Chennai Court November 1950 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Sistla Yagnanarayana Sastri Vs. Chilukuri Lakshminarayana and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-30-1950
Reported in: AIR1952Mad495; (1951)IMLJ502
Viswanatha Sastri, J. 1. This is an appeal by deft. 2. against a decree of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Tenali granting a declaration that a compromise of a prior suit effected as between deft. 1, the widow of the last male owner & deft. 2, who claimed a title adverse to the widow, was not binding on the phis., the reversioners. Mr. Dikshitulu for the appellant raised two main contentions, namely, that the suit was barred by limitation & that the compromise was a bonafide settlement of a dispute by the widow of the last male owner & was therefore binding on the reversioners. There were subsidiary contentions which would be noticed when dealing with these main points. 2. The relevant facts have to be stated: Narayanamurthi, a merchant & land-owner, died in 1931, leaving his widow, plff. 2. & two sons Lakshminarayana plff. 1. & Anjaneyulu who died after his lather leaving his widow, deft. 1. Narayanamurthi became heavily involved in debts & was adjudicated an insolvent on 28-2-1...
In Re: Marutha Goundan Alias Kulla Goundan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-30-1950
Reported in: AIR1952Mad504; (1951)IMLJ510
ORDERGovinda Menon, J. 1. Under the Hemp Drug rules dated 1-2-1936 framed under the Abkari Act, there is Rule 23 which allows any person to be in possession of not more than three tolas of ganja, in the districts of the State of Madras except tn the District of Madras & the Agency tracts of Ganjam Vlzagapatam fe East 'Godavari. The accused here has been convicted under Section 4(1)(a), Madras Prohibition Act, for being in possession of 1/16 tola of ganja & the lower Cts. have held that he is guilty of the offence with which he is charged. In a F. B. decision in 'Adi Lakshmiammal' in re', : AIR1941Mad533 it has been held that in so far as the Prohibition Act repeals the provisions of the Madras Abkari Act, they have not been reserved for the assent of the Governor-General or for the signification of His Majesty's pleasure & therefore the Madras Legislature had no power to interfere with the Madras Abkari Act so far as possession of dangerous drug is concerned. In that view, the P. B. he...
In Re: S. Ramiah and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-30-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Mad773; (1951)IMLJ191
ORDERGovinda Menon, J.1. Two points have been argued by Mr. Bhimasankaram for the petnrs. & the first of them is that the Comr, appointed by the Ct. to divide the properties by metes & bounds in a partition suit where a preliminary decree has been passed is not a public servant within the meaning of Section 21, Penal Code. What happened here is that after the passing of a preliminarydecree for partition, the District Munsif appointed a Comr., under Order 26, C. P. C., to go to the spot, identify the properties, divide them, demarcate the boundaries & report to the Gt. While the Comr. with the assistance of people whom he had taken was measuring the lands, the petnrs. objected to it & used force by dragging the chain by which the landa were being measured. Petnrs. 1 to 6 obstructed on the first day & at their instigation petnrs. 6 to 10 did it on the next day. For tbis act they were charge-sheeted under Section 186, Penal Code, & found guilty by both the lower Cts. 2. The argument of Mr...
S. Venkatarama Ayyar Vs. Unnamalai Ammal and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-30-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Mad883; (1951)IMLJ474
Satyanarayana Rao, J.1. The point raised in this appeal is covered by an exhaustive & illuminating judgment of our learned brother Viswanatha Sastri, J. reported in 'Kanakayya v. Lakshmayya', : AIR1951Mad218 , in which he held that notwithstanding the fact that after an order of remand the suit was disposed of, the party aggrieved by the order of remand would have a right of appeal, differing from the judgment of Mack, J. in 'Venkatrama Aiyar v. Unnamalai Animal' : (1948)2MLJ404 . The view of Mack, J. is that an appeal against an order of remand is incompetent if the suit is disposed of after remand. He dismissed 'C. M. A. No. 508 of 1946' and this Letters Patent Appeal is against that decision. We do not think it necessary to traverse the same ground which was covered by our learned brother, Viswanatha Sastri J. for holding that the view taken by Mack J. in 'Venkatrama Aiyar v. Unnamalai Ammal', : (1948)2MLJ404 , is wrong. We cannot usefully add to the reasoning of the learned Judge, ...
Kamma Jogappa Vs. Bacham Hanumakka
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-29-1950
Reported in: AIR1952Mad498; (1951)IIMLJ45
Chandra Reddi, J. 1. By this petition, a person who was appointed the property guardian of a minor on 8-1-1942 in O. P. No. 72 of 1940, seeks to revise the order of the District Judge, Anantapur, dated 3-9-1948, calling upon him to bring some amounts said to belong to the estate of the minor into court. At the outset the counsel for the respondent, who is the mother and the personal guardian of the minor, has raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of this revision petition. In order to get over this difficulty a petition has been died by Mr. Bhujanga Rao on behalf of the petitioner to convert the civil revision petition into a civil miscellaneous appeal under Section 43 of the Guardians and Wards Act. 2. In order to appreciate the preliminary objection and the contention raised in this petition it is necessary to set out briefly a few material facts. By the order of appointment the petitioner was directed to file accounts for each year on or before the fifth day of July,...
Palakkadvath Chanthu's children Achuthan and Ors. Vs. Poothakandiyil C ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-29-1950
Reported in: AIR1952Mad704; (1951)IMLJ507
Chandra Reddi, J.1. The main question that falls to be decided in this case is whether the usufructuary mortgagee who parted with a portion of the mortgaged property is an intermediary within the meaning of Clause (j) of Section 3 of the Malabar Tenancy Act so as to be entitled to the benefits of the provisions of Act 24 of 1949 as amended by Act VIII of 1950. The judgment-debtors in O. S. No. 309 of 1942 are the appellants in the appeal.2. The circumstances that culminated in this Civil Miscellaneous Second Appeal may be briefly mentioned. The respondents herein filed a suit O. S. No. 309 of 1942 for redemption of the usufructuary mortgage created by them in favour of the appellants. The suit was contested on various grounds but ultimately it was decreed and the time for redemption was fixed. While this matter was pending appeal in this Court, an attempt was made to have the proceedings in appeal stayed by making a deposit under Section 4 of Act 24 of 1949. But it proved infructuous a...
Bava G. Gopalaswami Mudaliar Vs. V.S. Thyagaraja Mudaliar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-28-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Mad693; (1951)IMLJ248
Govinda Menon, J.1. These two appeals arise out of O. P. no. 27 of 1948 in the District Court of East Tanjore, which was a petition under Section 84(2), Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act, to set aside the decision of the Hindu EeligiouB Endowments Board in O. a.No. 279 of 1946.2. Sri Thiagarajaswami Devasthanam, Tiruvarur, in Tanjore district, is a famous Hindu religious institution and in the Ulthukurai Kattalai attached to the temple, it is common ground, 'that the hereditary trusteeship vested in two families, viz., the Bava family and the Vadapathimangalam family. Bava Vaithilinga Mudaliar and V. S. Thyagaraja Mudaliar were the two trustees of this Kattalai, each of whom representing his own family, before the death of Vaithilinga Mudaliar on 6-4-1943 leaving him surviving a widow, a daughter, a daughter's son and two brothers, viz., Bava G. Gopala-swami Mudaliar and Bava C. Panchapakesa Mudaliar. On account of disputes as to who should succeed to the hereditary trusteeship of ...
The Public Prosecutor Vs. Chaniappa Pujary
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-28-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Mad703; (1950)2MLJ168
Somasundaram, J.1. This is an appeal sought to be filed by the Public Prosecutor against the order of acquittal passed by the Stationary Sub-Mag. Puttur in C. C. No. 546 of 1950.2. The prosecution was for an offence under Section 4(i)(j), Madras Prohibition Act. On 12-6-1950 the Sub-Inspector of Police, Vittal, went to the house of the accused to investigate into a complaint against the accused for offences under Sections 448 & 328, Penal Code & arrested the accused & when his person was searched, the Inspector found him smelling liquor. He was immediately sent to a nearby rural medical practitioner who found in him signs & symptoms of having consumed alcohol. The accused was thereuponcharge-sheeted for an offence under Section 4 (i) (j), Madras Prohibition Act which runs thus : 'Whoever consumes or buys liquor or any intoxicating drug shall be punished with.' The lower Ct. acquitted the accused mainly on the ground that the smell of alcohol was possible for reasons other than drinking...
The Province of Madras Represented by Collector of Ramanathapuram Vs. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-28-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Mad829
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for a declaration of the title of the pltfs. & deft. 3 to the suit property. The pltfs. are the proprietors of the village of Karaikudi, which formed part of the Zamindari of Sivaganga. The suit site is within the geographical limits of the said Zamindari. In 1918 in the survey plan it was shown as part of Koppudayanayagi Amman Sannadhi. Street. In 1935 on re-survey also it was demarcated as a public street. On 24-1-1940 the govt. issued a notfn. under Section 61 (2), District Municipalities Act, 1920, withdrawing the site from the control of the Municipal Council. On 29-1-1944 the Collector of Ramanadhapuram made an order under Section 20-A (1) (a), Madras Estates Land Act declaring that the suit was no longer required for street purposes. On 30-5-1944 the District Collector passed another order under Section 20-A (1) (b) (ii) of the Act transferring the same as ryotwari land. The pltfs. did not prefer appeals against either of those orders. Deft. 1...
Samavedam Sarangapani Ayyangar Vs. Kandala Venkata Narasimhacharyulu a ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-27-1950
Reported in: AIR1952Mad384; (1951)IIMLJ464
Viswanatha Sastri, J.1. The first defendant is the appellant. The plaintiff, claiming to be the nearest reversioner to the estate of one Narasimhacharyulu deceased, sued for possession of 2 1/2 acres of mam lands with mesne profits from the first defendant, an alienee of the said lands from the daughter of Narasimhacnaryulu. The last male owner died in 1870 leaving a widow who died in 1920, and a daughter who died in 1942. The daughter executed a deed of settlement of the suit lands in favour of the 1st defendant on 4-3-1937, valuing the lands at Rs. 1000/-. The deed of settlement proceeded on the footing that Narasimhacharyulu had bequeathed the lands absolutely to his daughter under his will and that she, in her turn, was making a settlement of the lands in favour of the 1st defendant. Even during the lifetime of the daughter, the plaintiff claiming to be the presumptive reversioner, filed O. S. No. 84 of 1940 on the file of the Court of the District Munsif of Bezwada for a declarati...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »