Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1951Mad841; (1951)IMLJ446
Viswanatha Sastri, J.1. This is an appln. to revise the order of the learned Subordinate Judge of Tiruneiveli in I. A. No. 11 of 1949 in O. S. No. 70 of 1948, a suit instituted 'in forma pauperis' on the file of that Ct. The deft. is the petnr., & the pltf., the resp. in this civil revn. petn. The resp. filed an appln. O. P. No. 58 of 1947, under Order 33 Rr. 1 & 2, Civil P. C. 'In forma pauperis' in the Ct. of the Subordinate Judge of Tirunelveli clanging to recover possession of some landed property with mesne profits, & also claiming an enhanced maintenance for herself, besides a sum of Rs. 975 for expenses of religious observances & Rs. 300 the value of certain silver vessels belonging to her. The resp. is the brother's widow of the petnr. There were bequests in favour of both the parties under a Will of the father-in-law of the resp. During the course of the enquiry into the pauperism of the resp., she was put in possession of the landed property claimed by her, & thereafter the s...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1951Mad93; (1951)IIMLJ121
Satyanarayana Rao, J. 1. At the instance of Mack J., two questions have been referred to the F. B. : 1. Whether Section 15, Civil P. C., governs Chartered High Courts, and whether in view of it all suits below Rs. 10,000 in value should not be instituted direct in the City Civil Court ; 2. Whether the City Civil Court is competent to try or dispose of suits filed in the High Court below Rs. 10,000 in value which were instituted prior to the enhancement of its jurisdiction from Rs. 8000 to Rs. 10,000 ; if so, can such transfers be legally made either under Section 16, proviso (2), Madras City Civil Court Act or under Section 24(1), Civil P. C.' This reference was occasioned as Mack J. was of opinion that an earlier decision of Panchapagesa Sastri J. in Mohamed Yusuf v. Khadir Badsha Sahib : (1949)1MLJ503 which held that the H. C. had no power under Section 16 (proviso ?) (2), Madras City Civil Court Act (VII [7] of 1892) to transfer to the City Civil Ct. suits instituted in the H. C. o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1951Mad277
Horwill, J.1. The Corporation of Madras made demands for the property tax due by the respondent for the second half year of 1945-46 and the first half year of 1946-47 on 22-12-1945 and 4-7-1946 respectively. The amounts demanded were paid on 28-2-1946 and 7-8-1946 respectively. On 6-9-1946 the Corporation issued a notice to the respondent purporting to be under Section 137-B and Rules 35-3-A, Part 1-A, Schedule IV demanding an enhanced assessment not only from the date of the notice, but also retrospectively for the two half years mentioned above. The respondent raised various objections, the principal one of which was that he was entitled to the benefit of the proviso to Rule 3, Part I.A. of Schedule IV. The new assessment could have effect only from the half year succeeding the half years in question, and as he had paid the assessment for the succeeding half years, nothing further was due by him. He exhausted the various remedies act out in Schedule IV, including a reference to the H...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1951Mad278; (1950)2MLJ378
ORDERSatyanarayana Rao, J.1. The decision of the lower Court is correct. The Pull Bench in Hussain Sahib v. Ayesha Bibi, I. L. K. (1941) Mad. 775 : A. I. R. 1911 Mad. 431 decided that a quondam minor impeaching an alienation made by a certificated guardian without sanction of the Court is bound to sue to set aside the sale. This is not a case where the minor avoided the transaction by anything done before suit. He chose the institution of the suit as the only mode of avoidance and he is bound to include in the plaint a prayer for setting aside the transaction. The fact that the sanction is impeached on the ground of fraud and collusion would not make any difference. It would utmost be in the event of fraud being established in a case where no sanction was obtained for the transfer. The view taken by the lower Court regarding the transaction is correct, The minor was a party to the decree through a guardian. He is, therefore, bound to sue to set aside the decree, and the court-fee direc...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1951Mad344; (1950)2MLJ336
Somasundram, J.1. The three secod appeal saise out of three suits filed by the appellants to recover damages from the respondent-defendant for malicious prosecution. The defendant as the same in all the three suits.2. In respect of an occurrence on 21-5-1942 the defendant filed a complaint against the appellants and others for offences under Sections 148, 119, 323, 324, 352 and 501, Penal Code. A primes facie case was made out, and so & charge was framed by the Magistrate against appellants and others for offences under Sections 323 and 324, Penal Code. The accused then entered upon their defence and examined defence witnesses. The Magistrate, after considering the defence evidence, acquitted the appellants, The appellants thereupon instituted the suits in the Court of the District Munsif, Vijayawada, for damages for malioious prosecution.3. It may he mentioned, the appellants in S. A. no. 793 of 1947 filed a complaint against the defendant, alleging that the defendant and others came ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1951Mad352; (1950)2MLJ335
ORDERGovinda Menon, J.1. The only point raised in this case is whether the suit is barred by reason of Section 51, Madras Co-operative Societies Act, The defendant, a Co-operative Society, contested the claim of the plaintiff, an ex-employee, who wanted to recover the security deposit made by him at the time he was entertained by the society. The suit was for recovery of the security deposit along with the arrears of salary. The point of jurisdiction raided by the Co-operative Societywas that the claim for the refund of the securitydeposit was a matter touching the business ofthe society as contemplated in Section 51 of the Act and therefore the civil Court has no jurisdiction.The teamed District Munsif has found that thisla not a matter touching the business of thesociety and has decreed the suit. My attentionhas been drawn to a decision in NarayanaNair v. Secretary, Triplicane Urban Co-operative Society Ltd. : AIR1948Mad343 where Satyanarayana Rao J.has held that where an employee of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1950)2MLJ496
Somasundaram, J.1. The plaintiff is the appellant in the above second appeal. The question involved in the appeal is one of construction of the will, Ex. P-1, in the case. It was executed by one Vithilingam Pillai on 5th May, 1915. The donee under the will was his daughter, Kathayi, and the plaintiff is the grandson of the said Kathayi. The will, after setting out the properties he had and the debts, proceeds to state as follows:After my lifetime my daughter Kathayi shall take all my immoveable and moveable properties with absolute rights If the said mortgage debt is not discharged during my lifetime the said debt shall be discharged by Kathayi. My obsequies shall be performed by Ratnaswami, grandson of my daughter, Kathayi and son of Maria Pillai of East Tanjore. These arrangements shall take effect after my lifetime. My daughter Kathayi shall get these properties after my lifetime with absolute rights. After her lifetime, her grandson Ratnaswami shall get the properties.It may be men...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1951Mad387; (1950)2MLJ632
ORDERRaghava Rao, J. 1. This revision petition has been pre-ferred by defendant in O. S. No. 37 of 1943 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Coimbatore. The order against which the revision petition has been preferred is that of the learned District Judge of Coimbatore affirming the order of the Subordinate Judge in I. A. No. 511 of 1944 in the orginial suit I. A. No. 511 was filed by the plaintiff in the suit for recording a certain award decision under Order 23, Rule 3, Civil P. C. 2. The application having been ordered by the Courts below, learned counsel of defendants-petitioners 4 urges before me that the provisions of Section 47, Arbitration Act, have not been sufficiently borne in mind and correctly given effect to by the Courts below. Defendant 4 was not a party to the reference to arbi-tration which resulted in the award on the basis of which the Court was invited to make a decree in terms thereof. There was, therefore, no arbitration award with reference to de...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1950)2MLJ369
Raghava Rao, J.1. The question raised in this case is as to an encroachment alleged against the plaintiff, the Molla of a certain mosque in Calicut by the defendants, the Calicut Municipal Council and the Collector of Malabar, representing the Provincial Government, Madras. The encroachment alleged against the plaintiff has been concurrently found by the courts below and in spite of a fairly long and strenuous argument on the part of Mr. Ramakrishna Aiyar,. I am not inclined to disturb the finding of the Courts below. Mr. Ramakrishna Aiyar's main point is that Exhibit D-3 a certain letter written by his client to the Municipal Council in September, 1940, has been misread by the lower appellate Court as containing a certain admission by his client that the suit shop buildings were reconstructed some years back. I am not quite so sure however as the lower appellate Court that there is any such admission as is supposed by the lower appellate Court to exist in Exhibit D-3. At the same time...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1950)2MLJ489
P.V. Rajamannar, C.J.1. The petitioner is the landlord and the contesting respondent is the tenant in whose favour a lease deed was executed on 16th July, 1943, by the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner for a period of ten years on a rental of Rs 16 per mensem. There is no dispute that there was default in the payment of rent on the date of the application for eviction, but the appellate authority has dismissed the application on the ground that as the period of the lease had not expired, the terms of Section 7(2) of Madras Act XV of 1946 cannot apply. The appellate authority was clearly in error in so holding. The opening words of Section 7, Sub-section (1) makes it abundantly clear that even during the termination of the tenancy a tenant may be evicted in accordance with the provisions of that section. It has been held by this Court that it is not necessary to terminate the tenancy in accordance with the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act before an application for evic...
Tag this Judgment!