Chennai Court April 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.
Vengu Ayyar and anr. Vs. Yegyam Ayyar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-04-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Mad414; (1950)2MLJ642
ORDERRaghava Rao, J.1. The facts connected with this civil revision petition are these: There was a suit for partition before the District Munsif's Court, Ambasamudram, by one brother against others which was referred to arbitration. Defendant 1, the eldest brother, claimed that except items 1 to 5 of the plaint schedule the rest of them, items & to 25 were his self-acquisitions standing either in his own name or in the name of his wife, defendant 2. The advocate-arbitrator agreed with defendant 1's contentions and made an award which the Court, however, remitted on the ground that it was not clear whether every individual sale in respect of the items in suit wag considered by the arbitrator. On remittal, the arbitrator gave notices to both the parties. The plaintiff did not turn up with the result that the arbitrator, finding that he could do nothing, sent back the record to the District Munsif. He thereupon took up the objections to the award which had been previously filed, and, aft...
Muruga Mudaliar (Deceased) and ors. Vs. Subba Reddiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-03-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Mad12; (1950)IIMLJ818
ORDERRaghava Rao, J.1. The suit in this case is for damages for breach of an agreement of lease.The document evidencing the agreement has been ruled out by both the Courts below for want of registration. The question is whether it has been rightly so ruled out. 2. A typed translation of the document has been placed before me by the learned counsel for the respondent, which has been accepted by the learned counsel for the appellant as correct. It runs as follows :'Agreement dated 30-5-1942 executed by R. Subba Reddiar residing at Chinnakandanur, Velliyanai village, Karur taluk in favour of E. Ruruga Mudaliar of Mohanur village, Namakkal taluk. Having agreed this day for a lease on a rent of Rs. 600 per year in respect of 4 acres known as Onnekalkani etc., belonging to me in Vangal, I have received this day Rs. 100 as advance. You having agreed for 31/2 years (in respect of) the above lands, you shall pay the rent at the end of Kalavati each year and shall get receipt therefor.' 3. It i...
Rm. P. Ar. Ramanathan Chettiar Vs. Pl. Ar. Lakshmanan Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-03-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Mad325
Viswanatha Sastri, J.1. The defendant-judgment-debtor is the appellant in this second appeal which is filed against an order of the lower Courts refusing to set aside an execution sale of his residential house held on 24-12-1945 and confirmed on 29-1.1946. The facts that have led to this application have to be briefly stated. 2. The plaintiff obtained a decree for money in O. S. No. 166 of 1935 on the file of the District Munsiff's Court of Devakottah against the defendant, who was then a minor, on 1-4-1936. This decree was confirmed subject to a slight modification on 8-12-1936. There were previous applications for execution and the final order on the last execution application was passed on 8-4-1942 dismissing the execution petition for non-payment of batta. The judgment-debtor, who was a minor at the time of the decree and for some time thereafter, attained majority on 8-1-1941 and left India for Burma on 23-11941. Owing to the outbreak of hostilities he was detained in Burma and re...
In Re: Navaneethammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-03-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Mad343; (1950)2MLJ579
Rajamannar, C.J.1. The judgment of the appellate authority is certainly not satisfactory, but we see no reason to interfere by way of a writ of certiorari, because there is no error of law apparent on the face of the order. The tenant relied upon payment; of rent at internals longer than a month in support of an agreement that rent had to be paid once in two months. The appellate authority was not satisfied that the agreement had been proved. This finding of his is a finding of fact 2. The learned advocate for the petitioner also urged upon us another point not dealt with by the learned Judge, namely, that the landlord had with him two months rent in advance and he could adjust it towards arrears of rent under Section 6(c), But to invoke the provisions of that Sub-section of Section 6, the tenant should exercise the option and call upon the landlord in time to make the adjustment. There is no evidence in this case of the exercise of such a choice. The mere fact that the landlord had wi...
In Re: A.R. Krishnaswami Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-03-1950
Reported in: AIR1950Mad713
Somasundaram, J.1. The petitioner has been convicted by the Additional First Class Magistrate, Kumbakonam, and sentenced to a fine of Rs. 200 for having hulled paddy in his rice mill without a license, an offence punishable under Section 7 (1) of Act XXIV [24] of 1946 read with Clause 2 (1), Madras Rice Mills Licensing Order, 1947.2. The facts are these. The petitioner is the owner of a rice mill at Kuttalam and his milling licence is No. 8 of 1943. By an order of the Collector of Tanjore dated 21st July 1948 the said licence was suspended for two months and this offence was on 31st August 1948. On that day, when P. W. 1, the Revenue Inspector of Kuttalam, passed by the side of the mill he heard the noise of the mill working. So he entered the premises and found the brother of the accused hulling boiled paddy. When questioned, the brother asked to be excused. P. W. 1 thereupon prepared a statement and asked the brother to sign the same. When the latter was about to sign it, the accused...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›