Chennai Court August 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.
T.S. Venkatanarayana Iyer Vs. the State of Madras Through the District ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-10-1951
Reported in: AIR1953Mad888; (1953)IMLJ231
1. This civil revision petition is against the order of the learned Subordinate Judge of Madhurai directing the plaintiffs to pay enhanced court-fee consequent upon his finding on the preliminary issue, namely, whether the court-fee paid and the valuation of the suit were proper? Plaintiff 1 is the petitioner.2. Fifteen plaintiffs sued for a decree setting aside the order of the Collector of Madhurai dated 17-10-1947 directing resumption of the plaint schedule lands and for declaring the order to be illegal and a nullity. According to the plaint, the cause of action in the suit arose on 17-10-1947 when the Collector of Madhurai confirmed the Order of the Revenue Divisional Officer of Usilampatti dated 4-4-1947 directing, the resumption of the suit lands. In the schedule attached to the plaint, the description of the properties in respect of which the resumption order was passed sets out nine different, inams with respective extents of the lands covered by nine title deeds. The entire e...
The Public Prosecutor Vs. A.K. Gopalan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-09-1951
Reported in: AIR1953Mad66; (1952)2MLJ725
ORDER1. These are two petitions for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court under Article 134(1)(c) of the Constitution against two orders of release of A.K. Gopalan passed by us on two applications for a writ of 'habeas corpus' presented by the detenu. The second application for the writ became necessary on account of the fact that within just five minutes of our order of release on the earlier 'habeas corpus application and just as the detenu and his legal adviser stepped out of the gates of the High Court, he was arrested again under a fresh order of detention. This fresh order was not brought to our notice at the time of the order of release that we made on the first application for the writ, although by that time it had been got ready to be served, the moment that our order on the first application for the writ should turn out to be favourable to the detenu.2. On the first application for the writ we are satisfied following a decision of the Pepsu Court in -- 'Dr. Teja Singh v. The S...
Gadhavajhala Satyanarayanamurthi Vs. Rao Saheb Y. Narayanamurthi and o ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-09-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Mad106; (1951)2MLJ333
1. The plaintiff is the appellant in this second appeal. He was the Head Clerk in the Taylor High School, Narasapur. He was suspended by the management of the Institution on 12-10-1943 and was ultimately dismissed from service on 19-11-1913. He instituted the suit out of which this second appeal arises, for a declaration that the orders of suspension and dismissal were ultra vires and void and that he continued to be an employee of the Taylor High School, Narasapur, and for an injunction directing the defendants to allow him to work in his post in the school. The suit was contested by the management on various grounds. They maintained that the dismissal was justified and was proper, that the plaintiff's only remedy if he was aggrieved by the decision of the Executive Committee was to have preferred an appeal to the General Committee under Rule 9 of the Rules framed by the General Committee under Clause 25 of the scheme framed by the Court in O. S.No. 19 of 1922 on the file of the Sub C...
Chinnupati Bapayya Varma Vs. Thotakuru Sitaramamma and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-09-1951
Reported in: AIR1954Mad185
ORDERBasheer Ahmed Sayeed, J.1. The suit out of which this petition has arisen was filed by the petitioner in this Court to recover a sum of Rs. 155-12-0 from the defendants by way of contribution. The defendants are the respondents in this petition. A third party obtained a joint and several decree for costs against the present plaintiff-petitioner and some other persons who figured as defendants in the suit filed against the present petitioner and some third parties as well, in A. S. No. 12 of 1944 on the file of the Sub-Court, Tenali. In satisfaction of that decree the plaintiff deposited into Court a sum of Rs. 198 on 25-2-1S46. Thereafter the petitioner sued the rest of the judgment-debtors who are the defendants in the suit for contribution. Defendant 1, subsequent to the suit is said to have paid his share to the plaintiff with the result that his share of the liability was no longer in dispute and he was exonerated. Defendants 2 and 3 remained ex parte; and defendants 4 to 8 al...
Buragada Venkatarao and anr. Vs. Godavarti Venkatratnam and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-08-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Mad872; (1952)IIMLJ60
Govinda Menon, J.1. By Ex. P-1 dated 20th March 1923 the first defendant executed a mortgage for a sum of Rs. 2351-9-6 in favour of the undivided father of the plaintiffs. The consideration for that document was made up of sums due under a prior promissory note executed by the first defendant and moneys due under an account. It also included a sum of Rs. 50 being the costs of an insolvency petition which the plaintiffs' father and another had filed against the first defendant. The mortgage recited that compound interest would be paid at the rate of Rs. 1-0-6 per cent per mensem with annual rests. The relevant portions of the document are as follows:'......This sum, from this date until it is paid up to you in full, shall carry compound interest at the rate of Rs. 1-0-6 (one rupee and six pies) per cent per mensem with annual rests calculated according to the Telugu calendar months and for Adhikamasams-also, and the principal and interest so aggregating shall be paid up to you by me in ...
Sadhu Venkayya and anr. Vs. Colla Meenakshamma
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-07-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Mad180; (1951)2MLJ583
ORDERBasheer Ahmed Sayeed, J.1. This revision petition has been preferred by defendants 1 and 2 who have been committed for contempt of Court by the learned First Additional Subordinate Judge of Guntur for having disobeyed the order passed by the learned District Munsif of Guntur not to cut and remove the crops on the land to which the petitioners laid claim as owners, on the appointment of a receiver.2. The learned District Munsif who heard the application for committing these petitioners for contempt dismissed the application as there were not sufficient grounds to hold that the defendants committed any disobedience of his order, but on appeal by the plaintiffs the learned Subordinate Judge of Guntur while holding that there was no sufficient evidence to establish the individual guilt of defendants 3 to 9 and that there was no satisfactory evidence to prove that they have taken part, still held that the defendants 1 and 2 whowere the owners of the land should, be deemed responsible f...
Ayilavajjula Subbaraya Sarma Vs. Chilakapati Subramanyam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-07-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Mad856; (1952)2MLJ55
Subba Rao, J.1. The only question in this second appeal is whether the mortgagee is entitled to sue for recovery of his money by sale of the hypotheca.2. One Venkatachelamayya executed a will dated 19-10-1926 whereunder he bequeathed the plaint scheduled properties along with others to the first defendant, his wife, to be enjoyed by her for her lifetime and the remainder to his daughter's son, the 2nd defendant. The 5th defendant is the daughter of the said Venkatachelamayya and defendants 2 to 4 are her sons. One Pitchireddi in whose favour Venkatachelamayya executed a promissory note filed O. S. No. 769 of 1932 on the file of the District Munsif, Nellore, against the first defendant to recover the money due thereunder, and he obtained a decree on 16-12-1932. Another creditor of Venkatachelamayya filed O. S. No. 1022 of 1932 and obtained a decree therein. On 17-8-1932, the first defendant executed a conveyance in favour of the 2nd defendant in respect of her life interest in the suit ...
Pappukkannu Anni Vs. S. Thoppayya Mudaliar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-03-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Mad41; (1952)IIMLJ108
ORDERVenkatarama Ayyar, J.1. This is a petition to revise the order of the learned District Munsiff of Tiruturaipundi calling upon the plaintiff in O.S. No. 407 of 1949 to pay additional Court-fee. The allegations in the plaint are that the plaintiff and defendants are owners of neighbouring lands, that the defendants whose lands are on a higher level are attempting to pass oh the. surplus water of their lands to the lands belonging to the plaintiff by cutting the bund and that they have no right to do so. The prayers in the plaint are (1) for a declaration that the defendants 1 and 2 have no right to drain their water from their fields into the fields of the plaintiff and (2) for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from cutting open the bund and draining their surplus water into the fields of the plaintiff. The plaintiff valued the former relief under Section 7, Clause (iv) (c) at Rs. 10 and the latter relief under Section 7 Clause (iv) (d) at Rs. 10 and paid Court-fee o...
M.A. Mohamed Thambi Maricayar Vs. M.O. Shaik Farid Maricayar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-01-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Mad80; (1951)2MLJ524
Chandra Reddi, J. 1. The petitioner in O. P. No. 3 of 1949 on the flle of the District Court, East Tanjore, is the appellant. He filed a petition under Section 71 of the Indian Lunacy Act and under Section 151, Civil P. C. for appointing him as the guardian of the person and manager of the property of one Jainambu Gani, his wife, who is alleged to be a lunatic. On this application the District Judge directed production of the alleged lunatic. Thereupon the petitioner applied under Section 151, Civil P. C. and Sections 61 to 64 of the Lunacy Act to have the inquisition regarding the alleged lunatic conducted in any place except in Court or such other similar public places, as the alleged lunatic is a gosha lady not accustomed to attend Courts. The learned District Judge rejected this request as being an extraordinary one, However the appellant failed to produce the alleged lunatic in Court because the alleged lunatic is a gosha lady. Ultimately on 2nd April 1949 the District Judge dismi...
M.S. Sheriff and anr. Vs. M. Govindan and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-01-1951
Reported in: AIR1951Mad1060; (1951)2MLJ501
Satyanarayana Rao, J.1. These two applications were filed under Arts, 132(1) and 134(1)(c) of the Constitution of India for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court against the orders of this Court in Cr. M. P. Nos. 1703 and 1705 of 1950 directing the prosecution of the present applicants under Section 193, Penal Code. There were two applications Cr. M. P. Nos. 2461 and 2462 of 1949 filed under Section 491, Cr. P. C., requesting this Court to issue directions in the nature of habeas corpus for the release of the petitioners therein. The complaint by those petitioners Govindan and Damodarasami was that they were kept in illegal custody in Rule 2 and Rule 1 police stations of Coimbatore by the Sub-Inspectors of Police of the respective stations and that they should be released. In those applications, the Sub-Inspectors who are the present applicants for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court filed affidavits denying the custody of those persons. There was an elaborate enquiry into the question...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›