Chennai Court July 1951 Judgments
Ammireddi Sooramma Vs. Ammireddi Venkataratnam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-24-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Mad166; (1951)2MLJ664
Subba Rao, J.1. This is a second appeal against the decree and judgment of the District Judge or Krishna modifying that of the Subordinate Judge of Masulipatam in O. S. No. 11 of 1943. Plaintiff is the second wife of one Kottayya. By a registered partition deed, Ex. D-1, dated 6-7-1923 Kotayya and his son Venkataratnam (the defendant), by his first wife partitioned the family properties. Under the said deed the 'A' marked schedule properties were allotted to Kotayya and the B marked schedule properties to Venkataratnam. It was also provided thereunder that Kotayya should only enjoy the income derived from the property allotted to him without powers of alienation and that alter his death if sons had been born to him they should take it absolutely and in case he had no male issue, it would go to Venkataratnam. In the happening of the second contingency the document directed Venkataratnam to give maintenance to the plaintiff at the rate of one putti of paddy per year. The aforesaid 'A' Sc...
Tag this Judgment!Neney Kasi Viswanatham Vs. Gadigay Sanna Lingappa Dakappa by Managing ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-24-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Mad185; (1951)IIMLJ492
ORDERBasheer Ahmed Sayeed, J. 1. The point that arises for consideration in this revision petition is whether the requirements of Section 54(2) of the sale of Goods Act have been complied with in order to entitle the plaintiff, respondent to recover the deficiency on resale of goods consigned to the petitioner, and which the petitioner is said to have refused to take delivery. The facts of the case are fairly simple. The defendant purchased goods from the plaintiff through his agent P.W. 1. The agent selected the goods of the plaintiff in his shop and in respect of the price paid a sum of Rs. 158 and odd and wanted that the goods should be despatched to the defendant at Bezwada and the balance of price should be collected through the Kanara Bank at Bezwada. The goods were accordingly despatched and the R.R. was sent to the bank to be delivered over to the defendant on payment of the balance of the price. The defendant did not choose to pay the amount and take delivery of the R.B. or th...
Tag this Judgment!S.K. Rajalingam Chetty and ors. Vs. Official Assignee
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-23-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Mad89
ORDERKrishnaswami Nayudu, J.1. The heirs of a deceased insolvent, who was adjudicated in I. P. No. 23 of 1892, apply for payment out of Rs. 1400/- standing to the credit of the estate with the Official Assignee.2. The insolvent in this case died without obtaining final discharge as provided for under the Act, i.e., Insolvent Debtors Act, Ch. XXI of 1848. It was found long after his death that he was entitled to l/3rd share in premises No. 6, Vaikunta Vadhyar Street, G. T., Madras. That property was sold in execution of the mortgage decree in O. S. No. 177 of 1943 on the file of the City Civil Court. The insolvent's share was vested in the Official Assignee and the present sura represents the net sale proceeds of the insolvent's share in the said property.3. The present application is based on the ground that no creditors are available for payment and that the applicants being the heirs of the insolvent have become entitled to the amount. Section 127 of the Presidency Towns Insolvency A...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Sagili Solomon
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-23-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Mad177; (1951)2MLJ423
Govinda Menon, J.1. It has been repeatedly held, not only by their Lordships of the Privy Council, but also by this Court that the omission to strictly comply with the terms of Section 342, Criminal P.C., vitiates the trial In 'Dwaraknath Varma v. Emperor 64 Mad L. J. 466 the Privy Council held that Section 342, Criminal P. C., ought to be strictly followed. This decision has been followed in 'Sangama Naicker', In re: 59 Mad 622.2. In page 20 of the printed papers we find the questions put to the accused under Section 342, Criminal P.C., as follows:Q: The statement made by you in the committing Court is read out to you now. Is it the one made by you and is it correct? A: Yes, it is correct (marked as Ex. P. 16) Q: Do you wish to say anything more in addition to that statement? A: Nothing.Q: Are there witnesses on your behalf? A: no.We do not find any question put by the learned Judge asking the accused to explain the circumstances that have been proved against him. In our opinion, th...
Tag this Judgment!Krishna Pillai Vs. thekke Valia Veetil Parukutty Ammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-20-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Mad33; (1951)2MLJ496b
Panchapakesh Ayyar, J. 1. This second appeal raises an important and interesting point of law regarding the meaning and bearing of Section 4 of the Partition Act. The facts are briefly these. 2. The appellant, Krishna Pillai, is the mother's sister's son of the first defendant, Parukutty Ammal of Nagaram Amsom, Kozhikode taluk. Parukutty Ammal and her sister, Thangammal, were living in the suit house, as tenants-in-common, having inherited it from their mother, and had not divided it. On 29th August 1940, Krishna Pillai bought the half share of Thangammal in that house and obtained a decree for partition of his half shave. Parukutty filed an application under Section 4 of the Partition Act to buy out Krishna Plllal's share. Krishna Pillai contended that the house in question did not belong to 'an undivided family', as Parukutty and Thangammal were sisters in a 'Mitakshara' family, and so would belong to 'different families', and not to one joint family or coparcenary, and that he himse...
Tag this Judgment!C. Abboy Reddiar Vs. Collector of Chingleput at Saidapet and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-20-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Mad45; (1951)2MLJ402a
1. A preliminary point is raised by the learned counsel for the respondent that no revision can be entertained by this Court against the order of the arbitrator appointed under Section 19(2), Defence of India Act, on the ground that the arbitrator is appointed to act merely as a 'persona designata', and therefore not as a Court subordinate to the High Court within the meaning of Section 115, Civil P.C. In reply to this it is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the arbitrator in this case is chosen to act not in his private capacity but in his capacity as a District Judge and. therefore a Court coming within the purview of Section 115, C.P.C.2. In order to understand this preliminary objection it is necessary to set out a few material facts. Certain lands in the village of Palavanthan-gal, Chingleput district, belonging to the petitioner were acquired by the Government under the provisions of the Defence of India Act and the Requisitioned Land (Continuance of Powers) A...
Tag this Judgment!Arumugha Naicker and ors. Vs. A. Kuppuswami Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-20-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Mad115; (1951)2MLJ564
ORDERChandra Reddi, J.1. The question that falls to be decided in this revision petition is whether a representative action under Order 1, Rule 8, C. P. C., can be brought for rendition of accounts by certain members of an unregistered society on their own behalf and on behalf of the other members of the society. In this case, a suit was filed under O. 1, Rule 8 by six members of an unregistered Sabha on their own behalf and of the members of the Sabha for account of the monies collected and spent by the first defendant on behalf of all of them for prosecuting a litigation. One of the defences was that the suit as framed was not maintainable as the procedure laid down under Order 1, Rule 8 is not available in respect of actions for recovery of money or in respect of liability on contract or tort. The trial Court decreed the suit overruling this objection. The matter was taken to the Pun Bench of the Court of Small Causes by new trial application. The learned Judges upholding the prelim...
Tag this Judgment!Rajahmundry Electric Supply Corporation Ltd., by Its Vice Chairman, Ap ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-20-1951
Reported in: AIR1953Mad475; (1953)1MLJ742A
1. C.M.P. 7163 of 1951 :The applicant is entitled to leave to appeal "to the Supreme Court from our final order in --'Narasaraopeta Electric Corporation Ltd. v. State of Madras', (A) under Article 133(1)(b)of the Constitution, because our order involves directly a claim respecting property of over Rs. 20,000. This is not disputed by the learned Advocate-General. The applicant will further be entitled to leave under Article 132(1) also as the case involved a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution, in particular, Article 19(1)(b) and Article 31(2). A certificate will issue accordingly2. C.M.P. No. 7164 of 1951. This is an application by the applicant in C.M.P. No. 7163 of 1951 at whose instance we have given leave to appeal to the Supreme Court against our order passed in C.M.P. No. 4697 of 1951 paying that this Court may grant stay of the operation of the G. O. dated 2-9-1950 directing the vesting of the petitioner-Corporation pending disposal of the ap...
Tag this Judgment!Kaki Venkatappa Vs. Toppal Timmappa
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-19-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Mad19; (1951)2MLJ494
ORDERPanchapakesa Ayyar, J.1. This is a petition to revise the order of the District Munsiff, Bellary, dated 3-11-1949, in LA. No. 781 of 1949 in O.S. No. 347 of 1949, granting the petitioner leave to defend in a suit on a promissory note, only on condition of his furnishing security of immovable property for Rs. 2,000 even though the learned District Munsiff had, in the course of the very same order, observed that he was convinced that the defendant had a 'prima facie' case to contest the suit. The defendant (petitioner) had admittedly alienated some of his properties shortly before the suit. I have perused the entire records and heard the learned counsel on both sides.2. Mr. K. Srinivasa Rao, for the petitioner, urged that the lower Court should have given unconditional leave to defend, in view of its own findings that the defendant had a 'prima facie' case to contest the suit, and that, under the rulings in Periya Miyan v. Subramania Iyer', 46 L Jour 255 'Sundaram Chettiar v. Vallia...
Tag this Judgment!Gadikota Siva Narayana Reddi Vs. Badepalli Nagasubbamma and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-19-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Mad600; (1951)2MLJ418
Panchapakesa Ayyar, J.1. I have perused the entire records and heard the learned counsel for the plaintiff-petitioner. Nobody appears for the respondents defendants, two minor girls aged 15 and 13. The plaintiff had brought O. S. No. 229 of 1948 against these minors for a declaration of his title to 9 acres of land and recovery of possession of them from these minor girls represented by some guardian on record who absented himself on the date of trial with the consequence that an 'ex parte' decree was passed against these minor girls. The lower Court removed the negligent guardian and appointed another guardian by name Bayya Reddi for them. Then, oil an application, by this new guardian, Bayya Reddi, the maternal uncle of the minor girls, the lower Court set aside the 'ex parte' decree 'on terms' as there was 'some sufficient cause' for the minors' absence at the time of the hearing resulting in the 'ex parte' decree against them, namely the negligence of the previous guardian. Hence t...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »