Chennai Court March 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.
Sahayanidhi Virudhunagar Ltd. Through Its Managing Director A. Saminat ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-21-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Mad209; (1950)IIMLJ216
Viswanatha Sastri, J.1. This is a reference under Section 60, Stamp Act, by the learned District Munsif of Sattar raising two questions with reference to the stamp duty chargeable on two documents filed in his Court. These documents have been marked for purposes of identification as A-2 and A-3. The facts that have led up to this reference are these. The Pudukottah Benefit Fund Ltd., a company carrying on chit fund business in as many as 114 branches scattered throughout the southern districts of this Province, got into financial difficulties and was ordered to be wound up by an order of this Court dated 12th January 1948 in O. P. No. 190 of 1947, a petition filed by the creditors of the company. By its order dated 16th November 1948 in O. P. No. 301 of 1948, this Court sanctioned a scheme of arrangement under Section 153-A, Companies Act. The order of this Court provided that for the purpose of carrying out the said scheme, the Official Liquidators of the Pudukottah Benefit Fund Ltd.,...
Gadiraju Chinna Krishnamraju and ors. Vs. Chintalapudi Reddamma and or ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-21-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Mad608; (1951)IMLJ49
Raghava Rao, J. 1. This Second Appeal raises a question of competing title as between the alienees from the last male-holder Ramaswami's widow, Seshamma, the appellants before me, and the contesting defendants, in the Court of trial on the one hand and the settlees from her mother-in-law, Eamamma, on the other, of whom the plaintiff in the trial Court respondent l before me, is the last surviving brother. It was the primary part of the plaintiff's case in the plaint that there was a usufructuary mortgage by the plaintiff and hisdeceased brothers in about 1935 in respect of the suit properties in favour of defendant 1 which became discharged before the date of suit, and that defendant 1 was not entitled to remain in possession. It may be noted that this part of the plaintiff's case was put forward as accounting for the defendant's admitted possession for some years, prior to suit. It was his further case that defendant l got Seshamma, defendant 6, after her mother-in-law's death to alie...
Dukkipati Venkata Subba Rao Vs. Pandrangi Kanakaraju and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-21-1950
Reported in: AIR1950Mad801; (1950)IIMLJ290
Subba Rao, J. 1. (C. M. A. 634/46) -- These two civii miscellaneous appeals arise out of two orders passed by the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Masulipatam in execution of the decree in O. S. No. 127 of 1930. To appreciate the facts and the contentions of the parties, the following genealogy will be usefully referred to. RAMAPPA | _______________________________________________________________________ | | | | Ananda Rao Krishnamurthi Kanakaraju Triyambaka (died)Deft.3 Deft.1 (died) Rao(Respt. 5) | | | | _____________ ___________________ Bhaskara | | | | | Rao(Deft.4) | Rama Rao Kasava rao Lingameshvara Swarnapathi | | Deft. 11 (Deft. 12) Rao(Deft.5) (Deft. 6) ________________________ | | | | | Rama Rao Kasava Rao Kanakaraju | (Deft.7) (Deft. 8) (Deft.8) | ____________________________________________________________________________________ | | | | Rangayya Venkateshwara Rama Rao Yugantha rao (Deft.7) Rao(Deft.9) (Deft.8) (Deft.10)The family owned about 200 acres of land at Doddipa...
Rajammal Vs. R. Gopalaswami Naidu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-20-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Mad767
Satyanarayana Rao, J.1. The pltf. is the applt. in the second appeal. She instituted the suit out of which this second appeal arises for specific performance of an agreement to reconvey executed by the deft. in favour of the pltf. on 27-9-1943, Ex. P. 1. The deft. obtained conveyance of property under Ex. D. 1 dated 24-9-1943 for a stated consideration of Rs. 1500. The suit was resisted by the deft. on various grounds the chief of which & which survive in this second appeal are, that the contract is vague as regards the amount of consideration & also the time of performance & that it ia unenforceable as it offends the rule against perpetuity. It was also contended that, in any event, the pltf. should not have been granted a decree for specific performance in the exercise of the discretionary power vested in the Ct. to decree specific performance of contracts, recognised under Section 22, Specific Relief Act. The trial Ct. negatived all the contentions urged by the deft. & decreed the s...
The Joint Secretary, Board of Revenue Vs. K.R. Venkatarama Ayyar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-20-1950
Reported in: AIR1950Mad738; (1950)IIMLJ213
Horwill, J.1. We are here concerned with a reference made by the Board of Revenue under Section 57, Stamp Act II [2] of 1899 on a question of the stamp duty payable on a settlement deed.2. It is conceded that the document contains terms which make it a settlement deed and that for purposes of stamp duty it should be treated as such. Under Article 58, Stamp Act (Schedule 1), the duty is to be the same as for a bond for a sum equal to the amount or 'value of the property settled as set forth in such settlement.' The real value of the property is admitted by the settlor to be Rs. 2 lakhs; and since it is subject to a mortgage of one lakh of rupees, the value of the equity of redemption would be at least one lakh of rupees. The revenue authorities value it at Rs. 1,59,300, The settlor did not in so many terms purport to give the real value of the property; because if he gave a false value, he would be liable to prosecution. So he tried to guard himself by saying, 'Value for purposes of sta...
Moppuru Narayana Vs. Mallavarapu Lurudu Mareyya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-17-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Mad605; (1951)IMLJ707
ORDERSomasundaram, J. 1. This revision is by the plaintiff against the dismissal of S. C. S. No. 140 of 1946 by the Subordinate Judge of Tenali. 2. The suit is for the recovery of Rs. 331-4-0 based on an acknowledgment of liability made by the defendant in his own writing on 11-5-1945. This was done in a note book belonging to the plaintiff and it was left in the possession of the plaintiff. The writing was in Telugu and as there was some dispute with regard to the translation, I had it translated by Court and it reads as follows : 'Three hundred and two rupees and annas eight only being the amount due to this date on looking into the accounts up to this date in respect of miscellaneous khatha (account) and in respect of the principal and interest relating to previous accounts. Sd. Mallavarapu Lurdu Marayya.' The plaintiff bases his action solely on this acknowledgment as is clear from his averments in paras. 1 and 4 of his plaint. The lower Court finds that there is no ether evidence...
J. Belli Gowder Vs. Joghi Gowder and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-17-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Mad683; (1950)1MLJ639
Viswanatha Sastri, J.1. This second appeal has beenargued clearly and concisely by Mr. S. Viswanathan for the applt. The suit was for specific performance of an agreement to convey land to the plaintiff alleged to have been entered into with the defendants. The dispute between the parties has a long history starting from 1927 when the properties now in suit along with others were conveyed by the plaintiff to the predecessors-in-title of the defts. Suffice it to say that under Ex. P. 2 dated-5-8-1937 and Ex. P. 3 dated 21-12-1938 there were agreements to reconvey the plaint A and B schedule lands to the plaintiff for Rs. 100 and Rs. 507-4-0 respectively within two years from the date of the agreements. The agreements for reconveyance were entered into by the father of defts 1 and 2 in respect of the 'A' schedule land and by the 1st defendant in respect of the 'B' schedule land. The father of defendants 1 and 2 died thereafter and the defts represent his interest. The pltf made certain p...
Korrapatty Appayya Vs. Talla Rama Subbayya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-17-1950
Reported in: AIR1950Mad537
Somasundaram, J.1. The charge on which the petitioner is convicted is that he gave instructions to p. w. 6, the lawyer, who put certain questions which were defamatory. P. W. 6 having acted as lawyer to the petitioner is debarred under Section 126, Evidence Act, to disclose the instructions given to him. Apart from the section which is clear on the point, it is also covered by thejudgment of Burn J. in Palaniappa Chettiar v. Emperor, 1935 M. W. N. 460. The only other evidence is that given by p. W. 4. But that does not prove the prosecution case. The conviction by the learned Additional Magistrate on the evidence of the lawyer P. w. 6 is unsustainable. It is set aside and the accused acquitted. The fine, if paid, will be refunded....
Arumugam Chettiar (Minor) and anr. Vs. K.R.S. Sevugan Chettiar and anr ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-17-1950
Reported in: AIR1950Mad779; (1950)IIMLJ159
ORDERKrishnaswami Nayudu, J.1. This revision petition is against the order of the Subordinate Judge of Davakottai directing the petitioner to furnish security for costs of the suit. The petitioners claimed to be the illegitimate sons of one Karuppan Chettiar and instituted a suit for partition of the properties of Karuppan Chettiar claiming a share as the offspring of his continuously kept concubine. The parties are Sudras. The defendants are the sons of Karuppan Chettiar who resisted the suit on several grounds. The suit was instituted in forma pauperis, and the properties were valued at nearly Rs. 3 lakhs. Karuppan Chettiar died before the suit, and sometime before his death the petitioners' mother obtained an order from a Magistrate for maintenance on the footing that the petitioners were the children and that she, their mother, was the lawful wife of Karuppan Chettiar. Thereupon Karuppan Chettiar filed a suit for a declaration that the petitioners' mother was not his legally wedded...
In Re: Dasan Gangaraju
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-17-1950
Reported in: AIR1950Mad778
ORDERSomasundaram, J.1. In this case the petitioner has been convicted for an offence under Section 380, Penal Code and sentenced to six months' rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- in default to rigorous imprisonment for 11/2 months-The prosecution case is that on 6th May 1948 a marriage party consisting of P. Ws. 2 to 5, 8 and 9 boarding a train at Kovvur railway station left behind on the platform the trunk M. O. 1 consisting of very valuable gold and silver ornaments worth about Rs. 10,000/-. They discovered it late in the afternoon of that day and gave a complaint at their place of destination. In the meantime, a railway licensed cooly P. W. 1 is said to have seen this box on the platform of the Kovvur railway station. He removed it and is said to have kept it in the room of the Assistant Station Master. Subsequently it was found missing even from that room. The petitioner is a pointsman attached to the railway station of Kovvur. At the preliminary investigation he...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »