Chennai Court July 1949 Judgments
In Re: A. Govindaswamy and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-29-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Mad31
ORDERPanchapakesa Ayyar, J.1. The petitioners have been sentenced under Section 75, City Police Act to undergo three weeks rigorous imprisonment each for behaving in a riotous, disorderly or indecent manner and have also been directed to execute bonds themselves for Rs. 50 each with one surety for Rs. 50 each for six months after release under Section 106, Criminal P. C. Mr. Mani, for the petitioners, urged that Section 75 would apply only to persons guilty of riotous, disorderly or indecent behaviour as a result of being drunk and not as here, without being drunk and in a perfectly sober mood. I cannot agree. Section 75 punishes both drunkards incapable of taking care of themselves, and people, guilty of riotous, disorderly or indecent behaviour in any public place, etc., like these petitioners. The petitioners abused in filthy and indecent language, the loyal workers and behaved in a riotous, disorderly and indecent fashion in a public place and were rightly convicted under Section 7...
Tag this Judgment!Saboora Bivi Ammal Vs. Julaika Bivi Ammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-29-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Mad144
Govinda Menon, J.1. The learned Subordinate Judge of Kumbakonam has construed the expression 'expenses of the commission' in Order XXVI, Rule 15, Civil P. C., as including the expenses to be defrayed by the opposite party to the one applying for the issue of a Commission for proceeding from the locality where the Court is situate to the place where the commissioner is to function. There is no direct authority on the point except the observations of my learned brother, Mack J. in Abdurahim Settu v. Muhammad Kesam Setti : (1948)2MLJ652 where the learned Judge observes that:'The 'expenses of the commission' can be made to include expenses of the other parties to the litigation and can in suitable cases be ordered to be deposited by the party at whose instance the commission was taken out.'It seems to me that this proposition has been very widely stated. The phrase 'expenses of the commission' in ordinary parlance would mean only what the Commissioner has to spend for summoning witnesses a...
Tag this Judgment!Thangaswami Pillai by Agent, Ganapathi Nadar Vs. Dhanabagyammal and or ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-29-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Mad155
ORDERKrishnaswami Nayudu, J.1. The point for decision in this revision petition is whether the court-fee paid by the plaintiff is correct. The plaintiff is the petitioner. The suit is for recovery of possession and the prayer in the plaint is that the plaintiff be put in possession of the 'undermentioned' properties through process of Court and free from the obstruction of the respondents. The suit is in respect of the properties of one Srinivasa Pillai. The plaintiff is the brother's son and defendant 1 is the widow. On 26th August 1911, Srinivasa Pillai executed a will, whereby he created a trust of his properties and, during the minority of the plaintiff, appointed defendant 1 and the mother of the plaintiff as joint testamentary guardians to manage the estate and to perform the trust. In execution of two money decrees obtained by defendant 11 against defendant 1 one in respect of a personal debt due by her and the other in respect of a debt due under a promissory note executed by t...
Tag this Judgment!Thangasami Pillai by Agent Ganapathi Nadar Vs. Dhanabagyammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-29-1949
Reported in: (1949)2MLJ565
Krishnaswami Nayudu, J.1. The point for decision in this revision petition is whether the Court-fee paid by the plaintiff is correct. The plaintiff is the petitioner. The suit is for recovery of possession and the prayer in the plaint is that the plaintiff be put in possession of the ' undermentioned ' properties through process of Court and free from the obstruction of the respondents. The suit is in respect of the properties of one Srinivasa Pillai. The plaintiff is the brother's son and the first defendant is the widow. On 26th August, 1911, Srinivasa Pillai executed a will, whereby he created a trust of his properties and, during the minority of the plaintiff, appointed the first defendant and the mother of the plaintiff as joint testamentary guardians to manage the estate and to perform the trust. In execution of two money decrees obtained by the nth defendant against the first defendant one in respect of a personal debt due by her and the other in respect of a debt due under a pr...
Tag this Judgment!Kallampudi Narayanappa Vs. Kaligotla Suryanarayana and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-27-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Mad46
ORDERKrishnaswami Nayudu, J.1. The petitioner in this revision petition is defendant 1 in O. S. No. 85 of 1948 on the file of the District Munsif's Court, Yellamanchilli, instituted for redemption of two usufructuary mortgages executed by defendant 2 in favour of defendant 1. The plaintiff claimed to be the purchaser of the properties subject to two mortgages having purchased the same from defendant 2. Defendant 2, mortgagor filed a written statement in person on 7th July 1948. Defendant 1's contention is that in pursuance of an agreement of sale executed by defendant 2 in his favour agreeing to sell the property he came into possession of the property and that by virtue of Section 53A, T. P. Act his title to the pro. perty had been perfected and that the plaintiff is not entitled to redeem the properties. Defendant 2 in his statement filed on 7th July 1948 which was filed in person had stated that he had executed on 25th December 1945 an agreement to sell on a stamped paper and had ta...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Varadadesikachariar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-27-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Mad93
ORDERPanchapakesa Ayyar, J.1. This is a petition by one Varadadesikachari to set aside his convictions under Section 161, Penal Code (in respect of two counts) by the Sub divisional Magistrate, Tiruvallur, confirmed by the Sessions Judge of Chingleput on appeal. The facts are briefly these :2. The petitioner, Varadadesikachari, aged 42, was living in Royapuram and was working as a Clerical Supervisor, Control Office, Return Stores Depot, Alamadhi on a daily wage of Rs. 4.8.0. The workshop of the Return Stores Depot, Alamadhi, was under the control of a European Officer by name Lt. C. J. Wince, who has been demobilised and has returned to England now. The petitioner used to put up papers for orders, to Lt. Wince and was, in the eyes of illiterate coolies, like P. Ws 3 to 9, a man of great influence with that officer. Lt. Wince received an anonymous petition against the petitioner which finally started the enquiry against the petitioner. The sum and substance of the charges against the p...
Tag this Judgment!M. Sundararajalu Naidu Vs. Natesa Mudaliar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-27-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Mad154
ORDERKrishnaswami Nayudu, J.1. This revision petition arises in execution proceedings. The petitioner who is the decree-holder in S. C. S. No. 173 of 1947 filed the said suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 148-7-0 due on a promissory note dated 29th March 1944 executed by one Ramiah Mudaliar, the undivided son of defendant 1 and brother of defendants 2 to 5 and father of defendants 6 to 8, for the benefit of the joint Hindu family consisting of himself and the defendants, in his capacity as the managing member of the family. Defendant 1, the father, raised a plea that there was an oral partition by division in status in 1929 and that the estate in his hands was not liable. The learned District Munsif passed a decree directing the defendants to pay Rs. 145-10-0 with interest and costs out of the properties and assets of Ramiah Mudaliar in their hand. The petitioner filed E. P. No. 8 of 1949 for attachment of the standing crops and by an interim order the standing crops on the lands were a...
Tag this Judgment!M. Sundararajulu Naidu Vs. Natesa Mudaliar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-27-1949
Reported in: (1949)2MLJ593
Krishnaswami Nayudu, J.1. This revision petition, arises in execution proceedings. The petitioner who is the decree-holder in S. C. S. No. 173 of 1947 filed the said suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 148-7-0 due on a promissory note dated 29th March, 1944, executed by one Ramiah Mudaliar, the undivided son of the first defendant and brother of defendants 2 to 5 and father of defendants 6 to 8, for the benefit of the joint Hindu family consisting of himself and the defendants, in his capacity as the managing member of the family. The first defendant, the father, raised a plea that there was an oral partition by division in status in 1929 and that the estate in his hands was not liable. The learned District Munsiff passed a decree directing the defendants to pay Rs. 145-10-0 with interest and costs out of the properties and assets of Ramiah Mudaliar in their hands. The petitioner filed E.P. No. 8 of 1949 for attachment of the standing crops and by an interim order the standing craps on t...
Tag this Judgment!C.T. Ramanathan Chettiar Vs. A.R.L.N.L.N. Ramanathan Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-27-1949
Reported in: (1949)2MLJ751
Viswanatha Sastri, J.1.The plaintiff appeals against the decree of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Devakottai, dismissing his suit for declaration of his title to a quarter share of a large residential house in Devakottai and for setting aside an adverse order of the Subordinate Judge dated 26th March, 1943, in E.A. No. 510 of 1942. This litigation has had an antecedent history to which a brief reference is necessary in order to appreciate the contentions in this appeal.2. The parties to the suit belong to the Nattukottai Chettiar community. Ramanathan Chettiar the grandfather of the plaintiff was an affluent person owning considerable property and a money-lending business conducted through agents in several places in South India' and also in Rangoon and Saigon, with the vilasam of ' RM. M. ST. ' There was a branch of the business at Madras which received deposits, lent out monies and cashed hundies. Ramanathan Chettiar died leaving two sons, Chidambaram Chettiar and Vairavan Che...
Tag this Judgment!Bammidi Nagula Vs. Bhanoji Row
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-26-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Mad123
ORDERKrishnaswami Nayudu, J.1. This is a revision petition against the order dismissing the election petition filed by the petitioner before Sri. T. Srirangam Naidu who was the Subordinate Judge of Vizagapatam and Election Commissioner. The petition was filed for a declaration that the election of the respondent was void and for a declaration that the petitioner had been duly elected. The grounds on which the petition was filed were, (1) that the respondent was disqualified for election as Councillor under Clause (2) of Section 49, Madras District Municipalities Act, inasmuch as he is a partner and director of the General Engineering and Trading Corporation Ltd., Vizagapatam, interested in a subsisting contract with the Municipal Council, Vizagapatam; (2) that he was also disqualified under Section 49 (2), Madras District Municipalities Act since the respondent being a hereditary member of the Managing Committee of the Mrs. A. V. N. College is the Official Superior of the Sitting Counc...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »