Chennai Court November 1952 Judgments
Dana Lakshmi Ammal and ors. Vs. Pichayya Naidu and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-26-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Mad740; (1953)IMLJ643
1. This is an appeal against the decree and judgment of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Tinnevelly, in a suit filed by the first respondent for a declaration that the second defendant is not the adopted son of the first defendant and the alleged adoption is neither true in fact nor valid in law. For convenience of reference the following genealogy may usefully be read:KRISHNASWAMI NAIDU|__________________________|___________________________________ | ||| | | Venkataswami Alagiriswami Rangaswami | || __________________________________ V. Krishnaswami | | | | | | Krishnaswami Rajgopal=subbalakshmi Pichayya | (Defendant 6) (Plaintiff adopted son | | | | | | | Muthukrishna=Dhanalakshmi P. Krishnaswami | (Defendant 1) | || || Rajalakshmi_________________________|______________________ (Daughter by first wife, D efendant 3)| | || | |alagiriswami Pichyya (Plaintiff) (Defendant 2 Muthuswami (Defendant 4) adopted son of Muthukrishna) (Defendant 6)2. Muthukrishna Naidu died on 22-6-1941. The...
Tag this Judgment!Thota Ramakrishnayya and ors. Vs. the State
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-25-1952
Reported in: AIR1954Mad442; (1953)IIMLJ425
Ramaswami, J.1. These are appeals preferred against the convictions and sentences of the learned Sessions Judge of Guntur Division in S.C. No. 30 of 1951.2. The facts are : in the village of Adigoppula there are two factions headed by the accused 1 Thota Ramakotayya and G. Venkatappayya respectively. There is no dispute that accused 2 to 22 in this case are the partisans of accused 1 and that the Adlgoppula witnesses examined in this case as P. Ws. 1 to 6, 7, 12 and 15 to 18 are the partisans of Venkatappayya. This faction had arisen from the District Board Election heldabout two years prior to the commission of the offences, forming the subject-matter of this Sessions Case on 18-4-1950. In this District Board Election accused 1 and G. Venkatappayya stood as rival candidates and accused 1 was the successful and Venkatappayya was the defeated candidate. 3. On account of this faction hay-ricks were being burnt on either side and ill-feelings were smouldering. The village Munsif's hay-ric...
Tag this Judgment!Public Prosecutor Vs. Annadham Annamalai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-21-1952
Reported in: AIR1954Mad321
Ramaswami, J.1. These are appeals against acquittal preferred by the Public Prosecutor in C. C. No. 2957 of 1949 and 990 of 1949 on the file of the Stationary Sub-Magistrate, Cuddalore.2. Both the appeals relate to the same transactions and the facts are fully set out in C. C. No. 2857 of 1949 and dealt with below.3. The facts are: The District Magistrate of South Arcot had promulgated on 17-7-1948 an order of detention under Section 2(1)(A), Madras Maintenance of Public Order Act against Chottu 'alias' Vasudeva (See Ex. P. 1). On the night of 26-11-1943 at about 8-15 p.m. P. W. 2, Head Constable No. 811 attached to the N.V. Pattu outpost, got information that this Chottu 'alias' Vasudeva was in the house of Subramanian (accused 2) in East Chetti Street in N. V. Pattu and proceeded there accompanied by P. Ws. 3, 4 and 5. This party was also accompanied by some of the villagers including P. W. 6. On reaching the house, P. W. 2 found there accused 2 & 6 & questioned them about the presen...
Tag this Judgment!Kakara Someswara Rao Vs. Kalidindi Ramakrishna Raju and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-21-1952
Reported in: (1953)1MLJ331
ORDERChandra Reddy, J.1. This is a petition for the issue of a Writ of certiorari to quash the proceedings in O.P. No. 41 of 1951. The petitioner was elected a member of the Panchayat Board, Polamur, Tanuku taluk, West Godavari district, in the year 1939 under the provisions of the Madras Local Boards Act (XIV of 1920) and continued to be as such, as there were no fresh elections subsequent to that. He was also elected as Vice-President of the Board in that year. The first respondent herein filed a petition under Section 19(1) of Act X of 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) before the District Munsif of Tanuku alleging that the petitioner ceased to be a member of the Panchayat Board by reason of non-attendance of three consecutive meetings of the Board. That petition was necessitated by the fact that the petitioner disputed the disqualification and the first respondent was directed by the Inspector of Local Boards to agitate the matter before the appropriate judicial authority.2....
Tag this Judgment!Shaik Masthan Sahib Vs. Palayani Balarami Reddi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-21-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Mad958
ORDERSubba Rao, J.1. Learned counsel appearing for the parties in the second appeal agree that this appeal may be posted before a Bench of two Judges. The only ground for the joint request is that the value of the property involved in the second appeal is more than Rs. 50,000. If the appeal is heard by a single Judge and leave to prefer the Letters Patent appeal is refused they an afraid that they will not have an opportunity to take up the matter to the Supreme Court. The relevant rule of the Appellate Side Rules is rule (I) Chapter I, Part II which reads thus:'The following matters may be heard and determined by one Judge; provided that the Judge before whom the matter is posted for hearing may at any time, adjourn it for hearing and determination by a Bench of two Judges: The rule does not lay down the circumstances under which a single judge is empowered to post the case before a Bench of two Judges. Therefore, a single Judge may, in his discretion refuse to post a case before a Be...
Tag this Judgment!Venkatanarasimha Charyulu Peddinti Vs. Rayasam Gangamma Pantulu and or ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-20-1952
Reported in: AIR1954Mad258; (1953)IIMLJ31
Ramaswami, J.1. This is an appeal preferred against the decree and judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge of Eluru in O. S. No. 11 of 1945.2. The facts are: In Iragavaran village there is a temple known as Sri Kesavaswami. The plaintiff is the manager appointed by the Hindu Religious Endowments Board for this temple under a scheme prepared by the said Board. Defendants 1 to 6 are the Archakas of the said Kesavaswami temple and defendants 7 to 11 are stated to be the tenants of the lands of the temple under defendants 1 to 6. The temple of Sri Kesavaswami being a public temple, the Hindu Religious Endowments Board sought to levy contribution from defendants 1 and 4 to 6. Thereupon these Archakas filed O. S. No. 329 of 1936 on the file of the District Munsif's Court, Tanuku, questioning the right of the Board to levy contribution on the foot that the lands on the income of which contribution was fixed belonged to them the Archakas, exclusively and did not belong to the deity. The clai...
Tag this Judgment!Madepalli Sanyasappanna and ors. Vs. Siripurapu Appalaswami and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-18-1952
Reported in: (1953)2MLJ155
Subba Rao, J.1. The only question in this civil miscellaneous second appeal is whether the usufructuary mortgage deed dated 16-4-1908 has been completely discharged under the provisions' of Section 9-A, Madras Agriculturists' Relief Act. One Audinarayana executed a usufructuary mortgage deed, Ex. D-1, dated 16-4-1908, in favour of Suryanarayana, Appalanarasimhulu, Narasiah and Chiranjeevulu. The sons of the mortgagor sold the equity of redemption to one Appalanarasimhulu and Venkata Narasimhulu under Ex. P. 3 dated 24-2-1920. The heirs of Venkata Narasimhulu sold their interest in the mortgage to Appalaswami under Ex. P. 2 dated 28-10-1945. Venkataramanayya is the heir of Appalanarasimhulu. Appalaswami and Venkataramanayya_ have therefore become the owners of the equity of redemption. Appalaswami filed O. P. No. 33 of 1948 on the file of the District Munsif, Vizianagaram under Section 19-A of the Madras Act 4 of 1938 to declare the sum due under the mortgage deed dated 16-4-1908. To th...
Tag this Judgment!Perla Annapurnamma Garu and anr. Vs. Collector of Vizagapatam Represen ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-18-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Mad906; (1953)2MLJ367
1. These three appeals arise out of three suits between the same parties which were tried together and disposed of by the learned District Judge of Vizagapatam by a common judgment dated 11-12-1947. The appellant was the defendant in all the three suits; the respondent, the Collector of Vizagapatam, was the plaintiff. The appellant is the widow of one Perla Ramamurthi Chetty, who died on 2-11-1918, leaving behind him his widow, the appellant, and a daughter, and, also his last will and testament dated 1-11-1918. In and by this will, he appointed the appellant as the sole executrix. In these appeals, we are only concerned with three clauses in the will which contain certain charitable bequests. They are as follows:"1. Out of my property Rs. 50,000 worth immoveable property i.e., lands fetching Rs. 2000 annually should be allotted to the choultry run by me as an endowment. A proper trust deed should be executed to my wife. From the income of these lands, the aforesaid choultry should be ...
Tag this Judgment!M. Gulamali Abdul HussaIn and Co. Vs. A.P.M.S. Mohamed Yousuf and Brot ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-14-1952
Reported in: AIR1954Mad268; (1953)IMLJ504
1. This is an appeal by the defendants against the judgment and decree in C. S. No. 158 of 1945 on the Original Side of this Court. That was a suit instituted by the respondents for damages for non-acceptance of goods under six contracts. The appellants are a firm of merchants carrying on business in the export and import of metals in Bom bay and they have branches in Madras and other places. The respondents are a firm of merchants carrying on business in the purchase and sale of scrap metal in Madras, From 1942 the appellants were also, doing business as manufacturers of brass sheets and have been purchasing for that purpose scrap brass in the market of Madras and elsewhere. In this litigation, we are concerned with six contracts entered into by the appellants. with the respondents for purchase of scrap brass as per particulars mentioned below:Dates 'of contract Quantity Price1. 30-11-1914 5 tons Rs. 136 per cwt.2. 1-12-1944 5 tons Rs. 138 per cwt.3. 17-1-1945 10 tons Rs. 166 pet cwfc...
Tag this Judgment!Garimella Suryanarayana Vs. Gada Venkataramana Rao
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-14-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Mad458
1. The question raised in this appeal is of considerable importance and relates to the construction of Expl. I to Section 8 of Madras Act 4 of 1938 recently introduced by Act 23 of 1948. Our attention has been drawn to an unreported decision of a Division Bench in O.S. A. No. 17 of 1948, in which the learned Judges took the view that this explanation would not affect adjustments and settlements already made between creditor and debtor. This decision has since been followed by a learned Judge sitting single in S.A. No. 2115 of 1947 and by another Division Bench in C. M. A. No. 180 of 1950. We are inclined to think that the learned Judges who decided O.S. A. No. 17 of 1948 have not attached sufficient importance to the word /'expressly" which occurs in the explanation in arriving at their conclusion. In the appeal now before us Fanchapakesa Aiyar J. has taken a contrary view. We think it desirable that there should be an authoritative ruling as to the interpretation of this new provision...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »