Chennai Court September 1949 Judgments
In Re: Thammineni Santhanamma and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-28-1949
Reported in: (1956)2MLJ74
ORDERMack, J.1. Notice is not necessary on this petition, the point involved being one between the Court and four women accused. A private complaint was laid against them and their husbands under Sections 147 and 352, Indian Penal Code. The Magistrate dismissed an application for the women to be represented by their husbands at the trial under Rule 82 of the Criminal Rules of Practice. His order is prima facie erroneous. One reason he gives is that this rule cannot be construed to abrogate the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code by which he presumably meant Section 205(1), Criminal Procedure Code. Rule 82 merely amplifies and explains Section 205(1), Criminal Procedure Code and a Court should under this 'as a rule where there are more accused than one' permit any one to appear plead or act for such other in any criminal proceeding. The present case is one eminently suitable for the application of this rule. The petitioners are permitted to appear at the adjournments of this case ...
Tag this Judgment!S. Raja Ghetty and ors. Vs. Jagannathadas Govindas and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-16-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Mad284
Rajamannar, C.J.1. This is an application for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the order of the Second Judge, Small Clauses Court, Madras, sitting as the appellate authority made by him on 16th August 1949 in H. R. A. No. 1077 of 1949 setting aside the order of the Rent Controller dated 2nd August 1949 and directing eviction of the petitioner from the premises described as 'Maharani Talkies'.2. By a registered deed dated 15th November 1948 executed by and between the petitioners and respondents 1 to 3, the respondents as lessors demised to the petitioners as lessees the cinema theatre known as 'Maharani Theatre or Maharani Talkies', Madras, situated in Washerman pet. What was demised is thus described in the indenture: ''All the piece of ground with the new cinema theatre including the buildings and stall erected thereon known as 'Maharani Theatre' or 'Maharani Talkies' . . . together with all easements and appurtenances whatsoever thereunto belonging and also all the fixture...
Tag this Judgment!Rasa Goundan and anr. Vs. Ramai Goundan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-16-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Mad276
Raghava Rao, J.1. Within six months of an order of the District Collector dismissing as with-drawn an appeal preferred by the respondent before me against an order of the Collector acting under Section 44 B, Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act holding that the inam in question consisted only of the melwaram, the respondent filed the suit out of which this second appeal arises for a declaration that the inam constituted of both the melwaram and the kudiwaram. The appellant before me as defendants in the suit contended inter alia as follows in paragraph (6) of their written statement: 'The plaintiff filed an appeal before the District. Col' lector, Coimbatore, but did not press the appeal. Therefore there was no judicial order by the District Collector on the appeal petition as contemplated by Section 44-B (2) (d) (ii) of the said Act find the plaintiff had no reasons to be aggrieved and therefore, the suit is barred by limitation since he cannot rely on the order of the District Colle...
Tag this Judgment!Jagadambal Vs. Saraswathi Ammal and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-16-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Mad303
Subba Rao, J.1. The question that arises in this appeal is whether in the case of competition between a dasi daughter and married daughters to succeed to the estate of her mother, the former would exclude the latter.2. The relevant facts necessary for appreciating the question of law raised in this case may be stated. The following pedigree may usefully be referred to.AMMANI AMMAL|-------------------------------------------------------------| | | |Muthulakshmi Thulasi Kumudam Mangalam|Thangathammal (died 25-7-1943)|--------------------------------------------------------- | | |Saraswati (1st Deft.) Jagadambal (Plff.) Meenambal (2nd deft.)The members of the family belong to the dasi or dancing girls community. Thangathammal was a dasi and in accordance with custom, she had bottu tied in a temple. Saraawathi defendant 1, also had bottu tied in the temple. But Jagadam bal and Meenambal got married. Thangath ammal died intestate on 25th July 1943 possessed of property. On her death, the pl...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Balakrishna Ayyar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-16-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Mad753
Horwill, J.1. The plaintiff's case was that he was a co-owner with the defendant of certain properties which his co-owners leased to him, and so was entitled to exclusive enjoyment. While in this exclusive enjoyment he was disturbed in his possession by the defendants. He filed a petition under Section 145, Criminal P. C., and as a result of the enquiry the Magistrate was unable o say who was in possession. He therefore attached the property and put it in the possession of the local Tahsildar, directing the parties to file a civil suit. Instead of filing a regular suit, the plaintiff filed a suit under Section 9, Specific Relief Act within six months of the date when, according to him, he was dispossessed by the defendants. That suit has been allowed.2. Two questions arose for decision. One was whether in view of Section 145, Criminal P. C. proceedings, a suit under Section 9, Specific Relief Act was maintainable and (2) whether a suit will lie by one co-owner for possession against ot...
Tag this Judgment!Thalluri Lakshminarasayya Vs. Narella Appalaswami and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-16-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Mad756
Mack, J.1. The petitioner is a decree-holder who on 3rd August 1946 filed an execution petition to enforce a bond against a surety who had executed a bond under Section 55, Civil P. C. on behalf of the judgment-debtor on 28th December 1942. The judgment-debtor had been arrested in execution and been produced in Court when on security being furnished he was released. In the bond the surety undertook to pay the entire decretal amount if the judgment-debtor did not file an insolvency petition within a month and did not prosecute it; or if he failed to produce the judgment-debtor whenever called upon. The insolvency petition was dismissed for non deposit of gazette notification charges on 13th September 1943. The learned District Munsif held that this execution against the surety was time barred on the very curious ground that as execution was barred against the judgment-debtor himself, it was barred against the surety also. It appears to have been conceded quite wrongly before the learned...
Tag this Judgment!Shah Shantilal and Co. Vs. T.E. Shiborwalla
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-15-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Mad282
Chandra Reddi, J.1. This is a revision petition filed by the defendant against the order of the Second Judge of the Court of Small Causes, Madras, dismissing an application to set aside an ex parte decree passed on 26th August 1948. The plaintiff filed a suit against the defendant residing in Bombay for recovering a sum of Rs. 636 being the amount due to him in respect of goods sold and delivered to the defendant. The suit stood posted to 4th August 1948 for hearing, and summons was taken out by the plaintiff but it was not served on the defendant till 2nd August 1948. On that date the defendant seems to have sent a telegram to the office of the Registrar of the Court of Small Causes, requesting the Court to grant him time; but this does not seem to have been brought to the notice of the Court on 4th August 1948 to which date the ease was fixed for hearing. Since the summons was not returned, it was directed that substituted service should be effected upon the defendant, and the case w...
Tag this Judgment!Kanumarla Polamma (Died) and ors. Vs. Dandaga Sooramma and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-15-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Mad301
Mack, J.1. The facts of this case are rather unusual. The petitioner is the plaintiff who sued her mother as defendant 1, her sister as defendant 2 and her sister's husband as defendant 3 to recover property on the basis of a settlement deed executed by her mother. The suit O. S. 640/41 was resisted by defendant 3 who claimed fall rights as an illatom son-in-law. The suit was decreed in terms of a compromise Ex. D-2 dated 20th November 1942 filed into Court on that date. The plaintiff and defendant 3, presumably with their lawyers were present and signed it. Defendant 3 filed O. S. No. 81 of 1943 on the file of the District Munsif's Court of Markapur to set aside this compromise on the ground that the real compromise, copy of which he produced, Ex. P-4, entered into by all the parties on 14th November 1942 had been suppressed and that this compromise, Ex. D-2, which was filed into Court was fraudulently substituted. That suit was dismissed, but defendant 3 who is the contesting respond...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Gadiraju Narayanaraju and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-15-1949
Reported in: AIR1952Mad790; (1952)IIMLJ141
ORDERSomasundaram, J.1. In this case the four petitioners have been convicted for offences under Sections 325 and 323 and 323 read with Section 34 I.P.C. The first accused is sentenced to four months' R.I. and a fine 'of Rs. 100 for an offence under Section 325 I.P.C. and the others are sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 100 each for offences under Section 323 and 323 read with Section 34 I.P.C.2. The evidence on which these petitioners have been convicted has been accepted by both the courts below and after going through it, I see no reason to reject it. But the learned advocate has raised questions of law which arise on the following facts:3. The defence closed its case on 2nd December 1947 and C.W. 1 was examined on 16th December 1947 and the Magistrate had posted it for arguments (at the instance of the defence counsel) to 21st December 1947. On 21st December 1947 the pleader instead of advancing arguments, presented a petition under Section 526(8) Cri.P.C. praying for an adjournment a...
Tag this Judgment!M. Maniappa Pillai Vs. I. Anthonisami Mudaliar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-14-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Mad289
Rajamannar, C.J.1. The plaintiff appeals against the decree and judgment of the Subordinate Judge of Madura dismissing the suit filed by him on the following allegations. The plaintiff-appellant and defendants 1 and 2, who are respondents 1 and 2, were trading in partnership from 1941, under the name and style of C. Innasimuthu Mudaliar Sons, Madura. The partnership was dealing in mill piecegoods, yarn, bandloom goods, towels, bedsheets, carpets and other textiles. They were also exporting such goods to Ceylon. In this partnership the plaintiff was entitled to a six annas share, defendant 1, to 8 annas share, and defendant 2, to two annas share. On 14th April 1943, these three persons entered into a formal deed of partnership in which it was recited that the partnership had commenced from 7th June 1942. The partnership continued in pursuance of the terms set out in this deed till 15th June 1944. On that date a deed of dissolution was executed by and between them and it was duly registe...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »