Chennai Court December 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.
Ramakrishna Padayachi and ors. Vs. State and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-04-1951
Reported in: AIR1954Mad131; (1952)IMLJ649
ORDERRamaswami, J.1. This criminal revision case is filed against the conviction and sentence of the learned Additional First Class Magistrate of Kumbakonam in C. C. No. 39 of 1950.2. The short facts are: The criminal revision petitioners before us were tried for offences under Sections 448, 426 and 323, I. P. C., on the foot of the following facts set out in para. 2 of the judgment of the lower court: P. W. 7 who is a graduate has opened an Ashramam by name Vivekananda Ashramam at Thillayadi for the benefit of the poor children. A boarding hostel is attached to the Ashramam and the boarders who were 10 in number including P. Ws. 2 and 3 and the son of P. W. 1 by name Dharmalingam were also given education by sending them to the schools at Thillayadi or Tirukadayur lying adjacent. The parents of the boarders used to pay small sums towards the boarding and education of their children and P. W. 7 also used to make collections from the public towards the maintenance of the Ashramam. P. W....
K.S. Deenadayalu Reddy Vs. Lalithakumari
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-04-1951
Reported in: AIR1953Mad402; (1952)1MLJ510
Basheer Ahmed Sayeed, J.1. This appeal is against the decree of the learned City Civil Judge, granting maintenance at the rate of Rs. 20 per mensem to the plaintiff, who is married wife of the defendant. The marriage has taken place in 1943, and for a year or two the husband and wife lived amicably. Later on, when the husband was transferred to Nagpur where his employment took him, there seem to have been some differences between the husband and wifeand there has been exchange of notices. In 1947, a suit seems to have been filed by the defendant appellant for restitution of conjugal rights against his wife. It was first instituted in the Poonamallee District Munsif's Court and then on the ground that that Court had no jurisdiction, it was transferred to Nagpur and the appellant appears to have obtained a decree against his wife on 20-7-1948, for restitution of conjugal rights. The respondent filed the present suit on 12-7-1948 but in the plaint, she has referred to the filing of the su...
V.M.S. Kandasamy Nadar Vs. the Province of Madras, Through the Distric ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-04-1951
Reported in: AIR1953Mad391; (1952)1MLJ804
Govinda Menon, J.1. In view of the finding of the lower appellate Court refusing to rely upon the evidence of D. W. 6 that he affixed the notice to survey number 321 on the outer door of the shop, the lower appellate Court was justified in coming to the conclusion that the appellant did not have notice of the survey as contemplated in Section 9 (ii), Madras Survey and Boundaries Act. , The question then arises asto whether such a survey without notice tothe party concerned, when it is adverse to him,is binding on him, if he has not brought asuit to set aside the survey within three yearsas contemplated in Section 14 of the Act. The expression in Section 13 is .'when the survey of any land or boundarywhich has been notified under Section 5 has beencompleted in accordance with the orderspassed under Sections 9, 10 or 11 etc., etc.'The question is, whether there has been acompletion of the survey in accordance withthe orders passed under Section 9, if no notice ofthe survey has been given...
Lakshmana Prasada and Sons Vs. A. Achuthan Nair
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-04-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Mad779; (1952)IMLJ705
Basheer Ahmed Sayeed, J. 1. The defendants are the appellants in this appeal. They have preferred this appeal against the judgment and decree of the learned Additional City Civil Judge decreeing the suit brought by the respondent for recovery of a sum of Rs. 1555 alleged to have been collected illegally from the respondent. 2. The defendants are dealers of 'Hindustan-10' motor vehicles and on the 22nd January 1948, the appellants sold one 'Hindustan-10' car to the respondent for the sum of Rs. 9350 which they believed and represented to be the controlled price for the said vehicle exclusive of taxes and other charges. The respondent also paid the price in the belief that the price represented by the appellants was the controlled price, but subsequently the respondent learnt that the price fixed by the Government was only Rs. 8195 for the said 'Hindustan-10' motor vehicle and that the appellants had collected in excesy a sum of Rs. 1155. After this knowledge, the respondent called upon ...
In Re: Macherla Balaswamy of Guntur
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-04-1951
Reported in: AIR1953Mad827; (1952)IMLJ772
Mack, J.1. Appellant, a cooly aged 32, has been found guilty under S. 302, Penal Code of the murder of a woman, Bhudevamma by inflicting on her a single stab in the abdomen when she intervened when the appellant was stabbing her brother Venkayya (P. W. 1). He has also been found guilty under Section 324, Penal Cede, in respect of injuries he inflicted en Venkayya, although charged in that connection of attempting to murder him under Section 307, Penal Code. He has been sentenced to transportation for life and to two years rigorous Imprisonment respectively.2. Appellant and P. W. 1 lived very close to each other in Guntur Town. P. W. 1 had a bunk or petty shop by the road-side. There is evidence of some previous ill-feeling between them over the purchase of a house, which was ultimately bought by P. w. 1 in competition with the appellant. P. W. 1 says he filed a complaint against the appellant about a year before this offence, which was dismissed.3. The prosecution case based on the evi...
Durbha Viswanadha Sastri, Power of Attorney Holder for Ivaluri Nallika ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-03-1951
Reported in: AIR1953Mad189; (1952)1MLJ645
Rajamannar, C.J.1. Both the Courts have held that the sale held in execution of the decree in Sub-section No. 312 of 1937 in E. P. No. 26 of 1938 was not valid. The District Munsif who tried the suit set aside the sale on four grounds, but in appeal the learned Subordinate Judge held that the decree had to be set aside on two grounds. These two grounds really amount to this, namely, that the decree was executed for an excess amount and to the knowledge of the decree-holder who himself was the purchaser By virtue of Section 15 of Madras Act 4 of 1938 the judgment-debtor obtained benefit of half the rent for faslis 1344, 1345, and 1346. The amount deposited by the judgment-debtor was even withdrawn by the decree-holder. Nevertheless, execution was levied for the entire amount and not for the balance only, and this, in spite of an order of court. Obviously, therefore, the decree-holder who knew that what was due under the decree was an amount far less than the amount for which he brought ...
Alapati Subbarayudu Vs. Jallipalli Lakshmayya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-03-1951
Reported in: AIR1954Mad129; (1952)IMLJ700
Govinda Menon, J.1. In execution of the decree in O. S. No. 154 of 1931 against one Ramabrahmam, the appellant, who was the decree-holder, brought certain items of properties to sale, and in court auction, they were purchased by the respondent. The sale certificate shows that two items were, sold in two separate lots, the first lot having been knocked down for Rs. 625 and the second lot for Rs. 1340, the entire purchase money being Rs. 1960, Subsequently, one Vecrabrahmacharlu, filed O. S. No. 156 of 1935 on the ground that this Ramabrahmam had no title to some of the properties sold tO that suit, the present respondent, who was the purchaser, was a party. The decision therein was that in the first lot, the 'judgment-debtor, Ramabrahmam, had no title and, therefore, the properties were delivered over from the possession of the respondent to the plaintiff therein. Thereafter, the present respondent-plaintiff filed the suit out of which this second appeal srises, for the refund of the pu...
In Re: T.R. Parthasarathy and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-03-1951
Reported in: AIR1954Mad134; (1952)IMLJ274
Ramaswami, J. 1. The learned State Prosecutor states that he cannot support the convictions and sentences of the Special Honorary Presidency Magistrate and I entirely agree with him.2. The established facts are: The accused persons T. R. Farthasarathi, Srinivasalu, Go-vindaraj, Umapathi, Juvenile Ponnorangam and Murugavel are occupants of a house bearing door No. 4. Thandavaraya Pillai Street. The first of them Parthasarathi is the landlord and the others are tenants living in various parts of the same house. This house was raided on a search warrant on 1-10-1950 at 3-30 p. m. These six persons were found playing cards In an upstairs room on a carpet. The police detained these six persons and seized the forty playing cards (M. O. 1), the carpet (M. O. 2), cash Rs. 7-2-6 (M. O. 4) and a samll empty L. G. asafoetida tin box (M. O. 3) with rupee one in small change placed besides accused I. They were charged under Sections 45 and 46, Madras City Police Act, 3 of 1898 (hereinafter referred...
Madala Peraiah and ors. Vs. Voruganti Chendriah
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-03-1951
Reported in: AIR1954Mad247; (1952)IMLJ164
1. This is a criminal revision petition filed against the convictions and sentences in C. C. No. 1076 of 1949 on the file of the Stationary Sub-Magistrate, Kandukur, and upheld in C. A. No. 63 of 1950, Sub-Divisional Magistrate's Court, Kandukur,2. The facts are : P. W. 1, the complainant, has purchased 6 acres of land from P. W. 7, thereby rounding up an extent of 3 acres 40 cents already owned by him in S. No. 352. It is his case that he has been cultivating all these areas by passing through the planmarked pathway in S. No. 351 after crossing S. No. 356, which is a Donka Poramboke. This plan-marked pathway passes through the land of the accused. There has been ill-feeling between these neighbouring land-owners.3. On 1-8-1949 at about 7 a.m., according to the complainant, when he was passing through the Donka S. No. 356 with five ploughs, the thirteen persons accused by him came there with sticks and obstructed him and the bulls and beat and drove away the bulls. On account of this h...
Velur Devasthanam by Its Head Clerk, R. Ramaswami Pillai Vs. A. Samban ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-03-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Mad531; (1952)1MLJ161
ORDERRamaswami, J. 1. Criminal Revision Case No. 1227 of 1951 has been filed against the order dropping proceedings under Section 145 Criminal p. C., made by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Mayuram, in M. C. No. 74 of 1951. 2. The facts are: On the ground of strained feelings existing between the Velur Devastanam & Sambandamurthi Nainar in connection with the cultivation of five survey numbers in the village of Maruvathur, 24 acres in extent, a preliminary order dated 13-7-1951 under Section 145(1), Criminal P. C., was issued calling on Both the parties to put in their written statements in regard to the factum of actual possession. The lands were also attached under Section 145(1), Criminal P. C., and the Tahsildar of Sirkali was directed to be the Court agent. This order was passed on 14-7-1951. The Tahsildar of Sirkali look possession of the lands on 18-7-1951. On 26-7-1951 the Tahsildar held an auction in respect of the lease of the lands for fasli 1361 and one Gopala Chettjar was t...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »