Chennai Court December 1952 Judgments
Yeditha Venkanna Vs. Nakka Narayanamma and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-19-1952
Reported in: AIR1954Mad136; (1953)IIMLJ652
1. I have had the advantage of perusing my learned brother's judgment with which I am in agreement. I wish to make some further observations without repeating the texts through which we have been so ably taken by Mr. Venkatasubra-mania Aiyar. In the course of his learned argument he showed a thorough study of the texts and, if I may say so, a correct appreciation of the real principles in ancient Hindu law underlying the devolution of the stridhana property of a woman who dies intestate. The position that Mr. Somasundaram has put forward, while conceding the right of illegitimate children to inherit their mother's stridhana property, that they can do so only in the absence of other legitimate heirs, i. e., husband and all his reversioners, has no support whatever in the ancient texts. On the contrary other kinsmen can take only if the woman dies intestate leaving no issue. The texts nowhere differentiate between legitimate and illegitimate issue of a woman in this connection, or betwee...
Tag this Judgment!Narayanaswami Goundar Vs. Perumal Chettiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-18-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Mad720; [1953]23ITR400(Mad); (1952)2MLJ103
1. The first defendant is the appellant in the second appeal. The suit was for redemption of a mortgage executed by the plaintiff and others on 23-4-1908 (Ex. D. 1) in favour of one Veeraraghava Piliai, the mortgage being a usufructuary mortgage. Contemporaneously with the document, there was a lease-back of the properties to the mortgagors by the mortgagee. On 28-9-1910 under Ex. D. 2, the mortgagee assigned his rights under the mortgage to one Venkatarama Gowder who was the head of a joint family. In a partition of 1941, evidenced by Ex. P. 1 dated 30-4-1941, the rights under this mortgage were allotted to the first defendant, the present appellant. In the mortgagors' family, there were four members viz., the plaintiff, Palani Chettiar, the 2nd defendant and the third defendant. These were the member; of the joint family at the time of the execution of the deed. The assignee-mortgagee purchased in 1916 in a court auction sale one-fourth interest of Palani Chettiar who is now dead and...
Tag this Judgment!Nallathambi Alias Venkatachalam Chetty and ors. Vs. Perumal Chetty and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-18-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Mad813; (1953)IMLJ786
Rajamannar, C.J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit, O. S. No. 55 of 1945, filed in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Salem by 22 persons who were occupying separate lands in the village of Kannurpatti Agraharam for a declaration that the lands in their possession are ryoti lands in an estate within the meaning of the definitions of those terms in the Madras Estates Land Act and therefore the plaintiffs have occupancy rights therein. The learned Subordinate Judge dismissed the suit. Plaintiffs 1, 3, 6, 3 to 15 and 17 to 19 are the appellants. During the pendency of the suit itself, some of the plaintiffs compromised with the defendant-landholders, and they withdrew from the suit'. During the pendency of the appeal some of the appellants have also entered into compromise with the respondent-landholders, and it is common ground before us that the only appellants who press this appeal are appellants 1, 3, 4 and 5.2. The only question' which arises in this appeal is whether the lands i...
Tag this Judgment!District Board, Salem, by Its President Vs. S.K. Hanumantha Rao and an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-17-1952
Reported in: AIR1954Mad208; (1953)IIMLJ470
Venkatarama Ayyar, J.1. This revision arises out of a suit instituted by the District Board, Salem, for re-covery of a sum of Rs. 135 being the value of a tamarind tree cut and carried away by the defendants. The claim made in the plaint was that the tree in question stood on a public street which had vested in the District Board and it, therefore, belonged to them. Defendants 1 and 3 pleaded that the tree stood on their patta lands and that it belonged to them; that even if it stood on the public street the Government and not the. District Board was the owner thereof and that, therefore, the plaintiff had no right of action. The learned District Munsif held that the tree stood not on the patta lands of defendants 1 and 3 but on a public street which had vested in the District Board. He also held that the tree was an ancient one and was in existence before the highway vested in the District Board, that there was no proof as to who planted it, that it must, therefore, be taken to he of ...
Tag this Judgment!Kalidindi Ramakrishna Raju Vs. K. Someswara Rao and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-17-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Mad560; (1953)IMLJ422
1. The appellant before us, filed a petition under Section 19 (1) of Madras Act 10 of 1950 before the District Munsif of Tanuku alleging that respondent 1 had ceased to be a member of the Panchayat Board of Polamuru by reason of non-attendance of three consecutive meetings of the board. An objection was raised on behalf of respondent 1 that the District Munsif had no jurisdiction to entertain the petition. But the Munsif overruled the objection and decided on the merits that the respondent had ceased to be a member. The respondent thereupon applied to this Court for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the order of the District Munsif. That application came on before Chandra Reddi J. The learned Judge held that the District Munsif had no jurisdiction to entertain the petition and quashed his order. Hence this appeal.2. On the allegations made by the appellant, we are of opinion that the learned Judge was right in holding that the petition under Section 19 (1) of the new Act of 19...
Tag this Judgment!J. Loomchand Sait Vs. the Official Liquidators, Peerdan Joharmall Bank ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-17-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Mad595; [1953]23CompCas142(Mad); (1953)IMLJ514
Basheer Ahmed Sayeed, J. 1. The appellant in this appeal is one Loomchand Salt, who was the Managing Director of the Peejdan Joharmal Bank Ltd., in liquidation. He has preferred this appeal against the order of Krishnaswami Nayudu J. who held that the appellant had acted fraudulently and had brought himself within the purview of Section 282-A of the Companies Act. The learned Judge found all the charges framed against him proved and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 1000 and directed him to pay Rs. 42,527-12-9, deliver the jewels, particulars of which were given in the schedule to the charge excepting some three items referred to in the judgment and also to pay a sum of Rs. 87,000 plus Rs. 199-12-0 being the value of the securities wilfully misapplied by the said appellant on or before 12-9-1951. In default, he ordered that the appellant should undergo imprisonment for two years. The appellant was given time till 12-9-1951 to which date the matter stood adjourned. On 14-9-1951, the ap...
Tag this Judgment!Pethayya Pillai Vs. Karuppiah Nadar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-17-1952
Reported in: AIR1952Mad0
Mack, J.1. This is an appeal which arisesout of the Oaths Act. A suit was filed by fourundivided Hindu brothers, one of whom wasa minor against defendant 1 and some tenantsfor a declaration of their title to certain immoveable property and for recovery of possession. At the trial of the suit, plaintiff 2, theyounger brother of plaintiff 1, was in Court,conducting the litigation and instructing theirlearned advocate. Plaintiff 2 issued a challengeto defendant 1, which was accepted to take anoath on the head of his eldest son. The otherplaintiffs were not present in Court. The challenge was made on 12-12-1947 and the suit adjourned for the taking of this very unusual oathto 16-12-1947. On that day, the other adultplaintiffs appeared and protested against thechallenge made by plaintiff 2 from which theyresiled. Despite their resiling, this oath wasadministered in Court on 16-12-1947 and thesuit dismissed with costs by the learned DistrictMunsif. In appeal, the learned SubordinateJudge hel...
Tag this Judgment!Addanki Ramalingamma Vs. Bhimavarapu Venkatasubbayya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-17-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Mad912; (1953)IMLJ789
Krishnaswami Nayudu, J.1. This appeal is against the judgment of the Subordinate Judge of Bapatla dismissing the plaintiff's suit in appeal on the ground that Civil Courts have no jurisdiction to entertain the claim. The plaintiff, who is the appellant, is the widow of one Venkatappa, who was the son of Addanki Lingadu 1. Addanki Lingadu 1 married Venkata Ramamma. Venkatappa had a brother Ragadu, who died leaving a widow Ragi. She also died. Venkatappa and the plaintiff had a son Lingadu 11. Venkatappa died about 25 years prior to suit and Lingadu 11 also died three months after his father's death. The plaintiff claims to be the heir entitled to possession of the suit properties, which consist of certain lands relating to washerman service 'inam' in the Addanki village, Guntur district.The plaintiff's case in the plaint is that the land was acquired by the plaintiff's husband as a service tenure 'inam' with hereditary rights and he was enjoying the said property by rendering the said s...
Tag this Judgment!A. Danapal Chetti Vs. K. Rajagopal Chetti
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-17-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Mad871; (1953)1MLJ424
Mack, J.1. This batch of four appeals arise out of a judgment in four appeals, A. S. Nos. 85, 96, 100 and 145 of 1948 in which the learned District Judge of Chingleput on 9-2-49 remanded four suits, viz., O. S. Nos. 368, 302. 379 and 80 cf 1945 disposed of by the District Munsif of Trivellore in a common judgment for fresh disposal. He held in appeal that one of the suits O. S. No. 80 of 1945 was beyond the financial jurisdiction, of the District Munsif and directed the return of that plaint for presentation to the proper Court. Holding that the District Munsif had no jurisdiction to try O. S. Mo. 80 of 1945, he took the view that the common trial of the four suits was without jurisdiction, and that the logical consequence was to set aside the decrees and judgments even of the three suits tried by the District Munsif which he had admittedly full jurisdiction to decide. In an elaborate judgment, the learned District Judge took the view that Section 11, Suits Valuation Act would not appl...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Sainambu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-12-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Mad564; (1953)IMLJ467
1. The appellant has been found guilty of an offence under Section 302, Penal Code, for having murdered, on 6-8-1951, a girl by name Umal Regina, aged 7 years, by cutting her with an 'aruval', and sentenced to transportation for life by the learned Sessions Judge of Ramanathapuram division. The prosecution case is briefly as follows:2. The girl left her house after taking her midday meal for attending her classes in the school. At about 4 or 4-30 p. m. she and two other school children by name Mahariba and Ibrahim were seen going to the house of the accused and a little later Mahariba and Ibrahim returned, but the deceased girl did not return. At the time of sunset that evening, the girl was seen in the house of the accused. That night she did not return and persons who went in search of her could not trace her. The next day her dead body was seen in a channel with cut injuries. Her earrings had been removed. At about 12-1(sic) p. m. on 7-8-1951 a complaint was given to the police at T...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »