Chennai Court April 1949 Judgments
In Re: Sheik Khader Sahib and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-20-1949
Reported in: (1949)2MLJ451
ORDERSomasundaram, 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, Cuddapah, for an offence under Section 411, Indian Penal Code. In appeal, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Cuddapah, 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. Venkatesan Chetti in Cuddapah Town. The Cirole 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 the 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 the 1st accused who was traced and arrested, on 18th December, 1946, and he made a statement in consequence of which M.Os.. 39 to 62,...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: K. Rajagopala Rao and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-20-1949
Reported in: (1949)2MLJ612
Satyanarayana Rao, J.1. These eleven applications raise common questions for consideration and also are based on facts which are common.2. On the 30th of January, 10,48, there was a rally of the members of the Rashtria Swayam Sevak Sangh at Vijayawada on which day Mahatma Gandhi died. On the next day, the 31st January, according to the grounds served on the detenus in these petitions, the petitioners and others conspired to attack the members of the Rashtria Swayam Sevak Sangh and in the various incidents that occurred that day, some members of that body were injured and a worker of the municipality was also killed. Some of the petitioners were arrested on the same day while others were arrested by the police on subsequent dates. A case was registered against 71 accused including the petitioners under various sections of the Indian Penal Code which was later numbered as P.R.C. No. 1 of 1048 on the file of the Stationary Sub-Magistrate of Vijayawada. The petitioners and the other accuse...
Tag this Judgment!Sreeman Madabusi Vadi Matheba Kanteeravam Satagoparamanujacharyulu Vs. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-19-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Mad88
Mack, J.1. This second appeal and these batches of civil revision petitions raise the same point for determination, namely, whether Medupalli Agraharam is an estate within the meaning of Section 3 (2), Estates Land Act. It has now two landlords who originally belonged to the same family, Venkatarangacharyulu and Ramanujacharyulu. S. A. No. 2235 of 1946 arises out of a suit for rent filed by the latter claiming nearly Rs. 585 as rent from three tenants. The District Munsif holding that Medupalli Agraharam was not an estate decreed the suit. The civil revision petitions arise out of batches of suits for ejectment by these landlords in which on a finding that this agraharam was an estate and that the tenants had occupancy rights, the plaints were returned for presentation to the Revenue Court. The learned Subordinate Judge of Ellore heard all the resulting appeals along with other batches of appeals arising out of two other villages, Pentapadu Agraharam and Devaracheruvu Kandrika in a com...
Tag this Judgment!Venkataswami Naidu and anr. Vs. Muniappa Mudaliar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-18-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Mad53
Govinda Menon, J.1. The learned Additional District Judge of Salem, disagreeing with the decision of the District Munsif of Sankaridrug at Salem, held in A. S. No. 395 of 1943 out of which this second appeal arises, that, Ex. P-1, dated 26th December 1931, related to the purchase of the suit property in the name of the plaintiffs' vendor not as benami for defendant 1 but in order to enure for the benefit of the plaintiffs' vendor himself. Exhibit P-1 was a sale-deed for a consideration of Rs. 800 executed by one Muthuswami Konar in favour of one Duraiswami Naidu, by which the property mentioned therein was sold with absolute rights to the latter. On 7th June 1941, Duraiswami Naidu sold the property purchased under Ex. P-1 to the plaintiffs for a sum of Rs. 1500. On the strength of this purchase under Ex. p-12, the plaintiffs brought the suit for a declaration of their title to the suit house and possession of the same with damages for past use and occupation from the defendants. Defend...
Tag this Judgment!C.V. Muni Samappa Vs. Kolala Gurunanjappa (Dead) and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-18-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Mad90
Bajamannar, C.J.1. This is an appeal by defendant 1 in O. S. No. 50 of 1944 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Anantapur against a decree granting specific performance of an agreement to sell executed by the appellant and respondent 2 (defendant 2) on 3rd July 1944. There is no dispute as to the execution of the agreement. The two defences in the lower Court were (1) that as there were four sons of defendant 1, he-could not convey anything more than his share and (2) that the breach was on the part of the plaintiff, as time was of the essence of the contract. The learned Subordinate Judge held that as the agreement did not make any reference to the sons of defendant 1 or the binding nature of the -alienation such pleas need not be gone into in this suit. He also held that time was not of the essence of the contract and the breach was by the defendants. He, therefore, held that the plaintiff was entitled to specific performance.2. The learned counsel for the appellant has pressed ...
Tag this Judgment!Puthiya Velappil Ayissama Vs. Chowakkaram Puthiya Purayil Bavachi Keyi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-14-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Mad61
ORDERMack, J.1. This revision petition arises out of a rather unusual suit filed by the petitioner, the widow of one Moidu Haji, who died on 1st January 1946 to recover from the two defendants a sum of as. 172-15-0, expenses incurred by her in defending a petition, R. C. P. No. 304 of 1946, before the House Rent Controller, instituted by the defendants. The defendants are Moidu Haji's 'grandmother and her son. They sought to evict the widow in those proceedings from a block of three shops. The learned Rent Controller Mr. K. K. Mathews dismissed their petition finding it to be both frivolous and vexatious, but he expressed himself unable to grant any compensation to the petitioner and other respondents impleaded before him as, by denying the title of the petitioner before him as landlord, they had removed themselves from the purview of Section 7 (5), Madras Act XV [15] of 1946. Instead of filing any appeal against the refusal to grant any compensation under this section, a remedy open t...
Tag this Judgment!Vemuri Parandhamiah Vs. R. Narasimha Rao and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-14-1949
Reported in: (1949)2MLJ147
Satyanarayana Rao, J.1. This is an appeal against the judgment of Bell, J., in a misfeasance proceedings under Section 235 of the Indian Companies Act directing that the appellant's Conduct as managing director of the company should be examined under Section 235 of the Act and that the conduct of the second respondent as official liquidator of the company now in voluntary liquidation should be similarly examined under the said section.2. Sri Vijayavada Motor Transport Company Limited was incorporated as a. private limited company under the Indian Companies Act on 17th November, 1944. On 26th November, 1944, the Board of Directors appointed the appellant as its managing director. The company commenced its business on 1st December, 1944, and the appellant continued as its managing director until 14th June, 1947. On that date, the company went into voluntary liquidation and the second respondent who was the resident of the board of directors was appointed liquidator. There were some prior...
Tag this Judgment!Puthiya Velappil Ayissamma Vs. Chowakkaram Puthiya Purayil Bavachi Key ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-14-1949
Reported in: (1949)2MLJ295
Mack, J.1. This revision petition arises out of a rather unusual suit filed by the petitioner, the widow of one Moidu Haji, who died on 1st January, 1946, to recover from the two defendants a sum of Rs. 172-15-0, expenses' incurred by her in defending a petition, R.C.P. No. 304 of 1946 before the House Rent Controller, instituted by the defendants. The defendants are Moidu Haji's grandmother and her son. They sought to evict the widow in those proceedings from a block of three shops. The learned Rent Controller Mr. K. K. Mathews dismissed their petition finding it to be both frivolous and vexatious, but he expressed himself unable to grant any compensation to the petitioner and other respondents impleaded before him as, by denying the title of the petitioner before him as landlord, they had removed themselves from the purview of Section 7(5) of the Madras; Act XV of 1946. Instead of filing any appeal against the refusal to grant any compensation under this section, a remedy open to the...
Tag this Judgment!Nalliboyina Ganga Bhavanamma and ors. Vs. Kethu Surayya and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-12-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Mad50
Mack, J.1. Petitioners are respondents 9, 13 and 15 to 19 in a petition filed by two brothers for permission to sue them in forma pauperis. They seek to revise an order passed by the District Munsif of Bezwada who allowed a review petition, I. A. No. 2522 of 1945, filed under Order 47, Rule 1, Civil P. C. which resulted in the pauper petition after having been rejected on 23rd June 1945 and ultimately dismissed on 21st July 1945 for failing to pay the requisite court-fee, being registered as a suit on payment of the court fee ultimately on 12th February 1946.2. It is regrettable that neither learned advocate was instructed about the nature of the suit and in consequence they have no notion whatsoever as regards the contemplated plaint, the alignment of parties or the cause of action. On referring to the original plaint, I find that the plaintiffs are two brothers who recently attained majority. The suit they contemplate is one to set aside a sale-deed in favour of defendant 8 of the ye...
Tag this Judgment!V.M.R. Malaiperumal Pillai Vs. the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative So ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-12-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Mad63
Rajamannar, C.J.1. These are two applications for the issue of a writ of certiorari and a writ of prohibition respectively and relate to certain proceedings commenced by the Triplicane Metal Workers' Co-operative Production and Sales Society in the following circumstances. The petitioner in the two petitions was the President of the Society. On 27th June 1947, the Society represented by its President filed before the Deputy Registrar, of Co-operative Societies, Madras, a claim for Rs. 8963-5-7 alleged to be due and owing to the Society by the petitioner. This claim was apparently made under Section 61, Madras Co-operative Societies Act, Act VI [6] of 1932, Sub-section (1) of which says that if any dispute touching the business of a registered society arises inter alia between the society and its officers, past and present, such dispute shall be referred to the Registrar for decision.2. Now, what should have happened under the provisions of Section 51 (2) read with Rule 15 of the Rules ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »