Chennai Court February 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.
Sri Dhana Lakshmi Ginning and Rice, Oil Working Co., Mangalagiri Vs. Y ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-09-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Mad160; (1951)1MLJ483
1. This is a petition to revise the order of the District Judge, Krishna, at Masulipa-tam, dated 21st November 1949, in C. M. A. No. 25 of 1949, restoring C. M. P. No. 383 of 1949 a petition to set aside the 'ex parte' decree in O. S. No. 364 of 1946, a suit involving some Rs. 4000 on the file of the Sub-Judge, Vijayyawada. The Additional Subordinate Judge, Mr. Narayanamurthi, decreed the suit on 10th December 1948, and he considered that he had decided the suit on merits on the evidence available. The civil miscellaneous petition was filed on 27th December 1948 and was dismissed by the Additional Sub-Judge on 9th April 1949 on the ground that an application under Order IX, Rule 13 Civil P. C. would not lie as it was not an 'ex parte' decree. The District Judge held that Order IX Rule 13 Civil P. C. would apply to the decree in the facts of the case, and remanded the civil miscellaneous petition for disposal 'on merits' directing the costs in the civil miscellaneous appeal to abide the...
Sivaramachari Vs. Bayya Anjaneya Chetty
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-09-1951
Reported in: AIR1951Mad962; (1951)IIMLJ245
Rajamannar, C.J.1. The question which falls for decision on this reference concerns the interpretation of Article 132, col. 3 and Clause (2), Limitation Act. The facts material for a discussion of this question are as follows: The appellant before us filed a suit (O. S. No. 479 of 1989) in the Court of the District Munsif of Chittoor against one Bayya Subbiah Chetti. During the pendency of the suit, the respondent filed I. A. No. 265 of 1941 stating that the defendant was dead and praying that he may be brought on record as his legal representative. On objection by the plaintiff, the Court held that the death of the defendant was not proved and dismissed the application. Thereupon the advocate on record reported no instructions and the suit was decreed ex parte on 27-3-1941. The respondent filed a civil revision petition to this Court (C. R. P. No. 1834 of 1941) against the order dismissing his application I. A. No. 265 of 1941 and that petition was dismissed on 6-3-1943. The appellant...
In Re : T.N.K. Govindarajulu Chetty
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-06-1951
Reported in: 1952CriLJ1063; (1951)IMLJ348
Subba Rao, J.1. The accused is one T.N.K. Govindarajulu Chetty, Managing Director of T.N.K. Govindarajulu Chetty and Co. He was convicted by the Fourth Presidency Magistrate Madras, under Section 15(a) of the Madras General Sales Tax Act and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 500 or in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months.2. The facts are not in dispute and may briefly be stated. T.N.K. Govindarajulu Chetty & Co. are the managing agents of Messrs. Indian Metal and Metallurgical Corporation, having their head office at 498, Mint Street, Madras. T.N.K. Govindarajulu Chetty is the managing director of that company. For the year 1947-48 they sent a return showing a turnover of Rs. 7,67,641. Though the company purchased from Bombay 4 feet by 4 feet brass sheets of the value of Rs. 6,82,017-5-0 and sold them to customers, this amount was not shown in the return but instead, Rs. 1,15,620-8-3 was shown as manufacturing charges in respect whereof they claimed exemption under the ...
Johara Bibi and ors. Vs. Mohammad Sadak Thambi Marakayar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-03-1951
Reported in: AIR1951Mad997; (1951)2MLJ56
Basheer Ahmed Sayeed, J. 1. These two appeals are against the orders of the learned Subordinate Judge of Ramnad at Mathurai setting aside an award passed by the arbitrators in O.S. No. 16 of 1946. O.S. No. 16 of 1946 was filed by the plaintiffs for partition and separate possession of their share in the properties belonging to the estate of one deceased Mukkani Muhammad Abdulla Marakayar. First plaintiff is the widow and plaintiffs 2 and 3 are the sons of one of the deceased sons of Muhammad Abdulla Marakayar. Plaintiffs 2 and 3 are minors and are represented by their mother, the first plaintiff. The first defendant is the widow of the propositus, the second defendant is the daughter and the third defendant is the surviving son of the said deceased Muhammad Abdulla Marakayar. The rest of the defendants, defendants 4 to 10 are the heirs of another deceased son of the said Muhammad Abdulla Marakayar. The three schedules attached to the plaint set out the immovables, movables and the outs...
Babburu Basavayya and ors. Vs. Babburu Guravayya and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-02-1951
Reported in: AIR1951Mad938; (1951)2MLJ176b
1. The plff., here respondent, obtained a preliminary decree for partition of joint family properties, & later on, during the pendency of the partition suit, applied in I. A. no. 83 of 1947 for an enquiry into the profits of the properties realised by the defts. subsequent to the institution of the suit & a final decree for his share of such profits. The defts. opposed the application on the grounds there was no prayer in the plaint for the recovery of such profits & that the preliminary decree passed in the suit did not direct an enquiry into the same. The Court below held that these objections, though well founded in fact, were untenable in law, & by its order dated 9-7-1948, posted the case for an enquiry into the merits. This civil revision petition is filed against the order of the Court overruling the objections of the defts. 2. In Ghulusam Bivi v. Ahamdsa Rowther, 42 Mad. 296 Ayling & Krishnan JJ. held that if a preliminary decree in a partition suit either 'intentionally or ina...
Chekuri Narayana Raju Vs. the Chief Secretary to the Government of Mad ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-01-1951
Reported in: AIR1951Mad182; (1951)IMLJ274
Chandra Reddi, J.1. This petn. is presented by one Chekuri Narayanaraju under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the validity of an order passed by the Govt. of Madras under Section 3(1), Preventive Detention Act (Act IV [4] of 1950). The petnr. herein was originally detained on 13-3-1948 by an order passed under the Madras Maintenance of Public Order Act. Subsequently when the latter Act was considered to be inconsistent with the Articles of the Constitution & when Act IV [4] of 1950 was passed by the Parliament, the State of Madras passed an order directing the detention of the petnr. under Act IV [4] of 1950 with a view to prevent him from acting in a manner prejudicial to the security of the State & the maintenance of public order, & this was communicated to him immediately. A few days later, the petnr. was furnished with the following grounds of detention :'1. He started the Communist Volunteer Corps at Palacole during the last week of November 1947 & was training about 3...
Chandrala Seshayya and ors. Vs. Chandrala Lakshmamma and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-01-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Mad88; (1951)IIMLJ72
ORDERPanchapakesa Ayyar, J.1. The only point for determination in this civil revision petition is whether the learned District Judge, Krishna, erred in law in holding that the Full Bench decision in 'Kesanna v. Boya Bala Gangappa' : AIR1947Mad297 would apply to the petitioners' case and make court-fee payable under Section 7, Clause 5 (d) of the Court-fees Act on the 'market value' of the property, as the petitioner was, claiming not a partition of a fractional share of undivided land but was claiming a specific portion of that undivided land, namely, the 'northern half of the suit land. After perusing the entire records, and hearing Mr. M. V. Sri-nivasa Rao for Mr. M. Appa Rao, the learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. Ch. Rama-krishna Rao, for the Government Pleader, I have absolutely no hesitation in holding that the lower Court's view is correct and is not vitiated by any error. The Full Bench ruling has laid down that when a person is suing for a decree for possession of 'sp...
Goli Ammiraju Alias Ammanna Vs. Goli Kondalrayudu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-01-1951
Reported in: AIR1951Mad877; (1951)1MLJ682
ORDERPanchapakesa Ayyar, J.1. This is a rather interesting petn. The petnr. was decreed a one-fourth share of vast joint family properties in O. S. No. 292 of 1923, & a Comr. who was appointed for that purpose, went & divided the items belonging to the joint family into four shares & delivered to the petnr. his one-fourth share, & to the resps. their one-fourth share & to certain other persons, against whom I. A. No. 2091 of 1947 was dismissed, the remaining two one-fourth shares. The decree in the suit was taken in appeal & second appeal, & got finally settled, but the petnr. to his horror in 1944, nearly 20 years after the decree & delivery of his one-fourth share to him, found that two small items of land, namely, S. No. 181/1, measuring 82 cents, & S. No. 84/3, measuring 31 cents, had been omitted by the comr. to be divided in spite of their having been included among the properties in the plaint schedule & not disputed by the other parties as not belonging to the family or held by...
Natha Apparao Vs. Narulasetti Suryaprakasa Rao
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-01-1951
Reported in: AIR1951Mad864; (1951)1MLJ526
ORDERSubba Rao, J.1. The question in this revn. is whether a D. S P. can plead privilege Under Section 124, Evidence Act, in respect of statements made by the witnesses in an investigation made by his subordinates. The accused is a Sub-Inspector of Police. A complaint was made against him to the D. S. P. & on the complaint he directed the Circle Inspector of Police to make an investigation. Daring the course of the investigation, statements were recorded from varioua persons. On enquiry the police did not take any action. Then a private complaint was filed in the Ct. of the Sub-Mag. of Vizianagaram. The accused filed an appln. for calling for the statement recorded by the Inspector for the purpose of contradicting the witnesses. The D. S. P. in his letter dated 6.3.1950 (Re. 6810/R. 3/99) claimed privilege in respect of those state. ments. The Stationary Sub-Mag. Vizianagaram accepted his plea and held that the statements could not be given to the accused for the purpose of contradicti...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›