Chennai Court February 1952 Judgments
Syed Sulaiman Sahib Vs. Kader Ibrahim Meeral Bivi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-29-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Mad161; (1952)IIMLJ104
Chandra Reddi, J.1. The plaintiff is the appellant. His suit for partition of his father's estate and for possession of 98-616 share in those properties with past and future mesne profits was dismissed by the District Munsif of Tenkasi, which was confirmed on appeal by the District Judge of Tinevelly.2. Plaintiff and defendants 1 to 7 are the children of one Sehu Mian Tharaganar by his three wives. On 9-7-1934, Sehu Mian executed Ex. D. 1, a gift deed in which he made various dispositions, the construction of which is one of the tasks in this appeal. He died in April 1941. Prior to his death, the plaintiff, who was one of the donees under the deed sold a portion of the properties under Ex. D. 2 for a sum of Rs. 200. In 1943, i.e., on 10-3-1943 the plaintiff alienated the other properties which were gifted to him under Ex. D. 1 for a sum of Rs. 2235, the sale deed being Ex. D. 3. Having sold away the properties which he got under the gift deed, he filed the suit, which has given rise to...
Tag this Judgment!Moyankutty and ors. Vs. Narayanan Nair and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-29-1952
Reported in: AIR1952Mad782; (1952)1MLJ683
ORDERRamaswami, J.1. This civil revision petition is filed against the order made by the learned District Munsif of Manjeri refusing to allow an amendment in O.S. No. 155 of 1949.2. The short facts are: the plaintiff filed this suit for recovery of possession of the properties held under a mortgage sued on. The mortgage sued on hero is for Rs. 400. There was also a claim for arrears of purappad. Defendants 3 to 7 are said to be tenants in possession under the mortgagees. Defendants 1 and 2 deposited the arrears of rent claimed in the suit and the suit was stayed under Act 17 of 1946.3. This plaintiff thereupon filed an amendment petition (LA. No. 668 of 1950) giving up the claim for recovery of possession of the plaint property and adding a prayer for the extinguishment of the mortgage, i.e. he gave up a portion of his claim.4. The respondents objected to the amendment being allowed on the ground that it was a ruse to deny them the rights conferred under Act 17 of 1946.5. The learned D...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Dantuluri Butchi Ramayya Vs. Gundu Ramanna and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-28-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Mad562; (1952)IIMLJ408
Rajamannar, C.J.1. This revision petition originally came on before Balakrishna Aiyar J. but has been referred to a Bench because the learned Judge thought that the questions raised in it were of considerable importance and the matter was barren of direct authority.2. The petitioner filed a suit in the District Munsif's Court of Vizianagaram to eject the contesting respondents from the lands in suit and to recover past and subsequent profits from them. It was 'inter alia' pleaded by the defendants that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit as the provisions of the Madras Estates Land Act would govern the case. Both the learned District Munsif and the learned District Judge have upheld this plea of the defendants and directed the plaint to be returned for presentation to the Revenue Court.3. The origin of the title of the plaintiff to the suit lands is not in dispute. It appears from the Inam statement and the proceedings of the Inam Commissioner as recorded in the I...
Tag this Judgment!Natesa thevar Vs. Narayanaswami Padayachi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-28-1952
Reported in: AIR1952Mad844; (1952)2MLJ77
Chandra Reddi, J. 1. This second appeal which was referred to a Bench by Satyana-rayana Rao J. raises a question under the Limitation Act. The facts of the case lie within a narrow compass and are not in dispute, the only controversy being whether it is article 134 or 144 or 148 of the Limitation Act that applies to this case. In order to appreciate the point involved in the second appeal, it is necessary to refer to the facts briefly giving rise to this litigation. The suit properties were mortgaged by one Sivanandi Thevar usufructuarily to one Kamakshia Pillai for Rs. 225 on 14-2-1891 the period fixed for redemption being 25 years. The mortgagee executed a simple mortgage of his othi right over the suit properties to Periasami Odayar on 5-4-1898 according to the plaintiff, while it is the defendants' case that it was a mortgage of the properties themselves. Kamakshia Pillai executed another simple mortgage over the same properties to one Chidambara Aiyar for Rs. 290.Periasami Odayar ...
Tag this Judgment!Public Prosecutor Vs. P.V. Audinarayana Chetty
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-27-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Mad481; (1953)IMLJ75
Ramaswami, J.1. This is an appeal preferred against the acquittal by the learned Sessions Judge of Chittoor division, Mr. M. A. Azeem reversing the conviction under Section 161, Penal Code (i.e. receiving illegal gratification by a Supervisor of Highways) and sentence of one year's rigorous imprisonment awarded by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge of Chittoor division, Sri D. R. Venkatesa Aiyar, M. L., in S. C. No. 17 of 1950.2. The facts leading to the institution of this appeal are: The accused Sri P. V. Audinarayana Chetty was a Supervisor employed in the Highways Department, Madras State. His office was at Puttur and his actual place of residence was Tirupati. This accused who was the Supervisor of the Puttur section of the Highways Department of the Chittoor district is stated to have been regularly receiving bribes from contractors who did road maintenance work in that section. His 'modus operandi was as follows : He used to insist upon contractors agreeing to pay 5 per cent, ...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Natarajan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-26-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Mad371; (1952)2MLJ673
ORDERRamaswami, J. 1. This is a criminal revision case filed against the order made by the Second Additional First Class Magistrate of Trichinopoly in C. C. No. 47 of 1951 and confirmed in C. A. No. 124 of 1951 by the Sessions Judge of Trichinopoly. 2. The facts of this case have been fully set out in the judgments of the lower Courts and need not be recapitulated, because there is no dispute concerning the facts before me and two points of law only are taken before me which I shall deal with in the succeeding two paragraphs. 3. The first point taken is that in regard to this prohibition of transport of foodgrains by night G. O. No. 550 (Food) dated 18th June 1948 has superseded all the previous orders including G. O. No. 393 (Food) dated 3rd April 1947 and that therefore this accused has not committed any offence. But this contention is based upon an imperfect reading of the G. Os. referred to above. Paragraph 2 of G. O. No. 550 (Pood) dated 18th June 1948 lays down that, 'no person s...
Tag this Judgment!Sivakami Ammal Vs. Bangaruswamy Reddi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-25-1952
Reported in: AIR1954Mad18; (1952)IMLJ768
Basheer Ahmed Sayeed, J. 1. These two appeals are preferred by the respondent in the petition O. P. No. 23 of 1950, which was filed by the respondent herein under Act 6 of 1949 for a declaration that the marriage between him and the appellant should be dissolved.2. The petition itself was filed on 11-2-1950. Counter was filed on 19-6-1950. The learned Subordinate Judge did not frame any issues but posted the petition for trial to 26-7-1950. Then, on 26-7-1950, the appellant put in an application for adjournment of the trial of the petition on the ground that she was suffering from dysentery and colic pain. An affidavit also was filed. In support of that petition together with medical certificate from a qualified registered medical practitioner;. This petition was dismissed by the learned Subordinate Judge with the observation that he did not think that there were any bona fides in the petition for adjournment. Thereafter, the learned Subordinate Judge allowed the petition ex parte agai...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Madras Represented by the Collector of West Godawari Vs. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-22-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Mad235; (1952)1MLJ689
Govinda Menon, J.1. Mr. Narasaraju for the respondent conceded that the learned subordinate Judge is in error in thinking that the order in question is one made by the Collector: but it is really and in essence one passed nominally by the Collector but under the directions of the Board of Revenue who themselves have ordered the Collector to act in the manner he did under the behest of the Government. The result comes to this, that when under Ex. B. 20 the Board of Revenue refused to interfere with the order passed by the Collector, the Panchayat Board President had exhausted his remedies and subsequently whatever action has been taken by the Collector the same must be deemed to be passed under the orders of the Government. The question then arises, whether the Government has got any all-pervading or supervening power to interfere, for whatever reason it may be, in the orders passed by the subordinate revenue authority in accordance with the provisions of the Board's Standing Orders in ...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Raja of Vizianagaram
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-22-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Mad416; (1953)IMLJ289
Rajamannar, C.J.1. The Rajah of Vizianagaram is the petitioner in this application. The estate of Vizianagaram was notified under the Madras Estates (Abolition and Conversion imp Ryotwari) Act, 1948, in September 1949. This application relates to certain vacant house sites in the town of Vizianagaram. These house sites certainly form part of the estate of Vizianagaram. They are admittedly situated within the ambit of the estate and it is impossible to accept the contention raised in the affidavit that the petitioner's predecessor owned these lands before the Permanent Settlement. It is not suggested that they were parts of pre-settlement inams. It was contended that the permanent assessment was not arrived at after taking into account uncultivated arable lands and waste lands and these were given practically free to the Zamindar without any additional assessment and therefore the vacant sites in question which fall under that category must be taken to be outside the scope of the Perman...
Tag this Judgment!K.C. Varadachari, Partner, Madras Oil Mills and Products Vs. the State ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-22-1952
Reported in: AIR1952Mad764; (1952)IIMLJ410
1. The petitioner is a partner of a firm carrying on the business and trade of an oil miller under the name and style of Madras Oil Mills and Products. The Oil mill owned by the firm has got five expellers which are used for crushing groundnut and producing groundnut oil and groundnut cake. The firm had been granted a licence under the Madras Manure Dealers' Licensing Order. The fee for the said licence was Rs. 10 from the year 1947.-By G.O. No. Ms. 2435 (Food and Agriculture) dated the 29th December 1950 an amendment was made to the Madras Manure Dealers Licensing Order, 1949, providing for the enhancement of the licence fee. The rate so far as oil mills were concerned was fixed at Rs. 100 for each expeller and Rs. 20 for each rotary or screw press. For mere dealers in manure the licence fee was fixed at Rs. 20 and for firms engaged in manure mixing trade the licence fee was fixed at Rs. 100 with a non-recurring fee of Rs. (30 for each manure mixture marketed. In accordance with this ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »