Chennai Court December 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.
Nanjappa Goundan Vs. Periakkal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-08-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Mad772a
ORDERGovinda Memon, J.1. The learned Addl. Ses. J. has no jurisdiction, in setting aside an order of discharge, to direct that a charge be framed against the present petr. All that the Ses. J. has got the right to do is to direct a further enquiry, so that the Ct. which hears the case afresh has to take evidence & come to a conclusion as to whether there is enough evidence to frame a charge or not. If it is a case which is to be tried exclusively by a Sessions Ct., then the learned Addl. Ses. J. would be justified in framing a charge & directing a committal. But this is not a case exclusively triable by a Sessions Ct., & the direction to frame a charge is, therefore, not legal: vide Karuppiah Ambalam v. Audiappa Servai, : AIR1950Mad462 . On the merits too, I do not think that this is a case in which a further enquiry is necessary. The order directing a further enquiry is set aside & the order of discharge by the Ct. of first instance is restored. ...
P. Venkateswara Rao Vs. K. Satyanarayana and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-08-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Mad774; (1951)IMLJ234
ORDERGovinda Menon, J.1. The petnr. one P. Venkateswara Bao of Gadiwada who styles himself as the Secretary of the Town Kalavanthula Sanka-rana Sangam of Gudivada, moves this Ct. under Sections 435 & 439, Cr. P C. for setting aside the order of acquittal passed by the Addl. First Class Mag. of Bandar in C. C. No. 80 of 1949. It has to be stated at the outset that the public prosecutor has not moved this Ct. under Section 417, Cr P. C. by filing an appeal to set aside the order of acquittal. The questions to be decided are firstly whether there are sufficient grounds for interference by me; and secondly, even if there are sufficient grounds, whether the order of acquittal should be set aside at the instance of a private individual, however public-spirited he might be & however meritorious his act might be, so that he might act as a pro bona publico in the interests weal & welfare of the general community at large. 2. The complaint against the six resps. in the Ct. below was that they, i...
In Re: T.K. Rajagopalan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-07-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Mad705; (1951)IMLJ92
Somasundaram, J.1. The applt. in this case has been convicted by the Chief Presidency Mag. for an offence under Section 3 (1) of Madras Act XXV [25] of 1949 & sentenced to a fine of Rs. 300. The facts of the case are not in dispute. The house concerned was leased out to P.W 1 an advocate. He wrote to the petnr. (who for the purposes of this case 13 treated as landlord) on 23-10-1948 that be had assigned the tenancy to one Mani & that as he has paid rent upto 31st October, the said Mani will pay the rent subsequently, &, asking the petnr. to accept the rent from the said Mani. Subsequently the petnr. was accepting the rent from Mani.2. On these facts, the question is whether there was a vacancy by the termination of a tenancy, so that the landlord i.e., the petnr. should give notice to the Controller. It is vigorously contended by Mr. Kasturi appearing for the petnr. that the vacancy contemplated in the section is actual vacancy and as Mani has occupied the house even before the 3lst Oc...
Mariyala Sambayya Vs. Narala Bala Subba Reddi and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-07-1950
Reported in: AIR1952Mad564; (1951)IMLJ353
ORDERBasheer Ahmed Sayeed, J.1. The petitioner has preferred this revision petition against the order of the learned District Munsif overruling his objection to the inter-pleader suit filed by the 1st respondent in the revision. The suit filed by the petitioner was one for recovery of a sum of Rs. 600 due under a pronote executed by the 1st respondent in favour of Garudamma and transferred to him. In the written statement filed by the respondent to that suit by the petitioner he pleaded 'inter alia' that the original promisee, Garudamma was not in law entitled to transfer the pronote in question and that the adopted son of Garudamma was entitled to the amount and further that he had already paid Rs. 200 on behalf of the pronote amount to Garudamma in the presence of the petitioner himself, who is no other than the maternal uncle of the original promisee. Issues have been framed in the original suit. After the framing of the issues, in consequence of certain notices issued by the adopte...
Mydeen Beevi Ammal Vs. T.N. Mydeen Rowther (Died) and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-07-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Mad992
Chandra Reddi, J.1. The defendant in O. S. No. 31 of 1944 on the file of the District Munsif, Dindigul, has preferred this second appeal against the decree and judgment of the Sub-Judge of Dindigul.2. A suit was brought by the defendant's husband for cancellation of a document styled as deed of maintenance 'executed on 9-6-1919' settling some properties upon her for life and for recovery of possession thereof. This document was 'executed on 9-6-1919' by the plaintiff in favour of the defendant in the following circumstances. The plaintiff and defendantwere married in or about the year 1916. A few days prior to their marriage the plaintiff executed an agreement in favour of the defendant's father whereunder he agreed to execute a document conveying some properties mentioned therein for her life as a provision for her maintenance within a week of the marriage. But effect was not given to this agreement within a week of the marriage. Subsequently misunderstandings arose between the wife a...
In Re : Kunta Gowramma
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-07-1950
Reported in: 1952CriLJ1057; (1951)IIMLJ31
ORDERGovinda Menon, J.1. The petitioner who was convicted by the Additional First Class Magistrate of Bapatla and sentenced to a term of imprisonment of one year appeal from jail to the Sessions Court of Guntur and that appeal came on for hearing on 26th October 1949 when the learned Sessions Judge after looking into the records, dismissed the appeal confirming the conviction and sentence. But, on 4.10.1949, the petitioner through her counsel Mr. Narasimha Rao had filed Criminal App. No. 110 of 1949 which, after notice to the Public Prosecutor, was posted for hearing to the 27th October 1949. When Criminal App. No. 110 of 1949 came up for disposal it was brought to the notice of the learned Sessions Judge that an appeal had been disposed of on the previous day and therefore, holding that he had no jurisdiction to hear the appeal preferred by the counsel the learned Judge dismissed it and hence this revision.2. Mr. N. Subrahmanyam on behalf of the petitioner contends that the procedure ...
Kolandayappan and ors. Vs. the State
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-07-1950
Reported in: (1951)2MLJ29
ORDERGovinda Menon, J.1. Mr. Jayarama Ayyar contends that Section 2A(1) of Madras Act XVII of 1948 is null and void in view of the decision of this Court reported in Kalyanam Veerabadrqyya v. The King : (1949)2MLJ663 , where it has been held by a bench of this Court that except Section 3(b) all the other sections have been enacted by the Legislature without proper and due legal competence. Such being the case, the learned counsel contends that the alleged offence committed on the 27th April, 1949, when the Act itself was not in force cannot be considered to be an infringement or infraction of any penal provision of a statute. The learned Public Prosecutor on the other hand invites my attention to Sections 19 and 20 of Madras Act XXIII of 1949 and especially to Sub-section (1) (b) of Section 19 and Sub-section (2) of the same statutory provision. It seems to me that Section 19 of the Madras Act XXIII of 1949 has validated all previous actions or acts or rules or any other thing done in ...
P.B. Krishnamachariar and ors. Vs. G.N. Ramabadran and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-06-1950
Reported in: AIR1952Mad706; (1952)IMLJ665
1. This appeal raises the question of the binding nature of an alienation on the reversioners to the estate of one Srinivasa Raghavachari. The applicants, defendants 3 to 6, who are the representatives of the alienee, substantially failed, though the findings of the learned Judge are mostly in their favour and hence this appeal.2. In the suit, the plaintiffs impeached also another alienation in favour of the 7th defendant They succeeded in the trial court but there is no appeal by the unsuccessful defendants.3. Notwithstanding the extraordinary precautions taken by the alienee and the assurances given at the time of the alienation by the plaintiff's father who is a graduate and their maternal grand-uncles, who are advocates, the alienee could not but face a litigation, unrighteously, as it seems to us, instigated and conducted by the plaintiff's father who was responsible largely for bringing about the alienation for his own benefit. This Court, however, not being a court of morals, is...
Doddapaneni Sitaramiah and ors. Vs. Sanka Kanakaiah and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-05-1950
Reported in: AIR1952Mad602; (1951)IMLJ701
Subba Rao, J.1. This is an appeal against the decree and judgment of the subordinate Judge, Tenali, in a suit filed by the first respondent for recovery of possession of the B schedule lands and for mesne profits. The plaint B schedule property of the extent of 2 acres 68 cents is agraharam land situate in the village of Balijepali. A schedule property of the extent of one acre fid cents bearing D. No. 408/1, is situate in the village of Nelapadu. The B schedule property originally belonged to one Vankamamidi Balakrishnayya, the paternal grandfather of defendants 1 and 2. He was also the hereditary trustee of the temple of Sri Sitharamanjaneyaswami Varu. A schedule property was an endowment to the temple. On 17-3-1933 under Ex. A-1, Balakrishnayya sold the B schedule property to the plaintiff for Rs. 850. On 19-3-1933 by Ex. A-2, Balakrishnayya as trustee of the temple and the plaintiff executed an exchange deed whereunder the temple gave the A schedule property to the plaintiff in exc...
Modalavalana Mukundarao and ors. Vs. Hanumantha Suryanarayana Naidu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-05-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Mad1011; (1951)1MLJ435
Subba Rao, J.1. The only question in this appeal is whether the Subordinate Judge of Chicacole was right in refusing to give relief under the Usurious Loans Act, 1918. The defendants executed a mortgage bond in favour of the plaintiff, Ex. P-1 dated 10-8-1936 for Rs. 6,000 payable with interest thereon at 12 annas per cent per mensem at compound rate. The defendants pleaded that the said rate was excessive and substantially unfair and therefore was liable to be reduced. The learned Subordinate Judge, Chicacole, held that there was nothing excessive or unconscionable in the rate of interest charged on the suit bond. The defendants have preferred the above appeal.2. Section 3(1) of the Usurious Loans Act, 1918 reads : 'Notwithstanding anything in the Usury Laws Repeal Act, 1885, where, in any suit to which this Act applies, whether heard ex parte or otherwise, the Court has reason to believe. (a) that the interest is excessive, and (b) that the transaction was, as between the parties th...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »