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.
Ariangavu Pillai Vs. Nallamangai Ammal and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-17-1950
Reported in: (1950)2MLJ370
Horwill, J.1. The respondent made an allegation against the appellant that he had caused the disappearance of a ledger from the precincts of the Court and fabricated some secondary evidence. The same allegation was put forward during the course of the suit in which the ledgers had been filed. The trial Court found against the respondent. The respondent appealed and the appeal was dismissed. The second appeal to this Court is still pending. During the course of the appeal and second appeal, the respondent filed this application, requesting the Court under Section 476, Criminal Procedure Code, to file a complaint against the appel ant. The Court, acting on very much the same evidence as it had in the course of the suit, concluded that the disappearance of the evidence was due to somebody acting on the part of the respondent and not of the appellant and that the secondary evidence was true. He then fore refused to file a complaint. On appeal under Section 476-B, the learned District Judge...
The Chikkottil Rama Variar, Sammadayi of Nhuralath Devaswom Vs. Ananth ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-16-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Mad423; (1950)2MLJ636
ORDERViswanatha Sastri, J.1. Defendant 5, the Samudayi of a Malabar Devaswom, seeks a revision of a decree of a Small Cause Court passed against the assets of the Devaswom. On 18-10-1943, the four Uralars of the Devaswom executed a promissory note, Ex. A. 1, in favour of the plaintiff in these terms :'On demand, we, the Uralars of Nharalath Devaswom, namely, (1) Vasudevan Nambudir, son of Vasudevan Nambudir, (2) Vasudevan Nambudiri, son of Parameswaran Nambudiri, (3) Thuppan Nambudiri, son of Damodarau Nambudiri, and (4) Padmana-bhan Nambudiri, son of Parameswaran Nambudiri, hereby promise to pay to Ananthanarayana Pattar (plaintiff) or order the sum of Rs. 750 with interest thereon at 6 1/4 per cent. per annum. The entire consideration amount has been received to the satisfaction of the aforesaid devaswom in the following manner .... Thus, the entire consideration amount has been received to the satisfaction of the aforesaid Devaswom.(Sd.) Vasudevan Nambudiri(Sd.) Vasudevan Nambudiri(...
Palaniappa Goundan Vs. Nallappa Goundan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-16-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Mad817; (1951)IMLJ265
Viswanatha Sastri, J.1. This second appeal has been preferred by deft. 1 against a decree for redemption of a usufructuary mtge., Ex. P. 1, dated 8-2-1922, executed by the mother & guardian of deft. 2 then a minor, in favour of Vyapuri, the divided paternal uncle of the minor & assigned by Vyapuri to deft. 1 under Ex. D. 3, dated 22-8-1927. The property mortgaged belonged to the minor deft. 2 as sole owner & was managed on his behalf by his mother who died shortly after the execution of the mtge. Ex. P. 1, in 1922. Thereafter, Vyapuri, the divided uncle, professing to act as guardian of his minor nephew, deft. 2 mortgaged the property under Ex. D. 5, dated 22-8-1927, & subsequently sold it to deft. 1 under Ex. D. 6 dated 7-6-1939 in discharge of the prior mtges. & in consideration of a small cash payment. Deft. 2 attained majority some time later in 1939 & he sold the same property to the pltf. the son of Vyapuri, under Ex. P. 5, dated 10-5-1943, ignoring the previous alienation by Vya...
Palaniyandi Chetti and ors. Vs. Kandappa Goundan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-15-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Mad281; (1950)1MLJ372
Viswanatha Sastry, J.1. Defendants 1 to 11 are the appellants in this second appeal. The plaintiff sued for a declaration of his right of way along the pathway indicated ABCDEFGHJKL in the plaint plan for his cattle, carts and men to go to his land and for an injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with his user of the pathway and for the restoration of the pathway at HJ to its original condition. The suit has been decreed by the Courts below on the finding that the plaintiff was entitled to the right of way claimed by him and that the obstructions and alterations caused by the defendants in the pathway so as to interfere with the plaintiff's exercise of his right of way were unjustified. There was a decree for a prohibitive and a mandatory injunction in favour of the plaintiff. There is ample evidence in the case to support the finding of the lower appellate Court that the pathway in question was a pathway over which the plaintiff had the right claimed by him in his pla...
S. Chokkalingam Pillai and anr. Vs. M.S.S.M. Ganesa Shanmugasundaram P ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-15-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Mad284; (1950)2MLJ605
Raghava Rao, J. 1. This second appeal arisea out of a suit for ejectment and for rent. So far as the first: relief is concerned, it is admitted that the lease under which the plaintiff claims and on the basis of which he has granted a sub lease to the defendant has expired. The second relief is however the practical relief with reference to which a decree must be given in favour of the plaintiff, if he is to succeed in his contention of estoppel against his tenant, the defendant. The Courts below have dismissed the suit on the ground that there was a determination of the lease in favour of the defendant by the determination of the title of the plaintiff as the lessee from the original owner. 2. In appeal it is contended that in holding against the estoppel under Section 116, Evidence Act, pleaded by the plaintiff, the Courts below have erred in the view that they have taken, that there was a threat of eviction by title para, mount from the original owner against) the defendant It is ur...
Kavuru Venkatappayya Vs. Kavuru Raghavayya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-15-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Mad318; (1950)2MLJ466
Raghava Rao, J.1. The material facts of this case lie in a short and narrow compass, The father of the plaintiff and of the defendant in the suit, out of which this second appeal arises, made a gift of his separate property to the plaintiff under Ex. P-1 dated 5-9-1943 wherein he says after reciting certain preliminary facts which it is unnecessary to set out: 'I have conveyed to you (as Dhakal) the property of the value of Rs. 400 mentioned in the schedule below, and myself and my wife shall live therein for the lifetime of both of us. After the lifetime of both of us, you shall take possession of the schedule property, and may enjoy the same as you please with absolute powers of disposition by way of gift, sale etc. and I, my heirs and claimants through me shall never raise any dispute whatsoever against you, your heirs and claimants through you.' The plaintiff for himself and his minor son, since dead, thereafter executed Ex. D-1 dated 6-4-1944 in favour of the defendant conveying t...
Kistappa Naicker Vs. Parvati Ammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-15-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Mad360; (1950)2MLJ255
Raghava Rao, J.1. This city civil Court appeal arises out of a suit for maintenance by the respondent before me against her husband, the appellant before me, The Judge below has decreed the suit for Rs. 30 per mensem as for the future and for Rs. 240 for arrears of maintenance.2. Mr. Ramanathan, for the appellant, urges that the plaintiff is not entitled to separate maintenance because she chose to keep herself away from the husband's roof; but anyhow there is the fact that the appellant is a man who has taken a second wife. That fact by itself is sufficient ground for award of separate maintenance to the wife under Act XIX [19] of 1946 (Central) in the absence of any unchaste or improper conduct on her part. So much has been held in recent decisions of this Court of which I need only refer to my judgment delivered just today in S. A. No. 556 of 1947. This point of the learned counsel, therefore, fails.3. Then says Mr. Ramanathan this suit ought not to have been entertained by the City...
Koroth Tanicheri Kunhikannan Nambiar Vs. Cheriath Cheeru and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-15-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Mad383; (1950)2MLJ549
Viswanatha Sastri, J. 1. Plaintiff is the appellant in this second appeal. His suit for recovery of arrears of rent by sale of the kuzhikanam and other rights of the defendant-tenant in the property described in the schedule to the plaint has been dismissed by the Courts below. The property of which the rent is now claimed was leased onkuzhiltanam by the karnavan of a tarwad to the predecessor-in-inteiest of the defendant. As the result of the decree in a suit for partition filed under the Madras Marumakattayam Act, VII [7] of 1933 the members of the tarwad which granted the lease became divided. Nevertheless, the plaintiff, the karnavan of the disrupted tarwad, claimed rent from the defendant on the footing that he retained his status as karnavan to represent the members of the tarwad in respect of the property of which the rent is now claimed because this property had not been partitioned among the members of the tarwad by the dncree. The defend ant tenant, resisted the claim on the ...
In Re: T.R. Ganeshan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-15-1950
Reported in: AIR1950Mad696
Krishnaswami Nayudu, J.1. This revision petition raises a question of some importance regarding the venue of trials in criminal cases. The petitioner, a communist detenu in the Central Jail, Vellore, was charged along with others for alleged offences of causing simple hurt etc. to the jail officials on 3rd August 1949 within the precincts of the said jail while the jail officials were acting in the discharge of their official duties. As many as 23 charge sheets were filed against this detenu with regard to the alleged occurrence. In pursuance of ft request by the Inspector General of Prisons, Madras, that the trial of the petitioner and the other connected cases may be held in the recreation room of the Central Jail, Vellore, to which the public can be given access, the Government agreed to the proposal and directed the trial of the abovementioned cases as suggested by the Inspector General of Prisons. The District Magistrate after obtaining the approval of the High Court, Madras, issu...
Arasappa Pillai and ors. Vs. V. Thandavan Pillai and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-15-1950
Reported in: AIR1950Mad770; (1950)IIMLJ173
Raghava Rao, J.1. The short question for detrmination is this appeal which evoked a long argument of two days in fall and the better part of a third is whether Act XXV [35] of 1948 applies to cases of insolvency of a manager other than the father of a Hindu joint family. I feel highly indebted to counsel for their forcible and pointed and in no sense unnecessarily prolonged argument. The lower appellate Court has answered the question in the negative and the appellants assail the answer as Erroneous, 2. The primary matter for consideration is the language of the body of new Section 28-A together with the second proviso thereto and not the first of Act v [5] of 1920 which has come in by reason of Act XXV [25] of 1948. In the body of the new section the crucial words are 'for his own benefit' and in the relevant proviso the material words are the words of reference to 28th day of July 1942. That date is the date of the judgment of a Full Bench of this Court reported in Ramasastrulu v. Ba...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »