Chennai Court January 1951 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.
Parvathathammal Vs. Sivasankara Bhattar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-11-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Mad265; (1951)2MLJ191
Balakrishna Ayyar, J.1. The third defendant, a woman is the appellant. The property in suit at onetime belonged to the first defendant. On October 1926 he executed a usufructuary mortgage over it in favour of the plaintiff for a sum of Rs. 1,250. Some sixteen years later, that a to say on 29th September 1942, the first detenaant purported to sen me property to his daughter, the second defendant, lor a sum of Rs. 1,500. On 29th Septemoer 1943, defendants 1 and 2 entered into an oral agreement to sell the properly to the plaintiff for a sum of Rs. 2,050, out of which Rs. 1,250 was to be adjusted towards the usufructuary mortgage which the plaintiff held. There were certain execution proceedings in connection with this property which are not of present interest. On am May 1945, the first defendant sold the property to the third defendant for a sum of Rs. 2,000. The very next day the plaintiffs advocate sent a telegram to the third defendant informing her that she had made her purchase wit...
Mathurai Sadhu Seva Samajam by Its Secretary N.A. Nannier Vs. the Offi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-11-1951
Reported in: AIR1951Mad875; (1951)1MLJ548
Rajamannar, C.J. 1. The Madurai Sadhu Seva Samajam, a society regd. under the Societies Registration Act, XXI (21) of 1860, which is the applt. before us filed an appln. in the insolvency of M. K. Balakrishna Aiyar & Sons claiming a preferential payment of a sum of Rs. 8056-1-0 being the amount due for principal & interest in respect of a sum of Rs. 7000 deposited with the insolvent firm on 29-7-1946. The society was certainly a charitable institution, but the learned Judge held that even assuming that the insolvent firm knew of the objects of the society & that the funds were in the nature of trust funds, that would not be sufficient to create a deposit on trust which will entitle payment in priority over other creditors. He held that there was nothing to show that the insolvent firm received this deposit or held it on trust for the society. He therefore dismissed the appln. 2. It is not contended that on the facts as placed before him, the Judge erred in dismissing the appln. But an ...
K. Bhashyam Iyengar and anr. Vs. the Superintendent of Police, Special ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-11-1951
Reported in: AIR1951Mad855; (1951)1MLJ450
Rajamannar, C.J. 1. This appln. arises out of a petn. filed under Section 7, Madras Building (Lease and Bent Control) Act, for eviction in respect of premises belonging to the petnrs. in Mowbray's Road, Mylapore. It is a matter of admission that there has been default in due payment of rentwithin the meaning of Section 7 (2) (i). The petnra. would have been entitled to an order of eviction, but their petn. has been dismissed on the ground that the provisions of Section 7 (2) of the Act were not applicable to the premises in question as the pro. vincial Govt. are the tenants & are exempted from those provisions by a notfn. issued under Section 13 of the Act. 2. The only question which falls for decision on this appln. is whether this finding that theProvincial Govt. were the tenants of this building on the date of the appln. for eviction is correct. The relevant facts have to be ascertained from the correspondence which passed between the parties. On 27-5-1943 the Supdt. of Police, Spec...
Polavarapu Venkataswarlu Vs. Polavarapu Subbayya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-11-1951
Reported in: AIR1951Mad910; (1951)1MLJ580
Raghava Rao, J. 1. The appln. out of which the civil revn. petn. arises is one Under Section 151, Civil P. C. The controversy between the parties to the original suit in which the appln. was filed is as to the legitimacy of the pltf. which the deft. the alleged lather, is disputing. The suit is one for partition.2. The deft. applied Under Section 151, Civil P. C. for a direction from the Ct. to the pltf. & his mother, his next friend, to appear in person before the Ct. in order to enable a medical expert to take samples of their blood. The learned Judge below has ordered the appln. in these terms :'After hearing both the parties, it appears to me that it is necessary that the pltf. should be first examined by the medical expert & he should give his opinion to the Ct. whether it is sale to take some blood from him. For appearance of expert, pltf., his mother & deft. 1 on 5-8-1950.'After this order the deft. served a notice on the pleader for the pltf. in these terms :'You are required t...
Ramdayal Rameswarilal Vs. Vissamsetti Chandra Narasimham
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-09-1951
Reported in: AIR1951Mad843; (1951)1MLJ49
ORDERBasheer Ahmed Sayeed, J. 1. The petnr. in this petn. is the deft. in O. S. No. 702 of 1948 on the file of the Dist. Munslf's Ct. at Vijayawada. The pltf. in that suit claimed damages against the deft. for non-performance of the contracts entered into between the parties. The deft. took out an appln. under Section 34, Arbitration Act to have the suit stayed on the ground that the terms of the contract contemplated a settlement of disputes between the parties by reference to arbitration. The learned Dist. Munsif did not agree with the contention of the deft., & even so, the learned Subordinate Judge upheld the decision of the learned Dist. Munsif. This petn. is therefore preferred against the order of the learned Subordinate Judge. 2. It is useful in this connection to refer to the actual terms of the contracts entered into between the parties (Exs. A. 1 & A. 2). After setting out the name of the seller, the name of the buyer, the quality, quantity, rate, place of delivery, time of ...
Paruchuru Thirumala Satyanarayanacharyulu and anr. Vs. Vannava Ramalin ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-08-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Mad86; (1951)2MLJ74
1. The petitioners filed a suit in the court of the Subordinate Judge of Guntur for a declaration that they were, or, in the alternative, plff. 2 was the hereditary archaka of a temple. They paid a fixed court-fee of Rs. 100 under Article 17-A of Sch. II, court-fees Act valuing the suit for the purposes of jurisdiction at Bs. 3600. On an objection taken to the correctness of the valuation, the learned Subordinate Judge, after enquiry, found that the suit had been grossly undervalued, that the valuation of the property in suit exceeded Rs. 10,000 & directed the petitioners to pay an additional court-fee of Rs.400. This order was passed on 14-3-1947 & ten days' time was given for payment of the deficit court-fee. The suit stood ad- journed to 24-3-1947. On that day the suit was called & as the petitioners had not paid the deficit court-fee, the plaint was rejected. The revision petition before us is against the order dated 24-3-1947 rejecting the plaint. Under S, 2 (2), Civ. P.O., an ord...
In Re: Palaniswami Goundan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-08-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Mad175; (1951)1MLJ265
Govinda Menon, J. 1. The appellant has been convicted for having murdered his wife Fappayammal and his father Chinnappa Goundan and caused injuries to his eon Perumal with the intention of causing his death. For the double murder he has been sentenced to death by the learned Sessions Judge. There can be no doubt whatever on the evidence before the lower Court, that it was due to the injuries inflicted by the appellant that both Pappayammal and Chinnappa Goundan died. It was also the appellant who inflicted the injuries on Perumal which might have proved fatal, P.W. 1 is an eye-witness to the whole incident. She speaks to the fact that it was while she was at the scene of crime that the appellant hacked to death his wife Pappayammal. Chinnappa Goundan, the father who was outside on a cot was next attacked by the appellant and in a very brutal manner injuries were inflicted which proved fatal also. P.W. 5 the mother of the appellant speaks to what P.W. 1 told her as well as to what happe...
G. Venkatareddi Vs. P. Nagireddi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-08-1951
Reported in: AIR1951Mad851; (1951)1MLJ569
Basheer Ahmed Sayeed, J.1. In this petn. the point raised is as to whether the learned Dist. Munsif was correct in throwing the burden of proof on the deft. when he framed the issue in the following manner : 'whether the suit note is not supported by consideration?' The deft. sought by way of an appln. to have this issue recast in the following manner : 'whether the deft. executed the suit note for any lease amount due'. 2. The learned Dist. Munsif had reld. upon the decisions reported in 'Balkisandas v. Rambakas', & 'Premraj v. Nathmal', I L R (1936) Nag 142. There it has been held that a mere admission that the consideration was not the one recited in the negotiable instrument would not shift the burden of the pltf. when the deft. denies consideration. These two decisions are of single Judges & so far as this Ct. is concerned, as laid down by the decision in 'Palaniappa v. Rajgopal', 1928 MWN 425, the rule has been that when the pltf. contends that the consideration is different from...
Saraswathi Ammal and anr. Vs. Rajagopal Ammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-05-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Mad81; (1951)2MLJ63
1. This application was originally filed for leave to appeal to the Federal Court against the decree & Judgment in A.S. No. 625 of 1945 & A. S. 200 of 1946 on the file of this Court, & has now to be treated as an application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. These two appeals arose out of a suit O. S. 35 of 1944 filed in the Subordinate Judge's Court, Tiruhelveli, in the following circumstances. One Kanakasabapathi Pillai died intestate on 24-8-1942 leaving behind him his wife Gomathi & two daughters Rajagopala Ammal & Saraswathi Ammal. After Kanakasabapathi's death his widow succeeded to all his properties, movable & immovable, including a flourishing bus transport business. On 4-11-1943 Gomathi purported to execute a sale deed of 32 buses, their accessories & a charcoal shed which formed part of the Bus business to K. Ramaswami Dass, the husband of Saraswathi Ammal. On the same day, she executed a deed of settlement under which she dedicated about 25 items of immovable proper...
In Re: Comr. for Workmen's Compensation
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-05-1951
Reported in: AIR1951Mad880; (1951)2MLJ23
Rajamannar, C.J. 1. This is a reference made by the Comr. for Workmen's compensation, Madras, Under Section 27, Workmen's Compensation Act, in the following circumstances.2. One Kamaraju was employed by the Admiralty Civil Engineer of Kakinada, to unload girders brought by a slip crane, &, while so employed, on 25-6-1946, he received an injury by accident to his right forefinger which was caught in between the girders. He filed an appln. on 16-12-1946 under the Workmen's Compensation Act praying that the Comr. may determine the amount of compensation payable to him. When notice of this appln. went to the Admiralty Civil Engineer, he was advised that the Indian Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, does not bind the Crown in the right of the United Kingdom & that the workmen employed by the Admiralty have therefore no legal claim, under that Act. It was further indicated in the reply sent from His Majesty's Naval Base at Bombay that the case fell to be dealt with under the Treasury Injury W...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »