Chennai Court April 1949 Judgments
Ponnammal Ammal Vs. Modern Stores, Through Partner Mahadeva Iyer and o ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-05-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Mad62
ORDERMack, J.1. Petitioner is defendant 2 in a small cause suit filed by the Modern Stores, Tirunelveli, to recover about Rs. 1400 in respect of cloth and other goods supplied to her brother defendant 3 Defendant 1 is the son of defendant 2. Defendant 3 who had a power of attorney from his sister according to the plaintiff shop, on the strength of this authority made those purchases for the marriage of his own daughter to defendant 1. In the suit defendants 2 and 3 endeavoured to evade liability, defendant 2 alleging that her brother had exceeded his powers and acted in these purchases for himself and so on. It is clear that subsequent to the marriage misunderstandings broke out between brother and sister which sought a solution in the present suit.2. This revision petition seeks to revise a rather curious finding pronounced by the learned District Munsif after plaintiff's evidence was completed as regards the admissibility of evidence relating to some private settlement of accounts as...
Tag this Judgment!Venneti Sundara Rama Rao Vs. Chamarti Satyanarayanamurthi Being Minor ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-05-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Mad74
Satyanarayana Rao, J. 1. The only question that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the adoption of defendant 2 by defendant 1 in valid The adoption was upheld by the Subordinate Judge and his decision was confirmed by Rajamannar J. (as he then was). The question received, if I may say so with respect, an exhaustive and careful consideration by the learned Judge in the judgment now under appeal; as I am agreeing with his decision, it is unnecessary to consider the question elaborately in this judgment. As the question raised, however, is of considerable importance and is not covered by any decision, I should like to state, in my own words, the reasons for my conclusion.2. Defendant 1's husband, the late Hari Govindorao, died on 14th November 1937. The plaintiff is his undivided brother. Both of them are the sons of one Veerabadra Raju, who was the son by the first wife of one Govinda Raju. Govinda Raju married a second wife, Bangaramma. It has been found that Govinda Raj...
Tag this Judgment!Ponnammal Ammal Vs. Modern Stores Through Partner Mahadeva Iyer and or ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-05-1949
Reported in: (1949)2MLJ142
Mack, J.1. Petitioner is the second defendant in a small cause suit filed by the Modern Stores, Tirunelveli, to recover about Rs. 1,400 in respect of cloth and other goods supplied to her brother the third defendant. The first defendant is the son of the second defendant. The third defendant who had a power of attorney from his sister according to the plaintiff-shop, on the strength of this authority made those purchases for the marriage of his own daughter, the first defendant. In the suit defendants 2 and 3 endeavoured to evade liability, second defendant alleging that her brother had exceeded his powers and acted in these purchases for himself and so on. It is clear that subsequent to the marriage misunderstandings broke out between brother and sister which sought a solution in the present suit.2. This revision petition seeks to revise a rather curious finding pronounced by the learned District Munsif after plaintiff's evidence was completed as regards the admissibility of evidence ...
Tag this Judgment!Venneti Sundara Rama Rao Vs. Chamarti Satyanarayanamurti Being Minor b ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-05-1949
Reported in: (1949)2MLJ199
Satyanarayana Rao, J.1. The only question that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the adoption of the second defendant by the first defendant is valid. The adoption was upheld by the Subordinate Judge and his decision was confirmed by Rajamannar, J. (as he then was). The question, received, if I may say so with respect, an exhaustive and careful consideration, by the learned Judge in the judgment now under appeal and as I am agreeing with his decision, it is unnecessary to consider the question elaborately in this judgment. As the question raised, however, is of considerable importance and is not covered by any decision, I should like to state, in my own wprds, the reasons for my conclusion. 2. The first defendant's husband, the late Hari Govindarao, died on the 14th of November, 1937. The plaintiff is his undivided brother. Both of them are the sons of one Veerabadra Raju, who was the son by the first wife of one Govinda Raju. Govinda Raju married a second wife Bangara...
Tag this Judgment!P. Ramiah and ors. Vs. Chief Secretary to the Government of Madras and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-05-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Mad100
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 the arrival, on 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 30th November 1948 orders of detention under Madras Act I [1] 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, Vellore. The grounds...
Tag this Judgment!Karra Lakshminarasimhayya Vs. Sri Mahant Prayag Dossjee Varu (Since De ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-04-1949
Reported in: (1949)2MLJ107
Mack, J.1. The petitioner is a teacher in the TT.D. High School, Tirupathi, drawing a salary of Rs. 52. On a decree obtained against him in a suit filed prior to Ist June, 1937, Rs. 7-8-0 of his salary was attached on a content order passed by the District Court of Chittoor in C.M.A. No. 35 of 1937 on 11th January, 1938. In an, execution petition filed in 1944 by the decree-holder the District Munsiff held that the salary of the judgment-debtor was attachable despite the Amending Act V of 1943 which repealed Act IX of 1937. Both Acts made very important exemptions from attachment in the case of all persons, whether public officers or not, drawing a salary of less than Rs. 100. Section 3 of the Act IX of 1937 made the amendments inapplicable to proceedings arising out of any suit instituted before Ist June, 1937. This Act was one of those repealed by the Repealing and Amending Act XXV of 1942, and a further Act, Act V of 1943, further amending Section 60, Civil Procedure Code, was subse...
Tag this Judgment!Kota Ananda Krishna Chetty Vs. M.K. and Company Alias Mahomed Kasim an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-04-1949
Reported in: (1949)2MLJ138
ORDERP.V. Rajamannar, C.J.1. The petitioner is admittedly the owner of a non-residential building in China Bazaar Road, and the respondent is his tenant. He applied to the Rent Controller, for an order of eviction on the ground that he required it for the purpose of carrying on his business as a diamond merchant. The respondent inter alia contended that the petitioner was in occupation of a building in. Neelakanta Mehta Street, Thyagarayanagar, where he was carrying on his business; and therefore he was not entitled to the relief he sought. The Second Additional Rent Controller, on the evidence, found that the petitioner was in occupation of a portion of a residential house in Thyagarayanagar, and that he bona fide' required the premises for his own business. He found, therefore, that the petitioner was not occupying a non-residential building for the purpose of the business which he was carrying on, and in accordance with Section 7(3)(a)(ii) of Madras Act. XV of 1946 he directed the r...
Tag this Judgment!Clement Aaron Vs. Kallat Pathanhara Veethil Chatu Nayar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-01-1949
Reported in: (1949)2MLJ106
Subba Rao, J.1. The only question in this revision is whether the petitioner who is a lessee for the purpose of constructing a smithy is a tenant within the meaning of the Malabar Tenancy Act. Under the document the respondent took pos-session of the land from the landlord for two years for the purpose of erecting a smithy agreeing to pay a rent of Rs. 6 per year in the paramba belonging to the landlord. The tenant is defined in the Malabar Tenancy Act under Clause (v) of Section 3 which reads as follows:'Tenant' means any person who has paid or has agreed to pay rent, or other consideration for his being allowed by another, to enjoy the land of the latter, and includes an intermediary, a kanomdar, a kuzhikanomdar, and a verumpattamdar of any description.The respondents in this case are clearly persons who agreed to pay rent for their, being allowed to enjoy the lands, and, therefore, prima facie, they are tenants within the meaning of clause .2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner ...
Tag this Judgment!Maria Pillai and anr. Vs. Muthukumaran and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-01-1949
Reported in: (1949)2MLJ104
Panchapakesa Ayyar, J.1. The appellants in this second appeal are the sons of one Kumaraswami Pillai and are aggrieved at the joint family properties in their hands being proceeded against for recovering the decree amount in O.S. No. 60 of 1932, on the file of the District Munsiff's Court Kallakurichi. That suit was filed against Kumaraswami Pillai, the father of the appellants, by one Ayya Pillai, an immediate endorsee of a promissory note executed in favour of Kumaraswami Pillai by someperson and endorsed by him for valuable consideration. The trial Court dismissed that suit; but, on appeal, a. decree was passed, in 1937, in favour of the plaintiff By that time, Kumaraswami had died. So, the decree was passed against the assets of the deceased Kumaraswami Pillai in the hands of his sons and grand sons, defendants 2 to.6 in the suit. The decree was sought to be executed by attaching and bringing to sale the join family properties in the hands of those defendants. The appellants, the t...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›