Chennai Court January 1952 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.
Public Prosecutor Vs. Kandaswami Mudali
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-17-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Mad355; (1952)2MLJ607
1. This is an application by the learned Public Prosecutor for the correction of an incorrect procedure adopted by the learned Sessions Judge of Salem in S. C. No. 138 of 1950.2. The accused Kandaswami Mudali who was tried for an offence under Section 302, Penal Code was found guilty but insane at the time of the commission of the act.3. The learned Sessions Judge acquitted him under Section 84, Penal Code and made the following order:"In order to meet the requirements of Section 471, Criminal P. C. the accused will continue on bail on the same sureties who will retain the accused in their safe custody, and produce him before Court as and when required pending final orders of the Government."The learned Public Prosecutor rightly points out that the procedure followed by the learned Sessions Judge is incorrect. Before the amendment of Section 471, Criminal P. C., the Court acquitting a person on the ground of insanity had to report the case for the orders of the local Government. But Cl...
In Re: Gangipati Appayya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-17-1952
Reported in: AIR1952Mad800; [1952]22CompCas78(Mad); (1952)IMLJ608
ORDERRamaswami, J.1. These are five connected cases filed against appeals filed against the convictions and sentences of the Additional First Class Magistrate, Vijayawada in C.C. Nos. 178 and 179 of 1949.2. The facts are brief: The petitioners before us are the directors of Sri Gopalakrishna Motor Transport Company Ltd. and whose affair were the subject matter of investigation till recently on the original side of the High Court. How this company came into existence was as follows: These directors were originally competing bus-owners running a few buses each. The Government of Madras then insisted that groups of 20 buses should be formed into fieets and then only they would be allowed to operate as public transport vehicles. Therefore by reason of this requirement the erstwhile warring competitors were thrown together. It is not too much to say that it was more like a case of a number of wild cats being thrown into a cage and asked to live amicably thereafter. It needed therefore no as...
Birapalli Sreekanta Venkata Krishna Reddi Garu Vs. Dandu Venkataraju a ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-17-1952
Reported in: AIR1952Mad843; (1952)IMLJ643
Subba Rao, J. 1. The only question in this second appeal is whether the sale held in execution of a rent decree without issuing notice to the purchaser of the holding is valid. 2. The facts are simple and may be briefly stated. One Chintalapati Bapiraju had occupancy rights in the plaint schedule items. The defendant, Zamindar of Nandigudem, is the land-holder. As Bapiraju was in arrears of rent, the defendant filed S. S. No. 422 of 1940 on the file of the Deputy Collector, Kovvur and obtained a decree. On 18-8-1942, he filed E. P. No. 175 of 1942 for executing the decree. On 25-12-1942, purporting to be under the terms of an agreement dated 25-12-1939, the sons of Bapiraju sold the holding to the plaintiffs under Ex. P-1. Subsequent to the purchase, in execution of a rent decree & without giving any notice to the purchasers the holding was sold on 21-10-1943 & purchased by the Zamindar. The plaintiffs, i.e., the vendees under Ex P-l filed O. S. No. 78 of 1945 on the file of the Distri...
In Re: Narayana Reddiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-10-1952
Reported in: AIR1954Mad245; (1952)IMLJ803
ORDERRamaswami, J. 1. In the peculiar circumstances ofthe case the prosecutions under Section 182, PenalCode, ought not to have been launched becausethe offence for which these persons have beenconvicted is for the offence of tergiversation,namely that they have not stuck to their previous statement notwithstanding that the previous statement might be untrue and secondlysticking to the previous statement would onlybe to incriminate themselves because the lawdeals with the bribe-givers and bribe-takers onthe same par and treats them as accomplices ofeach other. Therefore when it has not beenshown whether the information given by thesepersons was false or true and secondly whenthese accused persons were not bound to incriminate themselves these prosecutions weremisconceived. The convictions and sentencescannot be supported and they are set aside. Thefine amounts, if collected, would be refunded....
In Re: L. Palaniappa Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-10-1952
Reported in: AIR1952Mad799; (1952)IIMLJ3
ORDERKrishnaswami Nayudu, J.1. These are revision petitions against, the order of the Subordinate Judge of Deva-kottai directing the petitioner to pay Court fee under Section 7-IV-A in respect of relief in the amended prayer. The amendment is in respect of cancellation of a portion of Ex. A 1 and it was contended before the learned Judge that it is not capable of valuation and Section 7-IV-A is not applicable and no court-fee is payable. In A. S. No. 858 of 1948 at his instance the suit was remanded to enable the petitioner to apply for amendment of the plaint for setting aside the settlement evidenced by Ex. A. 1 and it wasobserved by the learned Judges in A. S. No. 658 of 1948 that what the plaintiff wanted was 'a sifting and fresh enquiry into the accounts reopening the entire settlement of accounts on the ground that the agreement Ex. A 1 was initiated by duress, fraud, misrepresentation etc.'and the plaintiff was therefore given leave toapply for amendment paying of course theaddi...
Kumaraswami Padayachi Vs. Govindaswami Padayachi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-09-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Mad1001; (1952)IMLJ619
Subba Rao, J.1. The only question in this second appeal is whether Section 9-A, Madras Agriculturists Relief Act, (4 of 1938) applies to the transaction in question. The scheduled properties wore usufructuarily mortgaged on 5-6-1927 in favour of the respondent's father for a sum of Rs. 500. There was a condition in the document that in case the mortgage debt was not redeemed within five years, the mortgagee would become the owner. The mortgagor treating that condition as a clog on the equity of redemption applied for redemption after depositing the proportionate amount under Section 9A of the Act. Both the Courts found that the condition was a clog on the equity of redemption and therefore the creditor continued to be in possession only as mortgagee. On that finding the provision of Section 9-A of the Act directly applies. Section 9-A reads:Where a usufructuary mortgage was executed at any time before 30th September 1947 and the mortgagee is in possession of the property mortgaged to h...
Sanga thevar Vs. Thanukodi Ammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-08-1952
Reported in: AIR1954Mad116; (1952)IMLJ620
Basheer Ahmed Sayeed, J.1. Defendant 2 in the suit is the appellant before me. The respondent filed the suit in the District Munsif's Court for enforcing a contract for sale of a house by defendant 1. The suit was for specific performance and the contract was an oral one; but subsequent to that oral contract, there was a sale deed executed but was not registered, owing to certain machinations, which are alleged against the appellant. The learned District Munsif dismissed the suit on the ground that the contract alleged, on the basis of which specific performance was claimed, was not true and was not proved. A further question also arose in the suit as to whether this appellant who was defendant 2 in the lower Court and who had purchased the property from defendant 1, had notice of the contract between the plaintiff and defendant 1 and whether he was entitled to retain the property purchased by him. On this, the learned District Munsif gave a finding against the plaintiff. The plaintiff...
Gurusanthayya, Son of Kariveerappa Vs. Setra Veerayya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-03-1952
Reported in: AIR1952Mad825; (1952)2MLJ1
Govinda Menon, J. 1. This is an appeal against the order of the District Judge of Bellary refusing to set aside an order dismissing a suit for default. What happened was that on 8-9-1950 when the suit came on for hearing the predecessor of the learned Judge, from whose order this appeal is filed, passed an order stating that certain issues had been decided against the contentions raised by the defendants, and that the suit would stand posted to 18-9-1950 for the plaintiff's rejoinder. On 18-9-1950 there was no appearance, and the learned District Judge thereupon passed an order in the following terms:'Issues 2 and 7: Finding negativing the contentions of the defendants was given by this court on 8-9-1950. Issue 3 : The plaintiff and his pleader are absent. I decide the third issue in the affirmative.' In the result the suit was dismissed with costs. An affidavit in support of the application to set aside the order of dismissal for default was sworn to by Mr. D. Venugopalachariar, plead...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›