Chennai Court July 1949 Judgments
Korath Illath Vallappil Mammali Haji's son Kunheethu Vs. Vayyavinat Ma ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-19-1949
Reported in: (1949)2MLJ399
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) of the 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 Puthenveettil Thalasseri Veettil...
Tag this Judgment!Vempati Satyanarayana Murthy Vs. R. Krishna Iyer Alias Krishna Rao and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-18-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Mad593
ORDERPanchapakesa Ayyar, J.1. This petition raises an interesting question of law, namely, whether the right to recite sankalpams to such persons as bathe in the holy Pushkarani thirtham in Thirumalai Hills and want sankalpams will fall within the scope of Section 147, Criminal P. C., if there is a likelihood of the breach of the peace. The petitioner claims to have exercised that right exclusively since 1728 at least, and characterises the counter-petitioners as recent interlopers usurping his right. Once he and they are said to have fought over it. Later on, the counter petitioners are said to be taking to their heels whenever they see the petitioner and his men approach. The learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate initiated proceedings under Section 147, Criminal P. C., when asked to rescind the orders of the Sub-Magistrate refusing to pass orders under Section 144 Criminal P. C., and pass orders under Section 144, Criminal P. C., and then dropped the proceeding on the ground that the cou...
Tag this Judgment!Kotamsath Appanna Vs. Koppoju Appalaraju
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-15-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Mad49
ORDERPanchapakesa Ayyar, J.1. I have perused the entire records and heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor contra. Two Courts found the petitioner guilty under Section 406, Penal Code in respect of a gold jewel taken by him from P. W. 1, a goldsmith, on 18th April 1948 for showing it to his wife and placing an order for a similar jewel if she approved of it and failing to return it and retaining it with him towards some debts due to him by P. W. 1, and refusing to return it. He has been fined Rs. 150, and the entire fine is directed to be paid to P. W. 1 as compensation for the loss of the jewel.2. The learned counsel for the petitioner urged that the lower Courts should have believed the evidence of the D. Ws. and held the jewel to be his and made from gold supplied by him I cannot agree. The lower Courts were right in disbelieving these D. Ws.3. The next contention urged was that the petitioner has simply retained the jewel as security for his ...
Tag this Judgment!Subba Naicker Vs. Nallammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-15-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Mad192
Satyanarayana Rao, J.1. This is an appeal by defendant 1 against the preliminary decree for partition passed by the learned Subordinate Judge in O. S. No. 24 of 1943. It is unnecessary to set out the facts of the case elaborately and it will be sufficient to confine the facts in so far as they are relevant to the disposal of the contentions that have been raised in this appeal. Defendant 1 and one Krishnaswami Naicker were brothers being members of an undivided Hindu joint family. The family owned properties specified in the various schedules attached to the plaint. Krishnaswami Naicker died in June 1942 leaving behind him the plaintiff, his widow and an unmarried daughter, defendant 2. The widow instituted the present suit for partition and separate possession of a half share in the family properties basing her claim on the rights conferred upon her by the Hindu Women's Rights to Property Act, 1937. It has now been finally decided by the Federal Court that this Act as it then stood do...
Tag this Judgment!M. Jaswantmall Sowcar Vs. Collector of Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-15-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Mad201
Horwill, J.1. This is an application for leave to appeal to the Federal Court against our valuation of the petitioner's property under the Land Acquisition Act.2. Since the value of the subject-matter of the proposed appeal to the Federal Court is less than Rs. 10,000, the learned advocate for the petitioner bases his application on an important point or principle which he contends that we applied in fixing the value of the property and argues that this is a fit case for the issue of a certificate to appeal to the Federal Court under Section 109(c), Civil P. C.3. Section 54, Land Acquisition Act gave a right of appeal to the Privy Council under certain circumstances. The latter part of that section says :'An appeal shall lie to His Majesty in Council subject to the provisions contained in Section 110, Civil P. C., 1908, and in Order XLV thereof.'Section 110, Civil P. C. has reference only to Clauses (a) and (b) of Section 109, and not to Clause (c). The absence of any mention of Sectio...
Tag this Judgment!M. Jaswantmall Sowcar Vs. the Collector of Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-15-1949
Reported in: (1949)2MLJ556
Horwill, J.1. This is an application for leave to appeal to the Federal Court against our valuation of the petitioner's property under the Land Acquisition Act.2. Since the value of the subject-matter of the proposed appeal to the Federal Court is less than Rs. 10,000, the learned advocate for the petitioner bases his application on an important point or principle which he contends that we applied in fixing the value of the property and argues that this is a fit case for the issue of a certificate to appeal to the Federal Court under Section 109(c) of the Civil Procedure Code.3. Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act gave a right of appeal to the Privy Council under certain circumstances. The flatter part of that section says,an appeal shall lie to His Majesty in Council subject to the provisions contained in section no, Civil Procedure Code. 1908, and in Order 45, thereof.Section no of the Civil Procedure Code has reference only to Clauses (a) and (b) of Section 109 and not to Clause ...
Tag this Judgment!P. Venkatachala Udayan Vs. Executive Officer, Rasipuram Panchayat Boar ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-14-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Mad38
ORDERPanchapakesa Atyab, J.1. The petitioner, a ryot living within Rasipuram Panchayat limits, has been convicted under Sections 212 and 194 (1) (b), Madras Local Boards Act, 1920, for installing a five horse power motor and a pump set in R. S. No. 25/5 (Moolai well) in Koneripatti village within the Rasipuram Panchayat limits without having been granted a license by the Panchayat and has been fined Rs. 100. Mr. V. V. Srinivasa Aiyangar, for the petitioner, urged six reasons for quashing the conviction. I need consider only two of them as either of them ia enough to quash the conviction. The first is that S. 194(1) (b) will apply only to installations in premises for the purpose of industries and factories, the minor head under which this section comes, and will have no possible application to a pump installed in a field-well for irrigation purposes. The learned Crown Prosecutor agreed. On this ground alone the petitioner's conviction must be quashed. All the considerations of inconven...
Tag this Judgment!P. Venkatachala Udayan Vs. the Executive Officer, Rasipuram Panchayat ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-14-1949
Reported in: (1949)2MLJ263
ORDERPanchapakesa Ayyar, J.1. The petitioner, a ryot living within Rasipuram Panchayat limits, has been convicted under Sections 212 and 194 (1)(b) of the Madras Local Boards Act, 1920, for installing a five horse power motor and a pump set in R. S. No. 25/5 (MooLal well) in Koneripatti village within the Rasipuram Panchayat limits without having been granted a licence by the Panchayat and has been fined Rs. 100. Mr. V.V. Srinivasa Aiyangar, for the petitioner, urged six reasons for quashing the conviction.. I need consider only two of them as either of them is enough to quash the conviction. The first is that Section 194(1)(b) will apply only to installations in premises for the purpose of industries and factories, the minor head under which this section comes, and will have no possible application to a pump installed in a field-well for irrigation purposes. The learned Crown Prosecutor agreed. On this ground alone the petitioner's conviction must be quashed. All the considerations of...
Tag this Judgment!Ramaswami Pillai Vs. Sankara Mudaliar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-14-1949
Reported in: AIR1951Mad635
Subba Rao, J.1. This appeal raises some interesting points of law under the Madras Agriculturists' Relief Act, 1938 as amended by the Madras Act XXIII [23] of 1948. The facts are fully and accurately stated by the learned Subordinate Judge of Salem in his judgment and it is not necessary to restate them. It is enough if the material facts sufficient to appreciate, the contentions of the parties are briefly stated.2. Defendant 1, Arumugam Pillai, for himself and as guardian of his then minor son defendant 2 executed a mortgage deed in respect of the properties situate in Pandamangalam and Vangarai in favour of the plaintiff for a sum of Rs. 5000 carrying interest at ten per cent. per annum. Defendant 3 is defendant 1's after-born son. In I. P. no. 80 of 1933 on the file of the District Court of Salem defendant 1 was adjudged an insolvent and so the Official Receiver of Salem in whom his interest vested was added as defendant 4. The plaintiff instituted O. S. no. 50 of 1944 on the file o...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: C.V. Rajagopalachari
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-13-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Mad27
Panchapakesa Ayyar, J.1. This is an appeal by one Mr. C. V. Rajagopalachari who has been convicted by the Chief Presidency Magistrate under Section 18, Press (Emergency Powers) Act 1931 for having published an unauthorised 'news-sheet' entitled 'Save the country from the totalitarianism', which is a pamphlet or tract of four pages without any cover. Copies of this pamphlet or news-sheet, he sent to the Prime Minister of India, the President, Indian National Congress, and also, according to him, to every Minister o the Congress Government in Madras and every prominent Congressman, besides public men and institutions of standing; and also sent a copy to the 'Baltimore Sun', in the United States of America. He enclosed copies of a prior pamphlet ''Creed and Camouflage in Congress politics' when sending this second pamphlet. He has been sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 250 and, in default, to rigorous imprisonment for six weeks. After an elaborate discussion, the Chief Presidency Magistrate ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »