Chennai Court July 1949 Judgments
Guruswami Goundan and ors. Vs. Marappa Goundan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-22-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Mad140
Govinda Menon, J.1. These are connected appeals and can be disposed of by a common judgment. S. A. No. 486 of 1946 arises out of O. S. No. 398 of 1943 on the file of the Court of the District Munsif of Gobichettipalayam in which the appellants were defendants 1 to 5. Appellant 5 having died pending the second appeal, appellant 6 was brought on record as his legal representative, The appellants in S. A. No. 487 of 1946 which arises out of O. S. No. 119 of 1943-on the file of the same District Munsif's Court were plaintiffs and defendants 2 and 3 in that suit. The contesting respondent in both the second appeals is the same individual and he was the plaintiff in O. S. No. 398 of 1943 and defendant 1 in O. S. No. 119 of 1943. In order to-appreciate the contentions of the parties, it win, be convenient to set out the relation between them as shown in the plaint in 0. S. No. 898 of 1943 and set out in the judgment of the learned Sudbordinate Judge in para. 12 of his judgment AMMAVASAI GOUND...
Tag this Judgment!Gulam Rasool Saheb Vs. Hamida Bibi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-22-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Mad189
Satyanarayana Rao, J.1. This is an appeal against the order of the learned District Judge of Trichinopoly, who on appeal from the order of the Subordinate Judge allowed the plaintiff's application for removal of obstruction by the appellant in this civil miscellaneous second appeal and delivery of possession.2. The property in dispute and other properties belonged to one Haji Muhammad Ibrahim who died on 17th December 1912. After his death, there was a partition on 18th January 1916 between the two sons of Haji Muhammad, i. e., Peer Muhammad and Sulaiman and in that partition Peer Muhammad got for his share the suit property. On 23rd June 1921, Peer Muhammad settled the property now in dispute on his wife Rahiman Bibi. On 11th September 1922, Rahiman Bibi mortgaged the property to one Sikkandar, the father of the present appellant. In the year 1924, a suit for partition was filed by the two daughters of Haji Muhammad impleading the other sharers as defendants and Rahiman Bibi was imple...
Tag this Judgment!K.P.S. Thangaswamy Chettiyar Vs. A. Bapoo Sahib
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-22-1949
Reported in: (1949)2MLJ699
Balakrishna Ayyar, J.1. The property which forms the subject-matter of these proceedings is a shop in Big Bazaar Street, Tiruchirapalli town. The appellant who is the owner of the property applied to the Rent Controller for eviction of the respondent who was his tenant on the grounds that he required the shop for ' his own use, and that the tenant was in arrears with his rent. The Rent Controller recorded no finding on the question whether the landlord required the shop for his own use; but he found that the respondent was in arrear of rent for June 1947 and therefore passed an order evicting him from the premises. The appellant put the order in execution as soon as he could and actually took possession of the property on 22nd June, 1948. The tenant appealed to the Sub-Judge who reversed the order of the Rent Controller and dismissed the petition for eviction. That order was pronounced on the 25th of August, 1948. Mr. Vaidyanatha Aiyar for the appellant complained that the order made i...
Tag this Judgment!K.P.S. Thangaswamy Chettiar Vs. A. Bapoo Sahib
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-22-1949
Reported in: AIR1951Mad804
Balakrishna Ayyab, J.1. The property which forms the subject-matter of these proceedings is a shop in Big Bazzar Street, Tiruchirappalli town. The applt. who is the owner of the property applied to the Rent Controller for eviction of the resp. who was his tenant on the grounds that he required the shop for his own use, & that the tenant was in arrears with his rent. The Rent Controller recorded no finding on the question whether the landlord required the shop for his own use; but he found that the resp. was in arrear of rent for June 1947 & therefore passed an order evicting him from the premises. The applt. put the order in execution as soon as he could & actually took possession of the property on 22-6-1948. The tenant appealed to the Sub-Judge who reversed the order of the Rent Controller & dismissed the petns. for eviction. That order was pronounced on 25-8-1948. Mr. Vaidyanatha Ayyar for the applt. complained that the order made in the appeal was inequitable; but into that matter ...
Tag this Judgment!Public Prosecutor Vs. B. Nagamma
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-20-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Mad35
Panchapakesa Ayyar, J.1. The respondent was the accused in C. C. No. 890 of 1947 on the file of the Stationary Sub-Magistrate, Jammalmadugu, a case under Section 5(1) (d), Madras Food Adulteration Act, for sale of milk adulterated with water to an extent of 57 per cent. The Sub-Magistrate convicted the respondent and fined her Rs. 150.The Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Jammalmadugu, on appeal, held that the prosecution had not been instituted by the 'local executive officer' but by the executive officer, Jammalmadugu Panchayat Board, and acquitted her. The Government have filed an appeal against the acquittal.2. The learned Public Prosecutor urged that, under Section 16, Public Health Act, a District Health Officer must be deemed to be the local executive officer, and, under Section 3 of Madras Act III [3] of 1918 (the Madras Prevention of Adulteration Act), the District Health Officer, as local executive officer, can delegate his powers and duties under the Act (including his powers under...
Tag this Judgment!N.T. Palanisamy Chettiar Vs. Komara Chettiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-20-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Mad91
ORDERKrishnaswami Nayudu, J.1. The petitioner is the plaintiff in O. S. No. 116 of 1947 on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court of Coimbatore instituted by him for specific performance of an agreement to sell dated 23rd January 1944 executed by defendants 1 and 2. Defendant 3 is a subsequent purchaser of the property and has therefore been impleaded. The suit was filed on 22nd January 1947 and issues were settled on 28th August 1947, The respondents filed I. A. No. 1216 of 1948 for adding themselves as party defendants 4 to 9 and this application was made under Order 1, Rule 10, Civil P. C. The allegations in the affidavit in support of the application are that respondents 1 to 5 are the sons of defendant 1 and that respondent 6 is the son of defendant 2 that in respect of the suit properties they filed O. S. No. 265 of 1947 in the Sub-Court of Coimbatore alleging that the alienations by defendants 1 and 2 are not binding on them and for partition and possession of their separate ...
Tag this Judgment!The Public Prosecutor Vs. B. Nagamma
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-20-1949
Reported in: (1949)2MLJ405
Panchapakesa Ayyar, J.1. The respondent was the accused in C.C. No. 890 of 1947 on the-file of the Stationary Sub-Magistrate, Jammalmadugu, a case under Section 5(1)(d) of the Madras Food Adulteration Act, for sale of milk adulterated with water to-an extent of 57 per cent. The Sub-Magistrate convicted the respondent and fined her Rs. 150. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Jammalmadugu, on appeal, held that the prosecution had not been instituted by the 'local Executive Officer' but by the Executive Officer, Jammalmadugu Panchayat Board, and acquitted'; her. The Government have filed an appeal against the acquittal.2. The learned Public Prosecutor urged that under Section 16 of the Public Health Act, a District Health Officer must be deemed to be the local Executive Officer, and, under Section 3 of Madras Act III of 1918 (the Madras Prevention of Adulteration Act), the District Health Officer, as local Executive Officer, can delegate his powers and duties under the Act (including his powe...
Tag this Judgment!Azima Bi Vs. Zohara Bi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-20-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Mad190
ORDERKrishnaswami Nayudu, J.1. This civil revision petition raises the question of what is the proper court-fee payable on the suit plaint. The plaintiff is the petitioner and the suit is for partition in respect of her father's estate. Defendants 1 to 4. are the co-sharers and defendants 5 to 7 are the persons in possession of the suit property from whom the plaintiff seeks to recover possession on the ground that they are trespassers and are not entitled to the property. The plaintiff prays for a decree that the properties in the schedule to the plaint should be partitioned, and that she should be put in possession of her half share and also for mesne profits and costs of the suit. In para. 7 of the plaint it is stated that defendant 5 who claimed to be the owner of the property which is the subject-matter of the suit had a beneficial interest in it, the same having been purchased benami for him in the name of one Habibullah, the father of the petitioner. 2. Defendant 5 instituted O....
Tag this Judgment!N.T. Palanisamy Chettiar by Agent, V.D. Seetharama Mudaliar Vs. Komara ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-20-1949
Reported in: (1949)2MLJ568
Krishnaswami Nayudu, J.1. The petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S. No. 116 of 1947 on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court of Coimbatore instituted by him for specific performance of an agreement to sell dated 23rd January, 1944, executed by defendants 1 and 2. The 3rd defendant is a subsequent purchaser of the property and has therefore been impleaded. The suit was filed on the 22nd January, 1947 and issues were settled on the 28th August, 1947. The respondents filed I.A. No. 1216 of 1948 for adding themselves as party defendants 4 to 9 and this application was made under Order 1, Rule 10, Civil Procedure Code. The allegations in the affidavit in support of the application are that respondents 1 to 5 are the sons of the 1st defendant and that respondent 6 is the son of the 2nd defendant, that in respect of the suit properties they filed O.S. No. 265 of 1947 in the Sub-Court of Coimbatore alleging that the alienations by the 1st and 2nd defendants are not binding on them and for pa...
Tag this Judgment!Korath Illath Vallappil Mammadi Haji's son Kunheethu Vs. Vayyavinat Ma ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-19-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Mad24
Raghava Rao, J.1. On a careful scrutiny of the plaint, I am perfectly clear that the suit out of which this second appeal arises was one laid under Section 20 Clause (5), Malabar Tenancy Act. If, on the finding of the Courts below, the plaintiff failed to make out his right to evict on the allegations in the plaint made with reference to Clause (5) of Section 20 of the Act, the only course for the Court to adopt seems to be as conceded by Mr. Nambudiripad for the respondent to dismiss the suit. It will not, in such a case, be open to the plaintiff who has failed to make out the foundation for the suit with reference to the requirements of Clause (5) of Section 20, to fall back upon the consideration that two of the three requirements of Clause (5), which are the requirements of Clause (3), stand made out and that the suit must be dealt with as a suit under Clause (3) of Section 20 of the Act. So much has been ruled in this Court by the decision in Ammu Amma v. Kunnapadi Kalan Karnavan ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »