Chennai Court November 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.
Nagarathna Mudali and ors. Vs. Mayandi Venkatesa Mudali and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-07-1952
Reported in: (1953)1MLJ461
Venkatarama Aiyar, J.1. The question that arises in this revision petition is as to the court-fee payable on the plaint in O.S. No. 105 of 1951 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Chittoor. There was a joint family consisting of two branches, one branch being represented by the second defendant and the other branch being represented by defendants 1 and 3. In I.P. No. 69 of 1935 on the file of the Sub-Court, Chittoor, defendants 1 and 2 were adjudicated insolvents. The third defendant then filed a suit for partition, O.S. No. 163 of 1937 on the file of the Court of the District Munsif of Sholinghur, and a decree was passed therein, the terms of which are set out in paragraph 7 of the plaint. In substance, the Official Receiver as representing the interests of defendants 1 and 2 was authorised to sell the properties and discharge the debts. The present suit has been filed by the sons of defendants 1 and 2 for partition of their shares in the joint family properties. An o...
Havildar Venkatachallam Vs. Sappar Palayam and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-06-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Mad594; (1953)IMLJ336
ORDERSomasundaram, J.1. Cr. R. C. No. 647 of 1951: This is a revision filed by the petitioner in the lower Court against the order passed under Section 145 Cr. P. C. in M. C. No. 18 of 1951 of the file of the Additional First Class Magistrate, Saidapet, in which the counter-petitioners (respondents herein) were declared to be in possession of the disputed land. This is one of those cases where the petitioner after going to civil Courts several times obtaining an order in his favour is frustrated in his attempts to be in possession by the high handed action of the counter-petitioners. The land was assigned to the petitioner on 29-8-1924. On account of the trouble given by the counter petitioners and their attempts to disturb the possession of the petitioner herein, a suit was filed by the petitioner in O. S. No. 449 of 1926 on the file of the District Munsif's Court, Poonamallee. The title was, declared to be in favour of the petitioner and possession was directed to be given to him. He...
In Re: Baggiam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-05-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Mad507; (1953)IMLJ139
ORDERSomasundaram, J.1. The petitioner in this case has been convicted by the Fourth Presidency Magistrate for an offence under Section 47, Madras District Police Act (Act 24 of 1859) and sentenced to a fine of Rs. 30 in default to three weeks' rigorous imprisonment.2. The facts of the case may be briefly stated' as follows: The petitioner sent a petition, Ex. P. 1, dated 28-5-1951 to the Inspector General of Police alleging therein that P.C. 2144 of B. 2 station was troubling her daily asking for a mamool of Rs. 10, that he was inducing her to run a brothel and that he was taking bribes. The petition was forwarded to the Sub-Inspector of B. 2 station for enquiry. P.W. 2, the Sub-Inspector of B. 2 station inquired into the matter and sent a report that the allegations are false and that they were made with a view to remove the police surveillance on her. Thereupon this complaint was laid in Court against the accused for an offence under Section 47, Madras District Police Act.Both in th...
Subbaiah Maistry Vs. the Corporation of Madras by Its Sanitary Inspect ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-05-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Mad532; (1953)IMLJ92
ORDERRamaswami, J.1. The point taken by Mr. Mohan Kumaramangalam in this case is whether the fee of Rs. 5/- levied upon every dhoby inside the Madras Corporation is a licence fee or a tax.2. There is no dispute before me that if this levy is construed as a tax this revision has got to be allowed and if this is construed as n licence fee this revision has got to be dismissed.3. In order to determine whether this sum of Rs. 5/- levied is a licence fee or a tax --I need not point out that this sum of Rs. 5/-is levied as a licence fee -- we have got certain tests which have been elaborately gone into and laid down by my Lord the Chief Justice in -- 'Varadachari v. State of Madras', : AIR1952Mad764 (A). The learned Chief Justice has reviewed the entire case-law on the subject and has delimited the boundary line between a licence fee and a tax.4. The learned Chief Justice points out: 'It is now well established that there is a fundamental difference between a tax and a licence fee. The issue...
Subbaiah Goundan Vs. Ramasami Goundan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-05-1952
Reported in: AIR1954Mad604
ORDERGovinda Menon, J.1. The second appeal and the memorandum ofcross-objections raise the same point as both theappellant and the cross-objector were plaintiffs 1and 2 respectively in the court of first instance.The suit was laid on the allegation that the firstdefendant as an assignee from the second defendant trespassed upon the suit properties while theywere in the possession of the plaintiffs and therelief claimed was that the plaintiffs may be givenpossession of the suit properties and a decreeagainst the first defendant for past and futuremesne profits. Both the lower courts have dismissed the suit and hence this second appeal andmemorandum of cross-objections.2. The father of the plaintiffs and his brother were jointly running a chit fund as stakeholders. According to the terms of the chit fund transaction, the chit was to run for about a period of 12 years with one chit being auctioned every year. The subscription for a ticket was Rs. 750 and at the auction the person who bid ...
P.N. Balasubrahmanyan Vs. Election Tribunal of North Arcot at Vellore ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-05-1952
Reported in: AIR1954Mad730
1. In this petition the petitioner prays for the issue of a writ of certiorari quashing the order of the Election Tribunal of North Arcot at, Vellorc made in Election Petition No. 56 of 1952 on 5-11-1952. By that order the Election Tribunal dismissed the election petition which had been filed by the petitioner to set aside the election of the second respondent to the House of the People from the Krishnagiri Parliamentary Constituency.2. The necessary facts are not in dispute. The petitioner was a candidate for election to the House of the People from the Krishnagiri Parliamentary Constituency. He filed his nomination paper on 21-11-1951 in the prescribed form. As against column 7 in the form, namely, 'constituency in the electoral roll of which the name of the candidate is included', he made the following entry: ' 'Graduates' Constituency (Salem District Dharmpuri Taluk Laligani Panchayat)'.3. Column 8 is for the serial number of the candidate in the Electoral Roll of the constituency ...
District Collector of Krishna Vs. Pulavarthi Viswanadam and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-05-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Mad867; (1953)IMLJ640
Govinda Menon, J.1. Under Section 19, Defence of India Act, where there is a compulsory acquisition of property, the question of compensation has, in the first instance, to be fixed by agreement between the officers of Government and the owner of the property. Where no agreement is reached, the Central Government shall appoint an arbitrator who is qualified for appointment as a High Court Judge _for deciding the compensation. Such an arbitrator, in making the award, shall have regard to the provisions of Sub-section 1 of Section 23, Land Acquisition Act, 1894, so far as the same can be applicable and Clause (f) of Section 19, Defence of India Act lays down that an appeal shall lie to the High Court against the award of an arbitrator except in cases where the amount thereof does not exceed an amount prescribed on that behalf by rules made by the Central Government.2. An area of 71 cents of land situated on the main Cantonment Road by the side of the Andhra Scientific Co. in Masulipatam ...
Sista Venkatachalam Vs. Bhamidipalli Saramma
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-03-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Mad508; (1953)IMLJ337
Rajagopalan, J.1. The plaintiff-respondent in, second appeal is the mother of the late Venkatanarayana who died without issue on 21-11-1937. Subhadramma was the widow of Venkatanarayana. On his death, she succeeded to his separate properties which consisted of (1) the amount payable under an insurance policy which Venkatanarayana had taken out and (2) the amount lying to the credit of Venkatanarayana in his provident fund account. Subhadramma acquired two items of immoveable properties. The finding of the lower appellate Court was that item 1 of the two items shown in the schedule to the plaint was acquired by Subhadramma with the money she got from the insurance company and that item 2 was purchased with the monies drawn from the provident fund. Before Subhadramma died she executed the Will under which the defendants-appellants in the second appeal claimed the properties. On the death of Subhadramma Venkatanarayana's mother as the reversioner to the estate of Venkatanarayana sued the ...
In Re: Kannan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-03-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Mad579; (1953)IMLJ180
Govinda Menon, J.1. This is a case in which there can be no doubt or dispute as to whether the appellant-accused has caused the death of the deceased Kannayiram. But the only point which requires consideration is whether the offence comes within the ambit of Section 302 Penal Code or whether it is reduced to one under Section 304, Penal Code.2. The prosecution case is short and simple. There have been instances of previous ill-feeling between the accused and the deceased, On 2-4-1952 at about 4 p.m. when the deceased, his mother P.W. 1 and another person P.W. 2 were returning from a shandy along the village street, had passed certain houses and approached the house of the accused, the mother of the accused came out and abused the mother of the deceased, P.W. 1 in a very' vile and foul language. There was exchange of words between the two women. The deceased sat in front of one Arunachala Goundan's house. Thereafter it is stated that the accused's mother advanced with a broomstick and b...
Anganna thevan Vs. Ayyasami thevan and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-03-1952
Reported in: (1953)2MLJ692
Chandra Reddi, J.1. This second appeal arises out of a suit instituted in the Court of the District Munsif of Tirupur for a declaration that the sale-deed Ex. B-7 executed by defendant 2 on 7-6-1945 in favour of defendant 1 is not binding on the plaintiff after defendant 2's lifetime. The plaintiff filed the present suit claiming to be reversioner to the estate of one Kandaswami who died in or about August 1936 and whose estate devolved on his mother, defendant 2. The suit properties were sold for a sum of Rs. 400 in favour of defendant 1. The consideration was made up of Rs. 272 to be paid to the mortgagee Subbakkal under Ex. B-3 dated 14-6-1941 for Rs. 200 and Rs. 128 to be paid in discharge of the mortgage, Ex. B-6 dated 15-4-1941, both the mortgages having been executed by defendant 2 in discharge of the debts incurred by the last male-holder himself in connection with his marriage. Two promissory notes were executed by Kandaswami one on 9-5-1936 for Rs. 200 evidenced by Ex. B-1 in...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›