Subordinate Judge staying the trial of the suit under Section 34, Arbitration Act, X [10] of 1940.2. The plaintiff and the defendant are brothers and are the sons of one Cheeran Mathu who died in February 1944. After the father's death, there were disputes between the brothers regarding the property left by the father and the suit for partition was instituted for division of the properties. The defendant filed an application under Section 34, Arbitration Act for stay of trial of the suit on the ground that there was an agreement between the parties to refer the disputes to five named arbitrators and that in pursuance of the agreement there was a reference to arbitrators. It was also alleged in the petition filed by the defendant that the parties filed detailed statements regarding the disputes before the arbitrators. The agreement to...
Tag this Judgment!Molugu Lakshminarasimhacharyulu and ors. Vs. Marisetti Ratnam and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-22-1949
Reported in: (1949)2MLJ235
ORDER1. Of the above applications C.M.Ps. Nos. 3752 to 3756 are applications for leave to appeal to His Majesty in Council against the common judgment and respective decrees in Letters Patent Appeals Nos. 55 to 59 of 1946. They must be now treated as applications for leave to appeal to the Federal Court. C.M.P. No. 3751 of 1947 is an application for the consolidation of the several appeals for purposes of pecuniary valuation, furnishing of security and deposit of printing charges and hearing. It is represented that the matter involved in C.M.P. No. 3756 has been settled.2. These petitions have been posted before a Full Bench for a decision on the main question arising from C.M.P. No. 3751 of 1947, namely, whether the several appeals could be consolidated for the purposes of pecuniary valuation. There is a further question if leave is eventually granted, whether the appeals could be consolidated even for purposes of security and deposit of printing and other charges provided in Order 45...
Tag this Judgment!The Revenue Divisional Officer Vs. S. Venkatarama Iyer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-22-1949
Reported in: (1949)2MLJ245
Raghava Rao, J.A claimant who had failed to mention the amount of his claim in the memorandum filed by him before the Collector in pursuance of the notice issued to him under Section 9 of the Indian Land Acquisition Act sought to make good the omission by presenting an application to the Judge under Section 25(3) praying that for the reasons stated in the affidavit filed therewith the Court may be pleased to allow that there was sufficient reason for the omission. The learned Subordinate Judge ordered the petition, and I am not prepared in revision to interfere. In ordering the petition, the learned Subordinate Judge however observed that it was the duty of the Revenue Divisional Officer, where a claimant failed to specify the amount of compensation, to draw his attention to the omission and require him to supply it. To this observation the learned Government pleader takes exception on the ground that there is no provision anywhere in the Act casting any such obligation on the officer....
Tag this Judgment!Revenue Divisional Officer Vs. S. Venkatarama Iyer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-22-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Mad97
ORDERRaghava Rao, J.1. A claimant who had failed to mention the amount of his claim in the memo filed by him before the Collector in pursuance of the notice issued to him under Section 9, Land Acquisition Act sought to make good the omission by presenting an application to the Judge under Section 25(3) praying that for the reasons stated in the affidavit filed therewith the Court may be pleased to allow that there was sufficient reason for the omission. The learned Subordinate Judge ordered the petition, and I am not prepared in revision to interfere. In ordering the petition, the learned Subordinate Judge, however, observed that it was the duty of the Revenue Divisional Officer, where a claimant failed to specify the amount of compensation, to draw his attention to the omission and require him to supply it. To this observation the learned Government Pleader takes exception on the ground that there is no provision anywhere in the Act casting any such obligation on the officer. The lear...
Tag this Judgment!Bysani Krishnaiya Chetty Vs. Dr. Varadachari
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-21-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Mad52
ORDERMack, J.1. These are applications by the appellant in C. C. C. A. No. 28 of 1947 who was the defendant in a suit in the City Civil Court to set aside the abatement of his appeal consequent to the death of the plaintiff on 8th May 1948 and to bring on record his legal representatives. These petitions were filed on 29th September 1948, one month and 22 days beyond the prescribed period of 90 days under Article 177, Limitation Act. The reason given for the delay is the appellant's ignorance of the plaintiff's death.2. An important point to be considered in condoning this delay under Section 5, Limitation Act is that the plaintiff filed a memorandum of objections in which he appeared by the learned advocate who now strenuously contests these petitions on behalf of his legal representatives. No report was made to the Court about the death of the plaintiff in connection with the cross-objections filed on which the Court was quite entitled to presume that the appellant was alive so long ...
Tag this Judgment!Bysani Krishniya Chetty Vs. Dr. Varadachari
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-21-1949
Reported in: (1949)2MLJ246
ORDERMack, J.1. These are applications by the appellant in C.C.C.A. No. 28 of 1947 who was the defendant in a suit in the City Civil Court to set aside the abatement of his appeal consequent to the death of the plaintiff on 8thMay, 1948 and to bring on record his legal representatives. These petitions were filed on. 29th- September, 1948, one month and 22 days beyond the prescribed period of 90 days under Article 177 of the Limitation Act. The reason given for the delay is the appellant's ignorance of the plaintiff's death.2. An important point to be considered in condoning this delay under Section 5, of the Limitation Act is that the plaintiff filed a memorandum of objections in which he appeared by the learned advocate who now strenuously contests these petitions on behalf of his legal representatives,- No report was made to the Court about the death of the plaintiff in connection with the cross-objections filed on which the Court was quite entitled to presume that the appellant was ...
Tag this Judgment!S.A. Seshadri Aiyangar Vs. Narayana Nair
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-20-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Mad106
Balakrishna Aiyar, J.1. This is an appeal from the order of the Principal Judge, City Civil Court, Madras, dismissing an execution petition, E. P. No. 1109 of 1946 on the file of his Court.2. The relevant facts are these : The property which forms the subject-matter of this controversy is a non-residential building in Besant Road, Triplicane. On 29th May 1946 the landlord obtained from the House Rent Controller appointed under the Madras House Rent Control Order of 1945, an order for the eviction of the tenant who was then in occupation of the premises. The tenant preferred an appeal to the Collector of Madras, which was dismissed on 15th July 1946. On 2nd August 1946 the landlord applied to the City Civil Court for execution of the order of eviction that had been made in his favour. On the very same day, namely, 2nd August 1946, the tenant presented a revision petition to the Government which he was entitled to do under the Madras House Rent Control Order. This order ceased to be in f...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Sheikh Khader Sahib and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-20-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Mad108
Somasundaram, J.1. Accused 3 and 1 are the petitioners respectively in the above cases. They were convicted and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for six months by the stationary Sub-Magistrate, Cuddappah, for an offence under Section 411, Penal Code. In appeal, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Cuddappah, confirmed the convictions and sentences.2. On 27th November 1946 between 7 and 8 P. M., there was a theft of gold and diamond jewels, cash and other properties of the value of about Rs. 10,000 in the house of one Rao Sahib K. Venkatesam Chetti in Cuddappah town. The Circle Inspector of Police on receipt of information, investigated the case. In the course of the investigation, he recovered M. OS. 1 to 4 from the tank bund on 28th November 1946. The next day he had the tank searched as a result of which he recovered M. OS. 5 to 38. He suspected accused 1 who was traced and arrested on 18th December 1946 and he made a statement in consequence of which M. OS. 39 to 62, 72 to 82, 85 and 86...
Tag this Judgment!Venktrapragada Viraraghava Rao and anr. Vs. Sri Rao Bahadur Mothey Nar ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-20-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Mad124
Horwill, J.1. The plaintiffs, who were the owners or lessees of a picture house, sued to evict from it the defendants, who were partners of defendant 3 in the conducting of the cinema business in the picture house. The defendants resisted the suit mainly on the ground that they were entitled under Act XV [15] of 1946 (The Madras Buildings Lease and Bent Control Act) to remain in possession since they satisfied the definition of 'tenants' found in Section 2 (4) of that Act. They had no lease deed in their favour; but they sought to support their claim by contending that by virtue of the partnership, they had entered into with the lessee (plaintiff 3) with the express consent of plaintiff 1, there was either an equitable assignment of the lease (EX. A-6) by plaintiff 3 in favour of the partnership of themselves and plaintiff 3 or that this lease in favour of plaintiff 3 must be regardedas a lease to the partnership. These and other points were considered by the learned District Judge and...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »