Chennai Court February 1952 Judgments
In Re: Vasam Setti Appa Rao and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-22-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Mad1004; (1952)2MLJ658
ORDERRamaswami, J.1. In this batch of revision petitions two points of law are taken viz., that an incriminating statement made by the person later on charged as an accused to a Prohibition Officer would be a confession made to a police officer within the meaning of Section 25, Evidence Act; and secondly, that such a confessional statement must be corroborated, and that failing which there would be no validly acceptable evidence for convicting the accused.2. Both these points taken must fail because it has been held that a Prohibition Sub-Inspector under the Madras Prohibition Act is not a police officer in the decisions in -- 'Venkatareddi In re', AIR 1948 Mad 116 (A) and it has been followed by Fanchapakesa Aiyar J. in -- 'Vadivel Goundar In re', : AIR1952Mad299 (B).3. In regard to the second point inasmuch as the statement to a Prohibition Officer is not a confessional statement, the ruling relating to the corroboration of a resiled confessional statement does not apply to this case...
Tag this Judgment!Nandipi Nagi Reddy Vs. Vadde Venkatappa
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-21-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Mad436; (1952)2MLJ163
ORDERRamaswami, J.1. This is a criminal revision case which has been filed against the order made by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Dhone in M.C. No. 2 of 1950 on 21-12-1950.2. The facts are: The dispute in this case relates to two items of lands situated at Dharmavaram, hamlet of Dhone. On 12-6-1947 the A party put in a petition before the then Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Dhone alleging that in respect of four items of lands shown in the schedule annexed thereto there was a dispute between him and the B party respondents likely to cause a breach of the peace and praying that action should be taken against the B party respondents under Section 145, Criminal P. C. This petition was forwarded to the Sub-Inspector of Police, Dhone. On the report of the Police dated 20-6-1947, the learned Magistrate passed a preliminary order on 25-6-1847 directing both sides to put in written statements of their respective claims. Both sides, after this preliminary order, put in their respective writte...
Tag this Judgment!Makkena Sambayya Vs. Makkena Tirupatayya and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-20-1952
Reported in: AIR1952Mad865; (1952)IIMLJ152
1. The appellant before us was the first defendant in the Court below, the second defendant being the Government of Madras represented by the District Collector, Guntur. The plaintiff brought a suit for a declaration that the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Guntur, dated 27th July 1947 is illegal, ultra vires, and not binding on him. The learned Judge decreed the suit as prayed for and hence this appeal by the first defendant.2. The first defendant was the permanent village munsif of Nandigama village in Sat-tenapalli taluk, Guntur district. On account of irregularities in official, proceedings as well as charges of misappropriation he was dismissed by the Revenue Divisional Officer on 25th July 1944, which dismissal, on appeal to the Collector, was confirmed on 31st December 1944. On 15th January 1945, under Ex. A. 5 the Revenue Divisional Officer appointed the plaintiff as acting village munsif which appointment was confirmed on 31st January 1945 under Ex. A. 6. Against the ...
Tag this Judgment!Firm of Tatavarti Nagapotha Rao and ors. Vs. Balabhadra Ramakrishnayya ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-19-1952
Reported in: AIR1954Mad71; (1952)IIMLJ662
Venkatarama Aiyar, J.1. This revision petition has been referred by Basheer Ahmed Sayeed J. to a Bench in view of the conflict between his judgment reported as -- 'Ramdayal Rameshwarilal v. Chandra Narasimham' : AIR1951Mad843 (A) and the judgment of Panchapakesa Aiyar J. in-- 'C. R. P. Nos. 941 and 942 of 1949 (Mad) (B).2. The facts relevant for the purpose of this revision are these: The plaintiff is a merchant carrying on business at Ellore. Defendant 1 is a firm carrying on business at Masulipatam and defendants 2 and 3 are its partners. On 1-1-1944 the defendants entered into a contract with the plaintiff at Vijayawada, Ex. P-1. Under that contract, the defendants agreed to supply the plaintiff 30,000 gunnies or 75 bales at Rs. 56-12-6 per 100 gunnies. There is a note in the contract in these words:'Terms and conditions as per Chittavalasa orNellimarla Jute Mill company's contract.'The plaintiff filed the suit to recover Rs. 998-8-0, as damages for breach of contract. The suit was ...
Tag this Judgment!Kode Seshamma Vs. Mandana Rattayya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-19-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Mad454; (1952)1MLJ684
Govinda Menon, J.1. In O.S. No. 84 of 1932 on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court of Vijayawada, the present appellant obtained n decree against the respondents and their father for a sum of money on foot of a mortgage and the mortgaged properties were brought to sale. The appellant herself became the auction-purchaser and deposited the amount that remained after setting off the decree amount due to her, in Court. This balance amount was Rs. 995-12-0 and it stood to the credit of the judgment-debtors. A third party, one Tirupathiah, had a decree against the judgment-debtors in S.C. No. 107 of 1932 and in pursuance of that decree he attached the amount in Court to the credit of the judgment-debtors and drew out that sum in part satisfaction of his decree. Later on, the judgment-debtors applied under Section 23, 'Madras Agriculturists Relief Act', 1938, to have the sale set aside and the same was accordingly set aside. The result was that the appellant, who had purchased the proper...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Raja Venkata Ramayya Appa Rao Bahdur Varu Vs. the Collector of Mad ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-19-1952
Reported in: AIR1952Mad841; [1952]21ITR454(Mad); (1952)1MLJ660
ORDERSubba Rao, J.1. This is an application for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to forbear from restraining and selling the petitioner's property for recovery of arrears of income-tax.2. The petitioner was one of the partners of the United Construction Company, Rajahmun-dry who took a contract job No. 539 of the Aerodrome works of Madhurapudi for execution. The contract work commenced in October 1942 and was completed by December 1943. Oil 20-3-1950, the petitioner received a communication from the Income-tax Officer, Special North Circle, Madras, calling upon him to pay a sum of Rs. 16,445-3-0 being his share of income-tax, excess profits tax and compulsory deposit, and he duly paid the same. He received another notice from the Income-tax Officer, Rajahmun-dry, demanding him to pay a sum of Rs. 39,307-3-0 being the unpaid tax payable by the other partners. On 19-4-1951, he received a notice from the Tahsildar of Madras threatening to distrain and sell the pro...
Tag this Judgment!Bendalam Seshagiri Sarma Vs. the State of Madras, Represented by the C ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-19-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Mad1005; (1952)IIMLJ462
Rajamannar, C.J. 1. In 1935 one Krishnamurthi who was then a minor was registered as the village headman of the village of Bijjiputti, Itchapuram taluk, Srikakulam district and the petitioner was appointed under Section 10(5), Madras Hereditary Village Offices Act (3 of 1895) to discharge the duties of the office until the person registered as heir attained majority and qualified himself to discharge the duties of the office. In 1948, as the said Krishnamurthi did not qualify himself, he was removed from the office for which he had been registered and in the vacancy thus arising, the third respondent to this application, one Barla Surayya, was registered as the office holder. As he was a minor at the time, the petitioner himself was again appointed as the deputy of this Surayya by the Assistant Collector, Srikakulam. Subsequently, the mother and guardian of the minor, filed a petition before the Revenue Divisional Officer on 9-3-1949 making adverse allegations against the petitioner an...
Tag this Judgment!M.A. Janaki Vs. M.A. Srirangammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-15-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Mad38; (1952)2MLJ197
Rajamannar, C.J. 1. The petitioner filed a suit by an originating summons under Order XLV, Rule 4 of the Original Side Rules of this Court for the determination of certain questions relating to deeds of settlement executed by her father. The suit came on before Krishnaswami Nayudu J. who dismissed it on the ground that the matters in controversy could not be gone into on an originating summons in a summary manner. The learned Judge therefore referred the plaintiff to a suit, if she was so advised. The petitioner filed an appeal against this order of the learned Judge (O. S. A. No. 112 of 1950). That appeal was dismissed on 24-1-1951 for default of appearance in person or by advocate. The petitioner then filed an application (C. M. P. No. 2733 of 1951) under. Order XLI, Rule 19, Civil P, C., for restoration of the appeal and for re-hearing. This application was dismissed by this Court on 23-4-1951. The petitioner now seeks leave to appeal to the Supreme Court against this last order of ...
Tag this Judgment!Gundalapalli Rangamannar Chetty Vs. Desu Rangiah and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-15-1952
Reported in: AIR1954Mad182; (1952)IMLJ652
ORDERSubba Rao, J. 1. This is an application for issuing a writ of eertiorari, and for quashing the order of the Subordinate Judge of Nellore in C. M. A. No. 35 of 1950.2. The first respondent, Desu Rangaiah, took the premises bearing door No. 258, Ward No. 5, Stonehousepet, Nellore belonging to the petitioner on rent 10 years ago for his business. Two years back he entered into a partnership with Thadikamalla Venkataseshayya and Posa Veeranna for carrying on business in onions. The partnership arrangement was embodied in a deed, Ex. B. 1. Under Ex. B. 1 the leasehold interest was not transferred to the partners. That related only to the partnership business to be carried on Jointly by the first respondent Desu Rangiah, Venkataseshayya and Posa Veeranna. It regulated only the rights and liabilities in regard to the business. The first respondent continued to be in possession of the premises with a liability to pay rent to the petitioner.The rent originally was a sum of Rs. 10. It was e...
Tag this Judgment!The Bhagat Estates Ltd. Vs. the Accommodation Controller, Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-15-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Mad390; (1952)1MLJ403
ORDERSubba Rao, J. 1. This is an application for issuing a writ of certiorari to quash the order of the Accommodation Controller of Madras dated 4-12-1951. The petitioners are the owners of premises No. 79-A and B, Sembudoss Street, G. T., Madras. It fell vacant on or about 24-9-1951. The petitioners gave notice of vacancy to the Accommodation Controller by letter dated 24-9-1951. On 6-10-1951, they informed the Accommodation Controller that the notice was given under a mistaken impression that the rent was about Rs. 26-10-0. The petitioners let that room to A. A. Kapodia and he has been occupying that room with his family. On 10-12-1951, i.e., three months after the notice of vacancy was given, the petitioners received a notice by the Accommodation Controller under Section 3(8) of the Act, demanding delivery of immediate possession within seven days of the receipt of the said notice. The petitioners complain that the rent of the premises in question does not exceed Rs. 25 and, therefo...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »