Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1951Mad524; (1950)2MLJ169
Rajamannar, C.J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for redemption of a usufructuary mortgage for Rs. 7600 executed on 20-3-1941 by plaintiffs 2 to 4 and defendants 8 and 4 along with others who formed an undivided Aliyasanthana family in favour of defendants 1 and 2. Plaintiff l claims under a deed of simple mortgage executed on 1-3-1943 by the mortgagors under the first deed for Rs. 8000 reserving thereunder a sum of Rs. 7300 to be paid to defendants 1 and 2 in satisfaction of the amount due under the mortgage in their favour. The learned Subordinate Judge of South Kanara passed a decree for redemption and mesne profits substantially as prayed for by the plaintiffs. Defendants 1 and 2 are the appellants-before us. This appeal, however, relates mainly to the claim made by the appellants-mortgagees based on some of the clauses in the mortgage deed to the clay in the mortgaged lands. As the decision of the appeal depends entirely on a construction of the material clauses of the mortgage...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1950Mad450
ORDERChandra Reddi, J.1. The petitioner in this criminal revision was convicted under Section 7 (1), Madras Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act, XXIV [24] of 1946 for having been in possession of mill cloth in excess of normal requirements, in violation of the provisions of Section 18 (2), Cotton Cloth and Yarn (Control) Order, 1943 and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 200, and the cloth seized was also directed to be confiscated to the Government. 2. The Inspecting Assistant Textile Commissioner, Nellore, charge-sheeted the petitioner before the Additional First Class Magistrate, Cuddappah for having been in possession of 24 pieces of new cloth measuring over 250 yards very much in excess of his normal requirements. The family of the petitioner consisted of 5 members. According to the Inspecting Commissioner, this quantity was exclusive of an appreciable quantity of cloth released by the Joint Provincial Textile Commissioner in petitioner's favour. 3. The explanation of the petiti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1950Mad596
ORDERViswanatha Sastri, J.1. Defendant 1 in O. S. No. 26 of 1948 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Tirunelveli is the petitioner in this civil revision petition. The suit was brought by five worshippers at a public mosque called the Mohideen Andavar Pallivasal in the village of Pottalpudu as representing all the worshipping public of the locality interested in the mosque and in its proper administration. The defendants are five in number. Defendant 1 is stated to be the trustee of the endowment and defendants 2 to 5 have been impleaded as persons who might have a possible right of succession to the trusteeship after defendant 1. The suit was filed with the sanction of the Advocate-General endorsed on the plaint, for removing defendant 1 from his trusteeship and the possession and management of the trust properties, for framing a scheme suitable for the administration of the public trust and for ancillary reliefs with which we are not now concerned. The suit was filed...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1950Mad659
Krishnaswami Nayudu, J.1. The question for decision in this revision petition is whether the Government is a necessary party to the suit.2. The suit O. S. No. 193 of 1948 was instituted for a declaration that the resumption proceedings and the orders of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Erode, and the District Collector, Coimbatore, with reference to the suit property were null and void and that they would not affect the plaintiff's right, title and enjoyment of the suit, lands, or alternatively for declaring that the inam in the suit laud was only of the melwaram and that it could alone be resumed and regranted to the defendant. The suit was contested and one of the issues which was tried as a preliminary issue is 'whether the Government is a necessary party to the suit.' The lower Court held that Government was a necessary party and hence this revision petition by the plaintiff. 3. The plaintiff's case is that the defendant applied to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Erode, under Sectio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1950Mad479
Govinda Menon, J.1. This is an appeal by the Provincial Government against the acquittal of the two respondents for offences under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. Respondent 1 who was the driver of the pleasure ear No. 1487 was charged under Section 3 (1), Motor Vehicles Act in that he drove a motor vehicle in a public place without an effective licence issued to him authorising him to drive the vehicle; and respondent 2 was charged under Section 5 of the same Act which states that no owner, or person in charge of a motor vehicle, shall cause, or permit any person who does not hold an effective licence, to drive the vehicle. The Sub-Magistrate of Tiruchendur found that the respondents did not commit any offence and acquitted both of them. 2. On 10th March 1949, at about 10-30 P. M. P. W. 2 found respondent 1 driving the motor vehicle in question along the road from Tiruchendur to Kurumbur and the owner, respondent 2, was in the car. When directed to produce the driving licence, responden...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1950Mad650
Raghava Rao, J.1. Out of the four civil miscellaneous appeals posted before us, the only one. that requires consideration is C. M. A. no. 212 of 1946 which arises out of O. P. No. 49 of 1944. The O. P. in question along with others which we are not called upon to consider was one presented to the District Judge, West Godavari appointed as an arbitrator by the Government of India under the Defence of India Act. The substance of the petition which resulted in the ad-indication of the arbitrator, which is the subject-matter of challenge in this appeal, is that the lands belonging to the petitioner which had been originally requisitioned by the Government temporarily under the Defence of India Act Rules were proposed to be acquired permanently later by the Government and that the compensation offered for the proposed acquisition is inadequate. For the purpose of fixing the value of the property sought to be acquired, the arbitrator was appointed on the reference of the matter to the Govern...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1950Mad728
Rajamannar, C.J.1. In this application to record the compromise alleged to have been entered into by the contending parties, the respondent filed a counter affidavit admitting that she was a party to the agreement and that she affixed her thumb impression to it; but alleging that the compromise was brought about by fraud and coercion by the guardian of the minor petitioner, who is himself the first petitioner. It has been held that under Order 23, Rule 3, Civil P. C. a compromise cannot be attacked by allegations that it is a voidable compromise brought about by fraud, undue influence and duress. Provided the compromise is lawful, that is, not contrary to law, the Court is obliged to record it. The mere fact that it may be voidable is no reason for a Court refusing to record it. Vide Surappa Raju v. Venkataratnam, : AIR1936Mad347 , Hussain Yar Beg v. Radhakishan, 57 ALL. 426 : A. I. R. 1935 ALL. 37. In this case all that is alleged by the respondent is that the compromise is voidable. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1950Mad508
Govinda Menon, J.1. One Ramlal, the General Manager of Messrs. Johar and Sons, Army and Canteen Contractors, was prosecuted under Section 4 (l), Madras Prohibition Act for having been in possession of liquor without a permit under the Act. The trial Court found that the accused did not commit any offence, because it could not be said that he was in possession of M. O. 1, a bottle of gin. The Provincial Government appeals under Section 417, Criminal P. C. against the order of acquittal. The learned Public Prosecutor contends that the respondent must be deemed to have been in possession of the bottle of liquor and since he had no license, the order of the lower Court was not justified.2. Messrs. Johar and Sons are a partnership doing business as Army and Canteen contractors, and as such they are the owners of motor lorries and trucks used for the purpose of conveying army personnel and their articles. oN 25th December 1947, one Major Karandikar sent a slip, Ex. D. 2, to D. W. 2, who was ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1950Mad657
ORDERGovinda Menon, J.1. The petitioner was a promoter-director of a company by name Chandra and Company, which was the managing agent of the Hind Commonwealth Corporation Ltd., Kumbakonam. The case against him was under S. 282-A, Companies Act, in that he wrongfully kept possession of articles belonging to the company of which he was a manager director or a servant. The defence of the petitioner was that a sum of Rs. 294-5-0 was due to him as arrears of salary etc., for which he had issued a registered notice to the directors of the company, as is sought to be proved by the certified copy of that notice, Ex. D-8. The learned Magistrate refused to admit Ex. D 8 in evidence on the ground that the original had not been summoned. When a document sought to be summoned is itself a notice sent by one party to the other and a copy of the notice is produced by the sender, it seems to me that under Section 66, Evidence Act it is not obligatory to summon production of the original notice. The Ma...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1950Mad690
Subba Rao, J.1. The facts in this revision are simple. The Maharajah of Parlakimedi filed a suit on 15th November 1946 for recovery of rent under Section 77, Madras Estates Land Act. The Madras Act XVII [17] of 1946, which provides for the temporary protection of certain class of tenants and ryots in the Province of Madras, became law on 4th October 1946. The tenant made a deposit of the rent on 6th January 1947, that is more than two months after the commencement of the Act. He applied for stay of trial of the suit under the said Act. The lower Court dismissed the application on the ground that the deposit was made after the prescribed time. The tenant filed the above revision.2. The learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. S. Suryaprakasam, contended that, on a proper construction of the provisions of Act, the payment of rent by his client is not a condition precedent for obtaining stay. The relevant provisions of the Act may be extracted :'Section 4 (1). All suits, proceedings in exec...
Tag this Judgment!