Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1951Mad710; (1951)IMLJ164
ORDERBalakrishna Ayyar, J.1. The point for determination in both the civ. Revn. Petns. is the same & I, therefore, deal with them together.2. Government sold in auction the right to pasture cattle on certain lanka lands & the resps. became the successful auction purchasers. The terms of engagement prohibited the lessee from cultivating the land. Apparently the prohibition was imposed as a measure of River conservancy. The terms of the engagement also authorised the Collector of East Godavari to impose a penalty for violation of the condition. After having got possession of the lanka landa for purposes of pasture the resps. cultivated tobacco therein & the Collector imposed a penalty on them. They failed to pay the amount & so two suits were filed against them to recover these amounts on the small cause side in the Subordinate Judge's Ct., Amalapuram. The resps. then took the objection that the Small Cause Ct. had no jurisdiction byreason of Article 7 of Sch. II to the Provincial Small ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1952Mad510; (1951)IMLJ454
Panchapakesa Ayyar, J. 1. These are nine connected appeals, A. S. Nos. 93 & 111 of 1947 being appeals by the opposite parties to O. S. No. 61 of 1944 on the file of the Sub-Court, Amalapuram, & the other seven appeals having been originally filed in the District Court, East Godavari, & got transferred here as the points involved in those appeals were the same as those in the first two appeals. Of these 8 suits, covered by the 9 appeals, 4 were filed by the Maharajah of Pithapuram, his son the Kumararajah, in whose favour he had executed a settlement, & his daughter-in-law the Yuvarani, who was the lessee in respect of the suit lands. These four suits are O. S. Nos. 34 of 1941, 29 of 1943, 14 of 1944 & 61 of 1944. 10 those suite the plffs. had alleged that the two blocks of land shown in the piaint schedule had been formerly 'ryoti' lands of the Pittapuram Zamindari & part of Lankala Gannavaram village, adjoining the Vynatheyam branch of the river Godavari, & that the lands had been cul...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1951Mad765; (1951)IMLJ231
Rajamannar C.J. 1. These three references under Rule 17, Schedule IT (4), City Municipal Act raise the same question for decision formulated by the Ct. of Small Causes:'Whether a notice of intention to appeal given notafter, but before the decision of the Taxation Appeals Committee is communicated to the asseasee, is a good notice under Rule 15 (a) (i). Taxation Rules in Schedule IV(4), City Municipal Act.'There were three assessments of property taxby the Gomr. of three properties belonging tothe assesses & there were three appeals to theTaxation Appeals Committee against the assessment of the Comr. These three appeals were dismissed by the Committee on 24-2-1949. On 1-3-1949, the assessee gave to the Comr. notice of his intention to appeal against the decision of the Taxation Appeals Committee. He followed up by presenting petns. of appeal on 9-3-1949. The decision of the Appeals Committee was communicated to the party on 7-3-1949 by registered post. When the appeals came up for hear...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1951Mad656; (1951)IMLJ95
ORDERBalakrishna Ayyar, J.1. The two pltfs are the petnrs. Pltf 1 is the husband of pltf 2. The deft is a son of a brother of pltf 1. Early in Jan 1944 pltf 1 sent a notice to the deft telling him that he intended to become divided in status. After having thus effected a disruption in status, pltf 1 executed on 10-1-1944 a gift deed of his immovable assets in favour of pltf 2. The pltfs continued to live as previously in a portion of the family house. Thereafter they brought a suit for partition of the assets of the family and also for accounts. A sum of Rs. 100 (one hundred) was paid as court-fee in respect of the claim for partition under Article 17 B of Schedule II,Court-fees Act.2. The objection was taken that the court-fee paid was insufficient. The learned Subordinate Judge went into the question and required the pltffs to pay 'ad-valorem' Court-fee. They have therefore come to this Ct.3. One item in respect of which 'ad valorem' court-fee was insisted on, is the house in a parto...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1951Mad717; (1951)IIMLJ25
ORDERSomasundaram, J.1. The petnr. in this ease has been convicted under Section 47, Madras District Police Act, & sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 25.2. The allegations on which the petnr. was charged are contained in Ex P.-1, the complaint sent by the petnr. to the D. S. P. on 2-2 1948. He alleged therein that the Police Station-house Officer at Ponganoor arrested one Subbireddi, a resident of Mugavadi on 29 1-1948 in consequence of information given by some individual that the said Subbireddi had been roaring hemp plants in his own betel garden. Ho subsequently prepared a mahazar for the seizure of the hemp plants, but afterwards the mahazar was torn off after receiving gratification from the said Subbireddi & attempts were being made by the said Subbireddi to turn the case against the petnr. The mahazar is said to have been signed by five persona. They are (1) Karnam Padmanabha Sastri, (2) Village Munsif Subbireddi, (3) Ramakkagari Venkatareddi, (4) Muniki Gadeppa & (5) Thalari Venka...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1951Mad656a; (1951)IMLJ145
ORDERBalakrishna Ayyar, J.1. The material facts are few. One Venkataratnam was adjudged an inslvt in I. P. No. 13 of 1923 on the file of the Subordinate Judge of Guntur. He died on 10-12-1933 leaving behind him three sons. Between 1937 & 1939 the Official Receiver, Guntur, sold some of the properties of the joint family & realized certain moneys. In 1945 a certain Venkatanarasu obtained a decree in S. C. No. 60 of 1945 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Guntur, against the sons of Venkataratnam. After obtaining his decree Venkatanarasu applied in E. A. No. 214 of 1945 for the attachment of that part of the money in the hands of the Official Receiver which would represent the share of the sons of Venkataratnam. The Official Receiver then filed his objections in E. A. No. 37 of 1946 & prayed for the attachment being raised. The Subordinate Judge allowed the objections of the Official Receiver & raised the attachment. Against that order, Venkatanarasu came to this Ct in C. R. P. No. 11...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1951Mad810; (1951)IMLJ493
Raghava Rao, J.1. A rather interesting point has been debated by counsel before me in this second appeal & that is as to the effect Of the admitted division by metes & bounds of certain items of the property of the family of deft. 10 & his deceased brother, upon the status of the family in relation to certain other items admittedly unpartitioned.2. The suit out of which this appeal arises was instituted by the applt. before me as. the assignee of the kanom right of deft. 10 & his deceased brother. The contesting defts. 1 to 9 are sub-kanamdars of the property who are resisting the pltf.'s right to redeem anything more than a hall of the kanom right which alone belonged to deft. 10 at the inception. It is their case that that half interest which so belonged to deft. 10 did not become enlarged by 'jus accrescendi' on the death of his brother because under Ex. P. 4 the two brothers became divided in status in regard to the suit items & one other item with which we are not concerned here. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1951)1MLJ143
Balakrishna Ayyar, J.1. The material facts are few. In O.S. No. 301 of 1905 on the file of the District Munsiff of Kanigiri a Hindu wife obtained a decree for maintenance against her husband. On 12th January, 1928, she filed a second suit, O.S. No. 47 of 1928, for enhancement of the maintenance that had been decreed to her. She also prayed for a charge over the properties set out in the schedule to the plaint. The husband remained ex parte and the suit was decreed. On 16th January, 1928, that is to say, four days after the wife had filed her second suit asking for increased maintenance the husband sold certain properties to the first appellant. The maintenance payable to the wife under the decree during the years 1944 to 1947 fell into arrears and to recover the amount due to her she proceeded against the properties that had been sold to the first appellant. The latter objected on the ground that the charge created by the decree could not be enforced against the properties he had purch...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1951Mad714; (1950)2MLJ776
1. This is an appeal by the accused who has been convicted by the Addl. Dist. Mag., Krishna, for an offence under Section 124-A, I. P. C. & sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year.2. The applt. was the editor, printer & publisher of a Telugu daily newspaper called 'Prajasakthi' printed at the Prajasakthi Press, Vijayawada. Under Section 4 of Act XXV [25] of 1867, the accused made the declaration before the Dist. Mag. as the manager of the press knownas Prajasakthi Press, Vijayawada. Exhibit P.-2 dated 29-3-1943 is the declaration. He continued to be the printer & publisher till he was arrested on 31-1-1948. He has since been in jail & even now is in jail. The article in question is said to have been published in the issue of the paper dated 9-4-1948 under the caption 'Capitalist Congress Government started country-wide military raids on people forces'. There is no doubt that what is contained in the article will fail within the scope of Section 124-A.3. But the question is whet...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1951Mad718; (1951)IMLJ165
ORDER1. This is a petn. by the pltf. to revise the order of the Subordinate Judge, Kumbakonam, dismissing his suit, S. C. S. No. 278 of 1948.2. The suit was for arrears of rent. Govindammal, the owner of the properties, leased them to Periaswami Padayachi, the deft. for a term of 3 years commencing from 7-7-1945. On 30-10-1946, Govindammal granted a second lease of the properties in favour of one Koorathalwar for 10 years. It will be noticed that the currency of the second lease partiallyoverlaps the currency of the first lease. It appears that on 8-11-1946 Koorathalwar issued a notice to Periaswami Padayachi informing him of the lease in his favour. On 7-1-1947, when both these leases had yet sometime to run, Govindammal granted a usufructuary mtge. of the properties in favour of the pltf. Thereafter, on 28-1-1947 Govindammal sent a notice to Periaswami Padayachi, the original lessee, informing him of the usufructuary mtge. that she had created. On 31-1-1947 the pltf. too sent a simil...
Tag this Judgment!