Chennai Court September 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.
Narayanan Nambudripad Vs. Rajagopala Naidu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-14-1950
Reported in: AIR1952Mad684; (1951)IMLJ475
ORDERSubba Rao, J. 1. The petitioner before me filed the application No. 204 of 1947 on the file of the District Court of South Malabar for staying A. S. No. 345/46 under Act XVII of 1946. The rent due according to the plaintiff was 1099 paras and 2 edangalis of paddy for Kanni. But the respondent deposited the value of only 999 paras and 3 edangalis of paddy. It is sai5 that the difference represents deduction at one per ten on account of shrinkage. The lower Court found that the amount deposited by the respondent was the rent payable by him according to the finding of the first Court. The petitioner is no doubt questioning that finding in the appeal, Mr. Variar contended before me that the respondent should have deposited the rent in accordance with the claim made by his client in the appeal, and as he had only deposited the amount as found by the first Court he would not be entitled to stay under the Act. Pend-ing the revision Madras Act XXIV of 1940 was enacted and it is agreed tha...
Chunchu Narayana and ors. Vs. Karrapati Kesappa
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-13-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Mad500; (1951)IMLJ102
Govinda Menon, J. 1. By his order in M. C. No. 13 of 1950 dated 14-3-1950, the District Magistrate of Gooty held that the respondent in this Court, should be allowed to take possession of the land in dispute and retain the same till a competent civil Court decides the dispute between the parties; and aggrieved by that order the petitioners have moved this Court to revise the order of the District Magistrate.2. The respondent presented a petition under Section 145, Criminal P. C., before the District Magistrate of Gooty on 15-10-1949 and it was alleged that on 3-10-1949 he. had been wrongfully dispossessed by the opposite party and wanted the Court to decide the question of possession and put him back in possession. A preliminary order under Section 145 (4), Criminal P.C., was passed on 25-1-1950, that is more than two months not only after the date of dispossession but after the date of presentation of the petition. On the finding that the petitioner in the lower Court was entitled to ...
Poongavanam Pillai Vs. V. Subramanya Pillai and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-08-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Mad601; (1951)IMLJ69
ORDERPanchapakesa Ayyar, J.1. This revision petition raises an interesting question of law, namely, whether in a purchase of agricultural land by private sale, the land being under a lease at the time of the sale, the rent can be apportioned between the buyer and the seller under Section 36, T. P. Act. The petitioner. Poongavanam Pillai, purchased 1 acre 56 cents of land from respondent 1, Subramania Pillai, for RS. 8,500 under a sale deed dated 27-1-1948. At the time of the sale there was standing on the land paddy crop raised by the lessee, respondent 2, who had to pay, according to finding of the lower Court, 24 3/4 kalams of paddy as rent to respondent 1 for the whole year, though only 7 kalams out of it remained to be paid at the time of the sale The contract of sale did not say anything about this paddy or the rent to be paid by respondent 2 to respondent 1. Nor did respondent 2 then agree to pay the petitioner any portion of the rent. So, no 'different intention' was expressed u...
S.M. Raja Goundar and ors. Vs. Choolai Sabapathi Mudaliar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-08-1950
Reported in: AIR1952Mad798; (1952)IMLJ763
ORDERGovinda Menon, J.1. O. S. No. 100 of 1947 on the file of the Court of the District Munsif of Vellore,stood posted for hearing to the 18th February 1948 and on that day the presiding officer was on casual leave. The case was, therefore, adjourned to 4-3-1948 on which date the defendant did not appear. An 'ex parte' decree was passed against him as prayed for by the plaintiff. I. A. No. 356 of 1948 was filed by the defendant to set aside the 'ex parte' decree on the ground that he was not aware of the date to which the case had been adjourned, that he had been under the impression that the adjourned date was the 5th March 1948 and on the 'bona fide' belief that the case would be heard only on 5-3-1948 he did not attend court on 4-3-1948 or engage his counsel to conduct the same.2. Both the lower courts have disbelieved the plea of the defendant chiefly on the ground that the defendant did not offer himself for examination to prove the allegations contained in his affidavit. The lear...
Navakoti Daniel Vs. Ingilala Mariamma
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-07-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Mad466; (1951)IMLJ1
Raghava Rao, J.1. This second appeal arises out of a suit for recovery of damages for breach of promise to marry or in the alternative for seduction of the plaintiff. The plaintiff, a Christian, is the girl seduced, who complains also of the breach of promise, and she sues through her next friend and mother. The trial Court (the District Munsifs Court, Nellore) found that there was the tort of seduction as well as a breach of promise and awarded damages in a sum of Rs. 500 as against the Rs. 1000 claimed in the plaint. On appeal taken by the defendant to the District Judge--of Nellore that decree has been confirmed not however on the ground of seduction but on the ground of a breach of promise to marry. In second appeal the case has been presented alike with reference to breach off promise and with reference to seduction. It may be stated that the plaintiff has since the presentation of the second appeal become a major and has been declared as such. In view of the importance of the que...
S. Rm. S.T. Narayana Chettiar and anr. Vs. the Kaleeswarar Mills Ltd. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-07-1950
Reported in: AIR1952Mad515; [1951]21CompCas351(Mad); (1952)IMLJ18
1. This appeal relates to a dispute between two rival groups of share-holders of Kaleeswarar Mills, Ltd., Coimbatore, each attempting to obtain control over the management of the company. For this purpose, these two factions have engaged themselves in a battle of wits for a long time with the result that the business of the company has been seriously affected. For the purpose of this appeal, it is not necessary to advert to the incessant quarrels between the two groups since 1931. It would be sufficient to start from 1948. The two factions are led by Sathappa Chettiar on the one hand who represents the plaintiffs' group and A.L.A.R. family consisting of three brothers of whom the eldest, Kalai-raja Chettiar is the leader.(1a) The annual meeting of the company, which is the first defendant in the case, for the year ending 1947 was held on 30th September 1948. The agenda paper for that meeting contained four subjects: 1. to receive and adopt the directors' report and the audited profit a...
D.S. Duraiswamy Naidu Vs. A.M. Muhammad Abbas Sahib
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-07-1950
Reported in: AIR1952Mad678; (1950)2MLJ773
Subba Rao, J. 1. This is a plaintiff's appeal against the decree and judgment of the Subordinate Judge of Dindigul in O. S. No. 46 of 1945 in so far as the decree was against him. The plaintiff sold to the defendant a house in Dindigul. The sale-deed is dated 22-8-1945 and was got compulsorily registered on 1-10-1945. The suit was filed for recovery of a sum of Rs. 15,500 being the balance of the unpaid purchase money due to the plaintiff under that sale-deed with interest thereon. The defendant contended that the plaintiff made default and that, in any view, the plaintiff would not be entitled to interest for the period before the defendant was put in possession of the property sold to him. The learned Subordinate Judge, on a consideration of the evidence, held that there was no default on the part of the plaintiff in respect of the delivery of possession and therefore the suit for recovery of the balance of the purchase money was maintainable; buthe gave interest to the plaintiff onl...
In Re: Eravadu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-06-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Mad398; (1950)2MLJ774
ORDERSomasundaram, J.1. There is no doubt that under Section 380 Criminal P. C., the Joint Magistrate has not power to acquit. Vide Public Prosecutor v. Gurappa Naidu 57 Mad. 85: A. I. R. 1933 Mad. 728 : 34 Cr. L. J. 1045, Piramangaya, Pandara v. Emperor, 1943 M. W. N. Crl. 9: A.I.R. 1943 Mad. 390: 44 Cr. L. J. 668. In re Doraiswami Naidu, I. L. R. (1946) Mad. 891: A. I. R. 1945 Mad. 302: 47 Cr. L. J. 178.2. Even so under Rule 263, Criminal Rules of Practice, the District Magistrate, if he is of opinion that the order of acquittal is wrong, must request the Government to prefer an appeal under Section 417, Criminal P. C., and not report the case to this Court for order under Rule 438, Criminal P. C. Further, under Section 439, Clause (5), Criminal P. C., where an appeal lies and no appeal is brought, proceedings by way of revision shall not be entertained at the instance of the party who could have appealed. In this case, the Dis-trict Magistrate could certainly have requested the Gove...
Bendapudi Veera Venkata Subba Rao and anr. Vs. Rao Venkata Rao
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-06-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Mad698; (1951)IMLJ73
ORDER1. This CIV. Revn. Petn. raises a question of court-fee. The facta necessary for appreciating the question raised may be briefly narrated. The plaintiffs filed O. S. No. 81 of 1949 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Kakinada, for recovery of possession of the properties described in A & B schedules annexed to the plaint. We are not concerned with the A Schedule property, as nothing turns upon it in the revision. In regard to B Schedule property, it is alleged in the plaint that the plaintiffs' paternal grand-father, late Benda-pudy Venkataratnam, purchased the property described in the B Schedule for a sum of Rs. 14,000 from the defendants, under a registered sale deed dated 16 1-1945. In para. 17 of the plaint it is stated that: 'The plaint B schedule property in an undivided southern half of a big plot & so the plaintifia. & the defendants are cosharers of the big plot. The plaintiffs are entitled to have their southern half separated & to be put in separate poss...
In Re: Public Prosecutor
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-06-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Mad716
ORDERSomasundaram, J.FACTSIn a soarch made by the Prohibition Sub-Inspector of the house of the accused, be found arrack as well as articles used for distillation & also found the accused in a state of intoxication. The police prosecuted the accused for an offence under Section 4-A, Prohibition Act, & had him convicted. The police again filed a charge-sheet against the accused for offences under Section 4(1)(a) & (g) of the same Act & he was acquitted on the ground that Section 403, Cr.P.C. was bar to a second prosecution on same facts. The State filed the appeal against the acquittal.1. Section 403, Cr. P. C. will notapply as under Section 403, Clause (2) the accused may be tried for a distinct offence for which a distinct charge might have been made against him in the former trial. The lower Ct. was wrong in holding that Section 403, Cr. P. C. is a bar to the present trial. However as the accused has already been convicted of the offence under Section 4-A, Madras Prohibition Act, it ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »