Chennai Court July 1951 Judgments
In Re: Govindaswami Padayachi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-31-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Mad174; (1951)2MLJ356
1. The point taken before us by the learned counsel for the appellant is that he should have been given the benefit of Section 84, I.P.C. and acquitted.2. In order to comprehend the point taken by the learned counsel for the appellant, which was also urged in the lower Court, the following short facts are necessary. The appellant who is described by the learned Sessions Judge as aged about 16 and whom the record of the lower Court shows to be 18 had a bitter quarrel just preceding this occurrence with his mother, the deceased in this case, regarding the execution of a promissory note by his brother. Then this appellant asked his mother to serve him food. The Irritated mother told him that he should either serve himself or get his father who was in the fields to serve him. The accused thereupon in a fit of rage dragged his mother inside the hut, bolted the door and bashed his mother with a spade lying nearby. The cries of the mother attracted the people in the neighbourhood, and when th...
Tag this Judgment!Ramaswami Ambalam Vs. the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Board Thro ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-30-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Mad20; (1951)2MLJ511
ORDERPanchapakesa Ayyar, J.1. This is a petition filed by one Rama-swami Ambalam, the first plaintiff in O.S. No. 18 of 1950, on the file of the District Judge of Ramanathapuram, to withdraw that suit to the file of this Court under Article 228 of the Constitution of India, and either dispose of the suit here itself or determine the question of law covered by the additional issue framed in the suit by the District Judge, Mr. p. N. Ramaswami, as he then was, on 4th April 1951 in LA. No. 86 of 1951, an application for amendment of the plaint filed by the plaintiffs, adding a contention that the scheme framed by the Hindu Religious Endowments Board, Madras (1st defendant), under Section 57 of the Hindu Religious Endowments Act, regarding the suit temple (Sri Koppudanayagi Amman temple of Karaikudi, with an income of thirty thousand rupees a year), under the orders of the Federal Court in App. Suit No. 7 of 1948, was null and void as the entire Hindu Religious Endowments Act, and especiall...
Tag this Judgment!Puttamma Shedthi Vs. Y. Sheena Shetty and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-30-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Mad849
Chandra Reddi, J.1. The 9th defendant who is the legal representative of the 1st defendant is the appellant. The suit out of which this appeal arises was instituted by the two plaintiffs for a declaration that they are respectively entitled to A and B schedule properties and for a decree in their favour as against the 1st defendant the predecessor-in-interest of the present 9th defendant and for possession of these properties. In execution of the decree, the properties belonging to the 1st defendant were brought to sale on 22-6-1925 and were purchased by the 1st plaintiff who is no other than the nephew of the 1st defendant at Court auction for Rs. 1634-1-0. The sale was confirmed on 24-7-1925 and the sale certificate was granted to the auction purchaser on 12-9-1927. Subsequent to this purchase the 1st plaintiff sold a few items of the property purchased by him to the 2nd plaintiff described in schedule B on 16-1-1939. According to the plaintiffs the symbolic delivery of the property ...
Tag this Judgment!The Public Prosecutor Vs. Thangiah Nadar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-27-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Mad43; (1951)2MLJ582
Panchapakesa Ayyar, J.1. I have perused the records and heard the learned Public Prosecutor and Mr. Sun-daralingam for the employer, Thangiah Nadar, a cloth merchant in Madura district. The learned Public Prosecutor conceded that the wage periods were fixed as required by law. His contention was that the wages were not paid before the expiry of the fifth day after the last day of the wages period as required by Section 32(1) of the Madras shops and Establishments Act, 1947 and that the respondent's day book and ledger summoned for by the Court and pro-duced in Court would have proved this but that the lower Court wrongly refused to look into them, and, therefore the acquittal must be set aside. Now, a day book and ledger are only secondary evidence. Accounts do not prove themselves, nor are they conclusive. If the prosecution had examined some employee to show that he was not paid within the stipulated period or even some others to prove it, (if all the employees are in such mortal ter...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Simhadri Krishnamurthi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-27-1951
Reported in: AIR1953Mad259; (1951)IIMLJ270
1. I have perused the records and heard the learned Public Prosecutor. Nobody appears for the accused. No doubt there was an error committed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Tenali, as he himself has admitted when he took 16 years instead of 18 years, (relying on an uncorrected copy of the Penal Code in his office not incorporating the amendment in this respect in 1949) as the relevant age. So he took the girl's consent to be valid and committed errors right along the line on that basis and acquitted the accused Simhadri Krishnamurthi who was charged with kidnapping the girl Tulasamma from the custody of her lawful guardian with intent to marry her against her will. The learned Sessions Judge, Guntur, discovered this patent error on perusing the calendar in the case and after calling for the records and examining them. He has made this reference. The Government had not filed an appeal under Section 417, Cr. P. C., and the aggrieved girl or her guardian has not filed a revision ...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Sugali Latchigadu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-27-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Mad229; (1952)IMLJ42
ORDERSomasundaram, J. 1. The six appellants were tried by the Sessions Judge of Chittor for offences under Sections 147, 148, 333, 342, 365, 307 and 302 read with Section 149 I. P. C. The first accused was charged directly with murder but was acquitted of the said offence but convicted under Section 304 I. P. C. Similarly, the second accused was acquitted under Section 307 L P. C. but convicted under Section 324, I. P. C. Accused 1 to 3 were also convicted under s. 148 I. P. C. and accused 4 to 6 under Section 147,1. P. C. Accused 1 to 5 were convicted under Section 365, I. P. C. and accused 1 to 6 were convicted under Section 342, I.P.C. such of the other accused who were not directly charged were convicted constructively for offences for which the other accused were convicted under the direct charge. They were sentenced to varying terms of imprisonment from six months to three years, the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.2. On the 22nd of December 1949, at about 4 p. M., the...
Tag this Judgment!R. Govindaswami Naidu Vs. G. Pushpalammal and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-26-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Mad181; (1951)2MLJ591
Rajamannar, C.J.1. This application relates to the petitioner's occupation of house No. 7, Rama-krishna Street, G. T. Madras as a tenant under the respondent. He originally entered on the premises on or about 1-11-1944 and it is common ground that the premises were let to him for manufacturing peppermints. On 16-1-1950 the landlady issued a notice to the petitioner through her advocate calling upon him to vacate and deliver vacant possession of the house on the ground that ho had committed acts of waste. The acts mentioned in that notice were that he had demolished the wall of the inside room in the front yard and removed the threshold and doorway and converted the room into one big hall and that he had removed the rafters and inserted in their places bamboo sticks. The reply to this notice contained several matters not strictly pertaining to the disposal of the application before us, but it was alleged therein that the notice was not issued 'bona fide' as it was full of falsehoods, bu...
Tag this Judgment!Sree Krishna Chaitanya Vs. Bhanumathi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-26-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Mad291
Rajamannar, C.J.1. This is an applicationmade under Article 228 of the Constitution prayingthat O. P. No. 18 of 1950, pending on the file of theSubordinate Judge's Court at Eluru may be withdrawn to this Court and disposed of after determining the question of law involved therein. Thesaid petition was under S. 5 of Madras Act VI of1949, the Madras Hindu (Bigamy prevention andDivorce) Act. The relief claimed was dissolutionof the marriage of the petitioner with the respondent on the ground of the second marriage ofthe respondent. One of the defences raised is thatMadras Act VI of 1949 itself is invalid and inconsistent with the Constitution. 2. In our opinion the case certainly falls under Article 228 of the Constitution and we are satis-fied that the case involves a substantial Question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution the determination of which is necessary for the disposal of this case. This petition is, however, strongly opposed on the ground that even if we were ...
Tag this Judgment!K.V. Chandramouleswaran Vs. G. Krishnaswami Naidu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-26-1951
Reported in: AIR1953Mad993
ORDERBasheer Ahmed Sayeed, J.1. This revision petition is against the order of the learned District Judge of Coimbatore confirming the order of the learned Subordinate Judge of the same place dismissing a petition under Section 16, Provincial Insolvency Act, and Sections 151 and 152, Civil P. C.2. One Krishnaswarni Naidu filed a petition against the two respondents, namely, second and third respondents in this petition, for adjudicating them insolvents in I. P. No. 24 of 1946 on the file of the Sub Court, Coimbatore. The respondents who were sought to be adjudged insolvents pleaded that no amount was due to the first respondent, the petitioning creditor. The third respondent in particular pleaded that he was not unable to pay his debts and actually deposited in court on 22-2-1947 a sum of Rs. 1680, being the entire amount claimed by the first respondent-petitioning creditor, as due to him. The third respondent also challenged the first respondent to establish his claim by way of suit a...
Tag this Judgment!Gonela Krishnamurthy and anr. Vs. Kalidindi Venkateswaran (Died) and o ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-24-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Mad11; (1951)2MLJ366
1. This is an appeal preferred against the order made by the learned District Judge of Krishna in O. P. no. 11 of 1915.2. The facts are: The respondent before us and his late undivided brother Narasimha Rao borrowed a sum of Rs. 1600 from the deceased. Anjaneyulu father of appellants 1 to 3 and executed a registered mortgage deed in his favour, Subsequently on 9-5-1931 the mortgagors executed EX. B.1 styled as a deed of sale in respect of the immovable property for a Bum of Rs. 1682 8-0 of a portion of the hypotheca plus an additional extent making the total extent sold larger in extent and undoubtedly in value though we have no specific evidence on that point, than the original hypotheca. This deed of Bale contained the usual covenants of sale and stipulated the following condition to reconvey:"You and we have agreed that in case, within three years from now onwards, that is, before 8-5 1934, we pay to you the amount remaining after deducting from out of the amount of principal and in...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »