Chennai Court February 1951 Judgments
Chadalavada Seetharamayya Vs. Velivolu Kesavayya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-26-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Mad108
Chandra Reddi, J.1. These appeals raise an interesting question of law, namely, whether the release of an insolvent father under Section 44, Provincial Insolvency Act from all debts extinguished the liability of the son who is liable under a decree along with the father in respect of his father's debts. The son of the quondam insolvent is the appellant in all the appeals while the decree-holders are the respondents in these appeals The questions arising in these appeals are common and so they can be disposed of together.2. In order to appreciate the points at issue, it is necessary to set out a few material facts. Garikipati Sithaiamiah, the first respondent in C. M. S. A. No. 250 of 1947, obtained a decree in O. S. nO 467 of 1933, on the file of the District Munsif's Court, Repalli against the appellant and his father on a promissory note executed by the father. It is the execution of that decree which has led upto O. M. S. A. No 260 of 1947. There was another decree obtained against ...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Guruswami thevar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-26-1951
Reported in: AIR1951Mad902; (1951)1MLJ549
Balakrishna Ayyar, J. 1. The Ses. J. of Ramanathapuram has convicted the applt. of the murder of his concubine & sentenced him to death.2. Mr. Rajaraman, the learned advocate for the applt. has raised this preliminary objection. The evidence in the case was heard by Mr. H. A. Ayyar who also appears to have actually written the judgment in the case. He handed over charge of his office as Ses. J. on the forenoon of 14-12-1950 & the judgment which he wrote was pronounced by his successor in office, Mr. Sankaran Nambiar. This procedure, Mr. Rajaraman contends, is illegal because what Mr. H. A. Ayyar wrote cannot be called a judgment, in law it can only be regarded as an expression of his opinion on the merits of the case. After he ceased to be the Ses. J. of Ramanathapuram he became functus officio in the matter & he had no power to write a judgment in the case. When thereupon Mr. Sankaran Nambiar purported to pronounce judgment he was only reading out the opinion of his predecessor & was ...
Tag this Judgment!Panattil Narayanan Nair and ors. Vs. Palappetti Vatakkepet Vallath Kar ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-23-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Mad32; (1951)2MLJ526
Rajamannar, C.J.1. There is no reason for interference with the order of the learned Judge. Clearly the Board had not done its duty which is enjoined on it under Section 16 of Madras Act II of 1927 in passing the order which was sought to be set aside by the contesting respondents under Section 76 (2) of the Act. The order was therefore rightly set aside with the observation made by the learned Judge that the Board would consider afresh the application for sanction on its merits. It was contended by learned counsel for the petitioners here that though the Board might not have considered the application on the merits, it was open to the District Court to have considered the materials placed before it and come to a decision on the merits. I do not agree. I agree with Viswanatha Sastri, J., in Vardhanamma v. Subbarao' : (1949)1MLJ382 that it is for the Board, as a statutory body specially entrusted with the duty of considering an application for sanction under Section 76, to first conside...
Tag this Judgment!Sishtla Janakirama Sastri and anr. Vs. Jagani Gopalam and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-23-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Mad224; (1951)2MLJ272
Rajamannar, C.J. 1. These five second appeals arise out of five suits which were tried together and disposed of by a common Judgment by the learned Deputy Collector of Eluru division. They were brought by, persons who were in possession of lands in the village of Idulakunta Agraharam, in Eluru taluk, West Godavari district, against the appellants and others under Section 55 of the Madras Estates Land Act praying that the defendants may be directed to execute pattas in their favour in accordance with the draft patta filed along with the plaint. The defendants resisted the suits mainly on the ground that the revenue Court had no Jurisdiction as the lands did not form part of an estate within the meaning of that .Act. Their plea was overruled and the Deputy Collector decreed the suits. The defendants preferred appeals to the District Judge of West Godavari who confirmed the decision of the Deputy Collector that the lands were situated in an estate. These second appeals by the defendants a...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: K.K.S. Karuppiah Nadar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-23-1951
Reported in: AIR1951Mad885a; (1951)IMLJ477
ORDERPanchapakesa Ayyar, J. 1. The petnrs. in all these cases have been convicted Under Section 9 (a), Opium Act, & sentenced to a fine of Rs. 50 or, in default, to undergo R. I. for one month by the Addl. First Class Mag. of Mathurai. The case against them was that they had in their shops bottles containing 'Guru Tiger Pills' without licenses. All the petnrs. admitted possession of the bottles & the absence of licenses, but said that they did not know that these pills contained any opium, & also put the prosecution to proof that there was really opium in these pills. Curiously enough, the prosecution did not send the pills for analysis, & examine a qualified analyst or chemist to speak to the presence of opium in the pills, but examined P. W. 1, a prohibition Sub-Inspector, & admittedly not an analyst or expert, to show that the pills contained 5 per cent opium. How P. W. 1 could find it out was not explained, except by his statement that he saw a publication somewhere some months bef...
Tag this Judgment!A. Rajagopal Mudaliar Vs. the Official Trustee, High Court, Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-22-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Mad79; (1951)2MLJ559
Rajamannar, C.J. 1. The order of the learned Judge cannot be sustained and in- fact no serious attempt was made by the learned counsel for the respondent to sustain it. By his order the learned Judge directed the present appellant, who was the contesting respondent before him, to deliver possession of certain items of Immovable property to the Official Trustee, who filed an application for directions regarding delivery of possession of them as the properties of the minor. The appellant before us denied the title of the minor to the properties and pleaded that they were joint family properties which survived to him on tile death of the minor's father.' In these circumstances the Court has no power, under any section of the Guardians and Wards Act, to direct delivery of possession of properties which are not admitted to be the properties of the minor. There is no provision in the Guardians and Wards Act which enables the Court to make such an order for delivery of possession even if the ...
Tag this Judgment!K. Murugappa Chettiar Vs. C. Balasundaram Chetty and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-22-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Mad173; (1951)1MLJ513
ORDER1. There is no error of law apparent on the face of the order of the Appellate Tribunal, which directed eviction of the petitioner for default in payment of rent. The rent was payable daily and admittedly the petitioner did not pay or tender any rent after 29th August 1949. As therent was payable daily, the default would occurunder Section 7 of the Madras Buildings (Leaseand Rent Control) Act, 1946, after the lapse of 15days in respect of every day's rent. The only pointpressed on us by petitioner's learned Counsel, isthat, there was another application for fixationof fair rent and according to the rent fixed in thatapplication, the landlord would have with himsufficient money to discharge the arrears relatingto the period of the alleged default. That may beso. But that does not save the tenant from theconsequence of the admitted default he has made.It is one thing to say that the tenant has a rightto have the excess amount, on the basis of thefair rent, adjusted towards the arrea...
Tag this Judgment!Muhammad Mustapa Rowther Vs. State
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-22-1951
Reported in: (1951)1MLJ576
ORDERPanchapakesa Ayyar, J.1. Mr. Gopalaswami, for the petitioner, urged that there was no proper proof that the denatured spirit had been rendered or attempted to be rendered fit for human consumption and so Section 5 would not apply. The learned Public Prosecutor rightly urged that as the certificate of the analyst showed that the denatured spirit seized from the possession of the Petitioner contained sugar and lemon juice and that an attempt had been made to renature it, the offence was proved. It is obvious that sugar and lemon juice do not develop by themselves in denatured spirits and that some one must have put them in and that the petitioner who was in exclusive possession of the denatured spirits must have been that one. To 're-nature' means to restore to its original nature, that is the nature of spirits fit for human consumption, as against 'denature' which means to render spirits fit for human consumption unfit for such consumption. Sugar and lime juice are such well known ...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Muthuvedi Ammal and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-21-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Mad170; (1951)1MLJ674
ORDERChandra Reddi, J.1. The petitioners were convicted for an offence under Section 426, I.P.C., and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 25 each which was reduced in appeal to Rs. 15.2. The case against these petitioners was as follows. There was a quarrel on the 11th of September 1948 between the first petitioner and the daughter-in-law of P. W. 1. In order to wreak vengeance on P. W. 1's family, the first petitioner asked the second petitioner to demolish the compound wall of the house belonging to P. W. 1's son and the latter accordingly demolished the same to a height of 3 feet and to a length of 24 feet, causing thereby damage to the extent of Rs. 10 or 15. The guilt of the petitioners was proved beyond all reasonable doubt by the evidence of P. Ws. 1, 2 and 3. The trial Court has accepted their evidence and convicted the petitioners as stated above.3. In this revision petition the correctness of the conviction could not be challenged. The only point that was raised by Mr. Raghavan, t...
Tag this Judgment!A.R. Senthilanathan Chettiar Vs. the Panchayat Board of Mohanur by Its ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-16-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Mad182; (1951)2MLJ345
Rajamannar, C.J.1. The petitioner in the above revision petition is the proprietor of Seethalakshmi Mills at Mohanur within the limits of the Pancha-yat Board of Mohanur. He owns and runs a 20 H. P. motor. When he applied for renewal of his licence to use the place for the purpose specified in Schedule VII of the Madras Local Boards Act, under Section 193 of that Act, a sum of Rs. 50 was demanded from him towards licence fees, though the licence fee according to the rates already published was Rs. 25 in cases where a machine of 20 H. P. was installed. The addition levy of Rs. 25 was sought to be justified by the Panchayat Board on the ground that the plaintiff should pay separately at Rs. 25 for each of the purposes for which he put the motor to use namely, rice hulling and decorticating groundnuts. The plaintiff paid that amount under protest and filed the suit for the recovery of the excess fee of Rs. 25 paid by him. His case is that he is liable to pay only one fee of Rs. 25 for run...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »