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.
Machireddi Narappa Vs. Proddatur Subbarayadu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-03-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Mad340; (1950)2MLJ253
Krishnaswami Nayudu, J.1. This civil miscellaneous second appeal arises out of proceedings taken in execution of a final mortgage decree. The petitioner is the son of the judgment-debtor. The final decree was passed on 25-7-1932. The decree-holder died after the final decree and his son, one Lingaaubbayya, appears to have filed three execution petitions, the first on 21-1-1936, the second on 20-1-1938 and the third on 31-1-1941. The third execution application was dismissed on 21-2-1941. Lingasubbayya's sons filed an execution petition on 29-1-19-14 which was also dismissed on 24-2-1944. They again filed the present execution petition E. P. No. 366 of 1944, on 24-7-1914, just a day previous to the expiry of the 12 years period from the date of the final decree.2. The present execution petition was signed and verified by Lingasubbayya's sons and was also counter-signed by one Mr. C. S. Narasimha chariar as vakil for the decree-holder, Veerasub-bayya. Mr. Narasimhachariar had no vakalat ...
Sheik Meera Sahib Vs. Akkalaneni Venkatapathi Naidu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-03-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Mad326; (1950)2MLJ544
Satyanarayana Rao, J.1. Defendant 3 is the appellant in this second appeal. The suit out of which this second appeal arises was instituted for a declaration of the plaintiff's title to the plaint schedule properties and for possession. To establish his title the plaintiff relied upon an agreement of sale dated 26-7 1926, EX p. 8, executed by one Subbayya in favour of defendant 1 and a conveyance by defendant 1 dated 19-8-1944, Ex. p. 1, in his favour. Defendant 3 claimed that the purchase by defendant 1 from Subbayya the original owner was really for his benefit and he relied in support of his title upon Ex. D-1 dated 26-7-1926, i.e., the same date as Ex. p. 8 which, it is alleged, was executed by Subbaya in favour of defendant 3 who was then a minor represented by defendant 1 as guardian. It has now been found by the Courts below that Ex. D-1 is not genuine. The only question which remains outstanding for disposal and which is a question of law is whether Ex. p. 8 which is a copy of t...
The Rajanagaram Village Co-operative Society by Its Secretary, Parthas ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-03-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Mad322; (1950)2MLJ486
Satyanarayana Rao, J.1. This appeal by the defendant, the Rajanagaram Co-operative Society, is against the decree for specific performance of a contract of sale granted in favour of the plaintiff by the lower appellate Court. The only question that has to be considered is whether there was a concluded contract in favour of the plaintiff for the sale of the property by the defendant to the plaintiff.2. The property in dispute was purchased on 29-5-1941 by the defendant-society at an auction sale for a sum of Rs. 300, vide, EX. P-1. In 1943 the defendant wanted to dispose of his property by public auction. The terms of the auction sale are contained in Ex. D.1, dated 17-6-1948. Under Clause 1 it is stated 'the sale will be knocked down in favour of the highest bidder subject to the approval of the Mahasabba (the defendant) and the Chittoor District Bank.' There were also other conditions which have been laid down but it is unnecessary to refer to them as nothing turns on those conditions...
The Public Prosecutor Vs. Annavarapu Ramasubba Rao and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-03-1950
Reported in: AIR1950Mad551
Chandra Reddi, J.1. This appeal is filed by the State of Madras against the order of acquittal of the respondent for an offence under Section 5 (1) (a) and (d) read with Rule 36 framed under Section 20 (2), Madras Prevention of Adulteration Act, Madras Act III [3] of 1918, as amended. The case against the accused is that accused l offered for sale, through his salesman, Article 2, coffee powder adulterated with wild date seeds at about 8.46 A. M. on 31st July 1948. P. W. 1 went to the shop where coffee powder was exposed for sale and got a sample of that coffee powder from accused 2, who was the salesman in the shop of accused 1 and sent it to the Government Analyst for his opinion. It was found by the analyst that it contained 30 per cent, of roasted wild date seeds powder. 2. The prosecution examined P. W. 2 who deposed that accused 1 was absent at the shop and that accused 2 produced a tin from which the sample was taken and that it did not contain any lable to show that it containe...
Ramakrishna Naidu Vs. Srinivasalu Naidu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-03-1950
Reported in: AIR1950Mad552
Raghava Rao, J.1. The final decree in the mortgage suit under execution in the present case is of 6th March 1940. On 6th March 1943, E. P. No. 38 of 1943 was filed and it was dismissed on 23rd August 1943 for default of prosecution. The execution petition, out of which this appeal arises, was filed on 15th January 1947. It was ordered as in time. Hence this appeal. 2. What is claimed to save the execution petition from the bar of limitation is the pendency of an application under Order 9, Rule 13, Civil P. C., by defendant 9, the judgment debtor from whom the appellant claims as purchaser, from somewhere in June 1943 to its dismissal on 13th January 1944. That there can be no suspension of time which has once begun to run except under the heads of deduction specifically recognised and provided for by the statute is, however, too well settled to be disputed. 3. But the way in which the point is further put for the respondent and was accepted by the Court below is that an application und...
Chenkuniyrath Kannu's daughter Kalathil Madhavi Vs. Uppungal Makkunny' ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-03-1950
Reported in: AIR1950Mad550
Raghava Rao, J.1. In this second appeal and civil miscellaneoua second appeal, it is common ground that if the one is allowed, the other also must be allowed, and that if the one is dismissed, the other also muat be dismissed. The question argued is whether in a suit for eviction under Section 33, Malabar Tenancy Act, the tenant who prior thereto made a usufructuary mortgage of his holding in favour of another person and got back possession from the mort. gagee as lessee is entitled to plead his continuous occupation of the homestead for ten years as entitling him to offer to purchase the rights of the landlord. The Courts below have held that he is; Mr. Kuttikrishna Menon's argument is that he is not. The argument is put thisway: 'Suppose, the tenant had made a mortgage and not got She lease back; he would not have been entitled to offer to purchase the landlord's right. His situation does not stand improved by the lease back. Of course, bad the tenant made a simple, and not a usufruc...
In Re: Manickam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-02-1950
Reported in: AIR1950Mad576
Govinda Menon, J.1. The conviction of the accused rests upon the testimony of P. Ws. 1, 2 and 9 all of whom say that the accused out the neck of the deceased with an aruval in his hand. The deceased who was living with P. W 1 had lost a cook belonging to her on 1st August 1949, The next morning while she and P. W. 1 were searching for the bird the deceased was muttering curses on the unknown thief and while they were proceeding in front of the accused's house the accused thinking that the curses were levelled against him came out and catching hold of the tuft of the deceased cut her neck twice or thrice and thereby killed her. Afterwards the accused went to the backside of his own house, washed the aruval, came and sat in the front pial with the aruval by his side. Information was given, to the Village Munsif who came to the place but was too timid to approach the accused or arrest him. The police officers arrived late in the day and after cajoling the accused were able to arrest him a...
Somasundaram Chettiar Vs. Chidambaram Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-01-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Mad282; (1950)1MLJ509
Rajamannar, C.J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit filed by the respondent for specific performance of an agreement to assign the decree in O. S. No. 208 of 1932 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Devakottai obtained by the appellant as a result of the decision of this Court in A. s. no. 237 of 1934. The agree-ment was dated 17-12-1942 and there is now no dispute that it was executed by the defendant who had fall knowledge of what he was doing. In his evidence he admitted that though he was not originally agreeable to execute the deed of assignment of the decree, he eventually agreed to do to and executed the agreement, Ex. P-2. There was an attempt in the Court below to establish a case of coercion which vitiated the agreement, but the attempt altogether failed. On a perusal of the evidence of the defendant himself and the other three witnesses examined on his behalf, there is no doubt left in our minds that the agreement was duly executed by the defendant and was i...
In Re: Karunthambi Alias Subramania Goundar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-01-1950
Reported in: AIR1950Mad579
Govinda Menon, J.1. The main, if not the sole, piece of evidence against the appellant is his confession made before the Stationery Sub. Magistrate and marked as Ex. P. 3 in the case. If that confession is accepted, as true, then, there can be no doubt that the deceased Govindammal was done to death by the appellant by cutting her throat by a deadly weapon. But the question is whether it is safe to act upon that document alone and find the appellant guilty of the offence.2. The appellant is a young man of 18 or 19 years of age and the deceased Govindammal was practically double his age. She was a woman possessed of some property and the appellant was employed by her as a farm servant to look after the cultivation. During the course of this service, the appellant became intimate with the deceased and stayed in the house of the deceased. Contemporaneously with the appellant's criminal intimacy the deceased was also carrying on with P. W. 5. a cooly, as spoken to by P. W. 4. The appellant...
In Re: Periyaswami thevan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-01-1950
Reported in: AIR1950Mad714
Govinda Menon, J.1. The adequacy or otherwise of the circumstantial evidence against the accused will have to determine his guilt or innocence and for that purpose it is necessary to outline briefly the evidence against him. Shortly put, and if we accept the prosecution evidence in its entirety, the evidence comes to this : Firstly, that the deceased and the appellant were on inimical terms sometime prior to the date on which the murder took place, Secondly that the accused had threatened the deceased that he would cut him even as the deceased had cut and tilled his goat. Thirdly, on the date of murder, a few hours prior to its taking place, there is evidence that the deceased was seen driving his goats in a particular direction The accused also was doing the same thing so far as his own goats were concerned, i.e., both the deceased and the accused were seen either in each other's company or in close proximity to each other some hours before the murder took place. The further piece of ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›