Chennai Court February 1950 Judgments
Abdul Razack Sahib and ors. Vs. A. Abdul Hamid Said and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-28-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Mad406; (1950)2MLJ282
Rajamannar, C.J.1. The lower Court was right in dismissing the suit oh the ground that the sanction of the Advocate-General had not been obtained for its institution. The suit clearly fell within the scope of Section 92, Civil P. C. The plaintiff on behalf o all persons interested in a fund which they call the 'Mecca Mathinya Imthath Fund' prayed inter alia for a declaration that the defendants were the trustees of a trust known as Mecca Mathinya Imthath Fund, for a true and proper account of the funds collected by the defendants, for a direction tothe defendants to forward the funds collected by them to their proper destination and for the appointment of a receiver. It is well settled that to determine whether a suit falls within Rule 92, Civil P. C., we have to look at the plaint and the allegations therein and not to the written statement. The plaint clearly proceeds on the footing thai the defendants are trustees though the plaintiffs allege that the defendants had committed breach...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. G.V. Subba Rao Vs. Deviji Govindji and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-28-1950
Reported in: AIR1950Mad555
Rajamannar, C.J. 1. Two points were taken in this application. The first is as regards the amount of fair rant fixed. The Rent Controller fixed it at the rate of Rs. 32 8-0 for the period prior to 1st October 1946 and at Rs. 41-4-0 for the period thereafter. The appellate authority has fixed a fair rent of Rs. 41-8-0. The petitioner's counsel relied upon the basis of the Rent Controller's order and contended that the appellate authority was wrong in fixing the rent at Rs. 41-8 0. We do not feel inclined to interfere with the rent as fixed by the appellate authority. He may be wrong, but that is not a ground for interfering with his order. 2. The petitioner's second point is certainly substantial. The appellate authority after fixing the fair rent held that it cannot be given retrospective effect and should come into operation only from 8th February 1947. We are unable to find any justification for this restriction, Section 6 (c) of the Act in the most express and unequivocal terms decl...
Tag this Judgment!George Oakes Ltd. Vs. the Chief Judge, Small Causes Court and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-27-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Mad222; (1950)2MLJ317
Rajamannar C.J. 1. I agree that the application should be dismissed. I only wish to add a few words on the point raised by Dr. John purporting to rely upon the decision in Raja Chetty v. Jagannathdas Govindas, : AIR1950Mad284 to which I was a party. I do not think that the doctrine of contracting out of the statute can possibly be of any help to Dr. John in this case for two reasons which are, in my opinion, conclusive. The first reason is that the lease in his client's favour was executed on 22nd June 1946 i.e., before the passing of Madras Act XV [15] of 1946. On the date of the execution of the lease, the landlord had no right under the Rent Control Order then in force to apply to the Controller for fixation of a fair rent. It is only thetenant who could approach the Controller for that relief. Obviously, a person cannot be said to hive abandoned a rigut by reason of aa agreement when on the date of that agreement the law did not confer on him that right. I must confess that this as...
Tag this Judgment!Cheria Veetil Madhavan Variar (Died) and ors. Vs. Chathu Nambiar of Me ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-25-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Mad285; (1950)2MLJ501
Satyanarayana Rao, J.1. The plaintiff obtained in the District Court the decree for rent claimed by him for the years 1932 to 1942 but that decree was reversed on appeal by the learned District Judge on the ground that his title to the suit property became extinguished by reason of a prior decree in O. S. No 183 of 1931 on the file of the Badagara Additional District Munsif's Court.2. The suit out of which this second appeal arises was instituted for recovery of rent due under a registered marupat dated 27.12 1909 executed by defendant 1's brother, one Krishnan Nambiar since deceased to the plaintiff's brother, deceased Govinda Variar Defendant 2 in the suit is alleged to be the tenant under defendant 1 and defendants 3 to 13 and 15 were subsequently impleaded as parties interested in the property under the will of Krishnan Nambiar, the executant of the marupat. Defendant 14 is a member of the tarward of the plaintiff and he was impleaded to protect the intereats of the members of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Padma Bivi Ammal Vs. J.M. Mohammad Mohideen Rowther and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-25-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Mad522; (1950)2MLJ268
ORDERBalakrishna Ayyar, J.1. The plaintiff in O. S. Nos. 10 and 11 of 1949 on the file of the Sub-Court, West Tanjore, is the petitioner in both these cases. The question for determination in both these petitions is the same and therefore they may be dealt with together.2. The plaintiff is a Muslim lady. Two of her sons, Mohamed Ismail and Mohamed Ibrahim, died some time before the suits were filed. She sued for partition of her one-sixth share in the properties of her deceased sons. On 4-1-1946, two documents had come into existence, under which for a consideration expressed in those documents to be Rs. 5000 the plaintiff released her rights in the properties of her sons in favour of some of the defendants in the suits. It is obvious that if these documents are valid and binding on the plaintiff her suits must fail. The plaintiff's case in respect of these release deed is set out in paras. 4 to 7 of the plaint. Therein the plaintiff alleged that her son, Abdul Aziz, took her mark in t...
Tag this Judgment!Avarenkal Kunhayadru and ors. Vs. Olankara Ali Kutty
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-25-1950
Reported in: AIR1950Mad559
ORDERPanchapakesa Ayyar, J.1. I see no reason to interfere in revision. The petitioner is clearly a usufructuary mortgagee and not an 'intermediary' also, as in the case in Govindan Nair v. Appu Kutty : (1949)1MLJ475 . So the lower Court is not proved to have erred in law in refusing a stay as the petitioner would not be a tenant under Act XVII [17] of 1946. The learned counsel for the petitioner relies on the ruling of Subba Rao J. in Unnoli v. Subramania : (1949)1MLJ527 . There also, the usufructuary mortgagee was held to be a tenant as he was an 'intermediary' and so got in under that category. The petitioner here is a mere usufructuary mortgagee or panayamdar in possession as in the case in Kunhamu v. Raman Nambissan, in C. R. P. No. 1253 of 1948 wherein Subba Rao J. himself held that such panayamdars will not be tenants under Act XVII [17] of 1946. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner urged that it was against logic and common sense to hold that a usufructuary mortgagee in po...
Tag this Judgment!The Provincial Government of Madras, Represented by the Collector of B ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-25-1950
Reported in: AIR1950Mad521
Satyanarayana Rao, J.1. All these four second appeals by the Provincial Government of Madras raise interesting and difficult questions of law under the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1939 (Madras Act (IX [9] of 1939) referred to in the judgment as 'the Act'). The appellants were unsuccessful in both the Courts and hence these second appeals. 2. The four suits out of which these second appeals arise were instituted in the District Munsif's Court of Bellary by different plaintiffs against the Provincial Government for a declaration that the assessment of sales-tax imposed upon them was illegal and void. As the suits raised common questions of law and similar questions of fact, by consent of parties they were tried together and disposed of by a common judgment both by the District Munsif and by the learned District Judge. 3. The plaintiffs are commission agents who carry on trade at a place called Adoni in Bellary district. Besides the commission business, they also carry on independent bu...
Tag this Judgment!The Municipal Council Vs. Singaraju Mallapparaju
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-25-1950
Reported in: AIR1950Mad594
Balakrishna Ayyar, J.1. The Municipal Council, Bezwada, which was the defendant in the suit is the petitioner. The plaintiff owned a house within the Municipal limits of Bezwada. For the two half years included in the financial year 1943-44 the Municipal Council demanded from the plaintiff tax on the building at the rate of Rs. 105-12-11 per half year. Apparently this demand was made on the ground that the building would fetch a rent of Rs. 90/- per mensem. According to the plaintiff, during that period, the house was fetching only Rs. 50/- per month and on this basis he was liable to be charged only Rs. 61-10 6. The Municipal Council took coercive steps and collected tax at the higher rate. The plaintiff, therefore, sued--S. C. No. 584 of 1947 on the file of the District Munsif of Bezwada--to recover the difference from the Municipal Council. The Council took the objection that the suit was not maintainable by virtue of Section 354, District Municipalities Act. This objection was over...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Saride Narayana and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-23-1950
Reported in: AIR1950Mad615
Govinda Menon, J.1. The point involved in this case relates to the construction of Sections 3 and 4 of Madras Act XXXI [31] of 1947 (an Act to prevent the dedication of women as devadasis in the Province of Madras) and therefore raises a question of some importance to the Devadasi community. Accused 2 to 9 and 12 to 17 in C. C. No. 198 of 1948 on the file of the Court of the Additional First Glass Magistrate of Tanuku seek to revise the order of that Court by which each one of them has been sentenced to pay a fins of Rs. 25 or, in default, to suffer one month's simple imprisonment for having committed an offence in violation of Section 3 (2) of the said Act which is punishable under section 4 (1) of the same Act. 2. A complaint was filed against seventeen parsons before the lower Court for having committed the offence mentioned above, but the learned Magistrate found that the first accused was not guilty, and that accused 10 and 11, being below 16 years of age even if they had violated...
Tag this Judgment!T.V. Sundaram Ayyangar and Sons, Ltd. Through Its Managing Director, T ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-22-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Mad288; (1950)2MLJ499
ORDERViswanatha Sastri, J. 1. The question raised in these civil revision petitions relates to the proper court-fee payable by the plaintiff on the plaints in three suits filed in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Mathurai The plaintiff is a company which owns a fleet of motor vehicles, The plaintiff's case is that it entrusted the sums necessary for the payment of licence fees and the obtaining of licences for its vehicles to its agent, defendant 2. with a direction that the money should be paid to defendant 1, the Government, and licences should be obtained. Receipts for the payment of the fees as well as the licences in respect, of the vehicles purporting to be issued by the duly authorised officer of the Government were handed over to the plaintiff by the agent The plaintiff's further case is that the Government, defendant 1, under threat of prosecution for nonpayment or deficient payment of the licence fees again collected considerable sums of money from the plaintiff. The sui...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »