Chennai Court April 1949 Judgments
Vasavattula Sarabhamma Vs. Vasabattula Peda Veeranna and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-08-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Mad57
ORDERRaghava Rao, J.1. In this case I was at first inclined to think that the lower Court's order required a reversal; but on a careful comparison and contrast instituted by me between the allegations and reliefs of the plaint as originally filed in the District Munsif Court of Peddapuram and the allegations and reliefs of the plaint as presented to the Sub-Court at Coconada on return by the former Court, I am satisfied that there are substantial and material points of difference between the two plaints which preclude the application to the present case of the ruling of the Full Bench reported in Viswaswara Sarma v. T. M. Nair, 35 Mad. 567 : 10 I. C. 201 on which. strong reliance was placed by Mr. V. Suryanarayana the learned advocate for the petitioner.2. The question which arose, for decision in the Full Bench case was whether, where a Court after receiving a plaint and cancelling the stamp affixed thereto returns the plaint for presentation to the proper Court under Order 7, Rule 10...
Tag this Judgment!Herbert Richard Farrington Vs. D. Munisami and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-08-1949
Reported in: (1949)2MLJ143
Horwill, J.1. The facts as they would appear from the judgment of the Subodinate Judge of Ootacamund are that the third defendant had erected a hedge round his field and that, despite this protection, pigs had been entering the field and causing damage to the potato crop. In order to protect the crop against pigs, the third defendant had laid a number of traps round the perimeter of his field and near the traps' had cut open the hedge, presumably in order that pigs which came there with the intention of entering the field, would enter through these gaps rather than elsewhere, in which case they would be likely to fall into the traps. The plaintiff, a neighbour, kept a cow. There is no evidence that the defendants knew of the existence of the plaintiff's cow. One would have expected that the plaintiff would have known the existence of the gaps in the hedge, though there is no definite finding by the learned Subordinate Judge on that point. One morning, it was found that the plaintiff's ...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: M. Ganesan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-08-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Mad71
ORDERSomasundaram, J.1. The petitioner in this case has been convicted by the Chief Presidency Magistrate of offences under Section 338, Penal Code, and Section 116, Motor Vehicles Act, and sentenced to three months rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 338, Penal Code, and one month rigorous imprisonment under Section 116, Motor Vehicles Act, the sentences to run concurrently.2. The case relates to an accident which happened at about 11 A.M. on 22nd October 1947 and the facts are these. On the day of occurrence, a tram car proceeding towards Mylapore stopped at the tram stop opposite the Willington cinema. A bus, M. S. C. No. 8751, was also going towards Mylapore. The petitioner was the driver of that bus. A head constable who was traveling in the tram was trying to get down through the front left passage of the tram. As he was attempting to alight keeping his legs on the foot board, the rear right side body of the accused's bus dashed against the foot board of the tram ...
Tag this Judgment!Perla Sattayya Chetti Vs. Gandhi Venkataramanayya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-08-1949
Reported in: (1949)2MLJ258
Govinda Menon, J.1. This raises a question .of some importance regarding the practice and procedure observed in the lower Courts, though instances like the one in question are not of common occurrence.2. The plaintiff in O.S. No. 146 of 1943, on the file of the District Munsiff, Vizagapatam, is the appellant in the second appeal. He filed the suit, out of which this second appeal arises, in the first instance in the Court of the Subordinate Judge,. Vizagapatam, for the recovery from the defendant of 55 cents of land on the ground that the same was encroached upon by the defendant. The plaint was presented in the Court of the Subordinate Judge on 3rd February, 1942, by two petitioners, Messrs. C.V. Somayajulu and P. Gangadharam, with a properly executed and attested vakalat in their favour. The suit was numbered as O.S. No. 10 of 1942, in the usual course and summons was ordered to the defendant. The defendant who appeared contested that the suit has been overvalued for the purpose of p...
Tag this Judgment!Vasavattula Sarabhamma Vs. Vasavattula Peda Veeranna and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-08-1949
Reported in: (1949)2MLJ159
Raghava Rao, J.1. In this case I was at first inclined to think that the lower Court's order required a reversal ; but on a careful comparison and contrast instituted by me between the allegations and reliefs of the plaint as originally filed in the District Munsiff Court of Peddapuram and the allegations and reliefs of the plaint as presented to the Sub-Court at Cocanada on return by the former Court, I am, satisfied that there are substantial and material points of difference between the two plaints which preclude the application to the present case of the ruling of the Full Bench reported in Visweswara Sarma v. Nair I.L.R. (1911) 21 M.L. 35 Mad. 567 (F.B.) on which strong reliance was placed by Mr. V. Suryanarayana the learned advocate for the petitioner.2. The question which arose for decision in the Full Bench case was whether, where a Court after receiving a plaint and cancelling the stamp affixed thereto returns the plaint for presentation to the proper Court under Order 7, Rule...
Tag this Judgment!Perla Satteyya Chetti Vs. Grandhi Venkataramanayya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-08-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Mad119
Govinda Menon, J.1. This raises a question of some importance regarding the practice and procedure observed in the lower Courts, though, instances like the one in question are not of common occurrence.2. The plaintiff in O. S. No. 146 of 1943 on the file of the District Munsif, Vizagapatam, is the appellant in the second appeal. He filed the suit, out of which this second appeal arises, in the first instance in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Vizagapatam, for the recovery from the defendant of 55 cents of land on the ground that the same was encroached upon by the defendant. The plaint was presented in the Court of the Subordinate Judge on 3rd February 1942 by two practitioners, Messrs C. V. Somayajulu and P. Gangadharam, with a properly executed and attested vakalat in their favour. The suit was numbered as O. S. No. 10 of 1942 in the usual course and summons was ordered to the defendant. The defendant who appeared contested that the suit has been over-valued for the purpose of pe...
Tag this Judgment!Panangipalli Suryanarayanacharyulu and anr. Vs. Panangipalli Seshamma ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-06-1949
Reported in: (1949)2MLJ75
Subba Rao, J.1. This appeal raises an interesting point of law, namely, whether the right to Archakatvam' service is property within the meaning of Act XVIII of 1937, and whether from, and out of the family income of such property a maintenance holder is entitled to be maintained. The plaintiff's husband one, Gopala charyulu, was the hereditary archaka of Sri Madanagopalaswami Varu, enshrined in the village of Podagatlapalli and of Sri Venkateswaraswami Varu and Sri Kothandaramaswami Varu enshrined in the village of Vedireswaram. An extent of 32 acres and 75 cents comprised in items 2 to 10 of a schedule annexed to the plaint was in the enjoyment of the said Gopalacharyulu as Archaka service inam. Gopalacharyulu died on 1st January, 1940. The first defendant is his undivided son and the second defendant is the undivided son of the first defendant. On the death of Gopalacharyulu the first defendant has been enjoying the said archaka service inam and rendering archakatvam service persona...
Tag this Judgment!Velicheti Achutaramayya and ors. Vs. Velicheti Satyanarayana and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-06-1949
Reported in: (1949)2MLJ139
Govinda Menon, J.1. On 14th December, 1907, one Atchayya executed a will Exhibit D-1, by which he bequeathed his properties to his third wife Buchi Venkamma for her life and after her death to his three sons and the son of his predeceased eldest son in the following words:that after her death, my sons (1) Narasayya, (2) Chinna Venkayya, (3) Nagayya, (4) my eldest son the late Bapanna's son, Satyanarayana the male heirs surviving in their families shall divide this property in equal shares with reference to good and bad qualities and enjoy the same as of rights....On the date of the will Narasayya's sons, the present first and second defendants were alive. Chinna Venkayya's sons, defendants 3, 4 and 5 were also alive but none of them were mentioned in the will. On the 29th December; 1943, Buchi Venkamma died and thereafter the properties should have come into the possession of the legatees under the will.2. The suit out of which this second appeal arises was filed by Satyanarayana the s...
Tag this Judgment!Panangipalli Suryanarayanacharyulu and anr. Vs. Panagipalli Seshamma ( ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-06-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Mad103
Subba Rao, J.1. This appeal raises an interesting point of law, namely whether the right to Archakatyam service is property within the meaning of Act XVIII [18] of 1937 and whether from and out of the family income of such property a maintenance holder is entitled to be maintained. The plaintiff's husband, one Gopalacharyulu, was the hereditary archaka of Sri Madanagopalaswami Varu, enshrined in the village of Podagatlapalli and of Sri Venkateswaraswami Varu and Sri Kothandaraswami Varu enshrined in the village of Vedireswarim. An extent of 32 acres and 15 cents comprised in items 2 to 10 of Schedule A annexed to the plaint was in the enjoyment of the said Gopalacharyulu as Archaka service inam. Gopalacharyulu died on 1st January 1940. Defendant 1 is his undivided son and defendant 2 is the undivided son of defendant 1. On the death of Gopalacharyulu, defendant l has been enjoying the said archaka service inam and rendering archakatyam service personally in the temples of Venkateswaras...
Tag this Judgment!P. Ramiah and ors. Vs. the Chief Secretary to the Government of Madras ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-05-1949
Reported in: (1949)2MLJ61
Satyanarayana Rao, J.1. The applicants in all these applications are Indians- : who were living in Malaya for some years, and as they were engaged in, Malaya in Communist activities, the Malayan Government seems to have detained some of the important leaders under the Malayan Emergency Regulations. But as they are Indian nationals, the Malayan Government released them and repatriated them. The applicants along with others arrived in India by S.S. Vasna in. November, 1948. Immediately after their arrival, on the 19th November, 1948, they were arrested by the police in Madras and were detained in custody. They were later produced before the Commissioner of Police, Madras, who remanded; them for 9 days, and the period of remand was later extended by a further order. On the 30th November, 1948 orders of detention under Madras Act I of 1947 were passed by His Excellency the Governor of Madras under Section 2(1) of the Act directing the detention of the applicants in the Central Jail, Vellor...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »