Chennai Court August 1949 Judgments
Salma Bi Vs. Mohammed Ebrahim Sahib
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-11-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Mad151
Mack, J.1. The petition raises an interesting question of the scope of Section 132, Civil P. C., and the extent to which purdanashin ladies and in particular Muslim ladies are exempt from personal appearance in Court. The learned District Munsif of Tanjore, Sri S. Natarajan, dismissed a petition by one Salma Bi who filed a suit in which she prayed for the divorce of her husband under Act IX [9] of 1939, for the examination of herself and some of her witnesses who like her were stated to be gosha ladies on commission. The District Munsif observed that every allegation which can possibly be put forth in a suit for divorce had been set forth in the plaint. The cogent reason he gave for dismissing the petition was that the Court would lose the valuable opportunity of personally hearing the evidence of the plaintiff and hen witnesses and watching their demeanour. The respondent who is the husband sought to be divorced makes no appearance on this petition.2. The learned advocate for the peti...
Tag this Judgment!Nishtala Subramanya Somayajulu Vs. Kannepalli Lakshmi Somi Devi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-11-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Mad210
Balakrishna Ayyar, J.1. The appellant is the brother of the respondent. Both of them are the children of one Anandaraya Sastry, who was a Sub-Inspector of Police and a subscriber to the General Provident Fund. He nominated his wife, Satyavathamma, to receive the amount standing to his credit in the Provident Fund in the event of his dying before the money was paid over to him, but Satyavathamma predeceased him. She died in August 1938, while Anandaraya Sastry survived till 8th March 1946. The appellant applied for a succession certificate in the Court of the District Judge of Vizagapatam. The respondent who is his sister opposed the application claiming that she was entitled to the money. The learned 'Judge dismissed the application of the appellant and directed that a succession certificate should be issued in favour of the respondent. Hence this appeal2. Note 2 to R. 17 of the Rules regulating the General Provident Fund as they stood in 1926 provided :'When a person named in a Form o...
Tag this Judgment!Nishtala Subrahmanya Somayajulu Vs. Kannepalli Lakshmi Somi Devi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-11-1949
Reported in: (1949)2MLJ635
Balakrishna Ayyar, J.1. The appellant is the brother of the respondent. Both of them are the children of one Anandaraya Sastri, who was a Sub-Inspector of Police and a subscriber to the General Provident Fund. He nominated his wife, Satyavathamma, to receive the amount standing to his credit in the provident fund in the event of his dying before the money was paid over to him; but Satyavathamma predeceased him. She died in August, 1938, while Anandaraya Sastri survived till 8th March, 1946. The appellant applied for a succession certificate in the Court of the District Judge of Vizagapatam. The respondent who is his sister opposed the application claiming that she was entitled to the money. The learned Judge dismissed the application of the appellant and directed that a succession certificate should be issued in favour of the respondent. Hence this appeal.2. Note 2 to Rule 17 of the rules regulating the General Provident Fund as they stood in 1926 provided,when a person named in a Form...
Tag this Judgment!The Public Prosecutor Vs. K. Sinnappa and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-11-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Mad767
Somasundaram, J.1. This is an appeal by the Public Prosecutor against the acquittal of the accused in 45 cases tried by the Stationary Sub-Magistrate, Alur.2. Forty-five cases were put up against 45 different accused for offences under the Prohibition Act. On 15th November 1947 there was a general raid by the officers of the Prohibition party as a result of which the several accused were put up for trial. The Magistrate tried these cases separately but at the defence stage clubbed them all together and finally acquitted them.3. It is contended by the Public Prosecutor that the clubbing together at the defence stage is illegal and on that main ground seeks to set aside the order of acquittal. The Magistrate should have made up his mind whether to try them all together or not before the commencement of the cases. Not having done so then it is not open to club these cases after the evidence of the witnesses were (sic) recorded and at the defence stage. The order of acquittal is therefore ...
Tag this Judgment!Yalavarthi Gopalakrishniah Chowdhary Vs. Raja Kamineni Bangaru Krishna ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-10-1949
Reported in: AIR1951Mad242; (1950)2MLJ247
Govinda Menon, J.1. This is an appeal against the dismissal of O. S. No. 62 of 1944 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Nellore on the ground that the suit was barred under Order 2, Rule 2, Civil P. C. as well as by limitation and further that even if there was no bar, the plaintiff cannot maintain the suit against the present Zamindar of Chundi in respect of the estate in his possession and that the debts contracted by the previous zamindar were not for purposes binding on the estate.2. In O. S. No. 106 of 1936 on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Nellore, the appellant claimed to recover a sum of Rs. 8031-4-9 under six headings of liability incurred by the defendant in that suit and which were payable to the appellant. They consisted of a sum of Rs. 2000 claimed as damages for wrongful dismissal of the appellant from his position as Dewan of the Chundi estate in accordance with a contract dated 31-12-1935. The second item was a sum of Rs. 1566-9-4 due to the appellant u...
Tag this Judgment!Rajammal Vs. the Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-10-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Mad185
ORDER1. The only point for determination in this application for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the order of the learned Chief Judge of the Court of Small Causes passed in a House Rent Appeal is when a fair rent is fixed under Section 4 of the Act whether the landlord is entitled to such fair rent when it is in excess of the rent which was being paid before such fixation from the date of the commencement of the Act or only from the date of the application for fixing the fair rent. There is no provision, it is admitted, in the Act itself directly dealing with this question. There is, however, provision in Section 6 (c) of the Act for refund or other adjustment of any sum paid by the tenant in excess of the fair rent whether before or after the commencement of the Act in respect of the use of the building after the commencement of the Act. But there is no similar provision giving right to the landlord to claim the difference between the fair rent fixed and the rent which was ...
Tag this Judgment!Veeramreddi Subbarami Reddi Alias Balakrishna Reddi Vs. Veeramreddi Sa ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-10-1949
Reported in: AIR1951Mad654
ORDERMack, J.1. The petitioner in Interlocutory Appln. No. 686 of 1948 in O. S. No. 112 of 1947 on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Nellore, is the widow of the plaintiff who died after filing a suit against his two sons, his brother and his son. He had two wives one of whom was the mother of defendant 1 and the petitioner who is the mother of defendant 2. On his death, the surviving widow applied to be added aa his legal representative and to continue the suit asking for the share to which she is, admittedly, entitled under the Hindu Women's Property Act.2. The learned Subordinate Judge quite rightly in my opinion allowed her petition to be added as her late husband's legal representative. The learned advocate for one of the sons opposes on the ground that the legal representatives of the deceased are his sons and that if the petitioner is added as a plaintiff the character of the suit will change. Under Order 22, Rule 3, Civil P. C., the legal representative of the deceased...
Tag this Judgment!M.K. Rajagopal Chettiar Vs. Razak Sahib Alias Abdur Razack
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-09-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Mad759
ORDERMack, J.1. The petitioner is a landlord who filed four suits for ejecting four tenants from huts built on a piece of vacant land in Washer, manpet. The tenants pleaded that they were entitled to protection under City Tenants Protection Act within one mouth of service of notice of the suit, filed petitions under Section 9, City Tenants Protection Act for an order that the landlord be directed to sell the laud to them for a price to be fixed by the Court in accordance with that section. The suits were dismissed as three months notice was not given under Section 11 of the Act upholding the contentions of the tenants that they were entitled to protection. At the time the suits were dismissed, the petitions of the tenants under Section 9 were pending. It was contended on behalf of the landlord that these petitions should have been merely dismissed as no order for ejectment had in fact been passed. The Registrar of the Small Causes Court has rightly in my opinion repelled this contentio...
Tag this Judgment!Govindanathan Vs. Anjaneya Pandithan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-09-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Mad760
Mack, J.1. Petitioner is respondent 1 in a petition by the two plaintiffs for permission to sue in forma, pauperis. The petition was resist-ed on the ground that the contemplated suit was bad for misjoinder of parties and causes of action. The learned Additional Subordinate Judge after finding that the would-be plaintiffs were paupers took the view that the suit was not bad for misjoinder and directed the plaint to be registered as a suit. No appearance hag been made by the respondents here despite personal service.2. The respondents are, the father, the would, be plaintiff 1 and his natural son, the would be plaintiff 2. They sued to recover the self acquired property of one Marimuthu Pandithar, who died in 1933, on the basis that he had adopted respondent 2 in 1925. Respondent 1 asks in the contemplated suits in the event of his natural son's adoption being negatived for recovery of possession on the ground that he is the nearest reversioner of a son Alanganathan, who was born to Mar...
Tag this Judgment!Koka Bhaskara Rao and ors. Vs. Tayi Hemalatamma and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-05-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Mad150
Horwili, J.1. In a court sale two persons bid jointly, and the sale was knocked down in their joint names. The judgment-debtors then filed an application under Order 21, Rule 90 to have the sale set aside on various grounds, and impleaded only one of the joint bidders. The Court dismissed the application on the ground that only one of the joint bidders had been impleaded.2. Mr. Kameswara Rao for the respondent agrees with the learned counsel for the appellants that the order of the learned District Judge cannot be sustained on that ground, The proviso to Order 21, Rule 92 (2) is to the effect that no order setting aside a sale shall be made unless notice of the application has been given to all persons affected thereby. It would follow from this that in a proper case a sale can be set aside it notice goes to all the persons affected, and that it is unnecessary under this proviso that all the persons affected should be formally impleaded. So it is clear that the learned District Judge's...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »