Chennai Court April 1952 Judgments
Dowager Rani Lalitha Kumari Devi and ors. Vs. the Raja of Vizianagaram ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-25-1952
Reported in: AIR1954Mad19
Rajamannar, C.J.1. These are appeals from the judgment of Rajagopalan J., dated 11-9-1950 in two suits C. S. Nos. 494 and 495 of 1949 on the file of the Original Side of this Court. The Rajah of Vizianagaram is the plaintiff in both the suits. The four defendants in each suit are the same, though there is a slight difference in their rank. They are :1. Maharaj Kumar Dr. Sir Vijaya Anand Gajapathi Raj, the paternal uncle of the plaintiff, hereinafter referred to in this judgment as Vijaya, 2. Sri Rani Lalitha Kumari Devi, Dowager Maharani of Vizianagaram, his grandmother, hereinafter referred to as the Dowager Maharani, 3. Sri Rani Vidyavathi Devi, Rani Saheba of Vizianagaram, his mother, and 4. Raj Kumar Sri Visweswar Gajapathi Raj, his brother. 2. It is common ground that originally the Vizianagaram Zamindari (which included the estate of Kasipuram), was an impartible estate. A sanad was granted under the Permanent Settlement Regulation to Narayana Gajapathi Raj in 1803. The followin...
Tag this Judgment!Sheik Dada Sahib Vs. Jammu Latchanna
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-25-1952
Reported in: AIR1954Mad80; (1952)IIMLJ290
ORDERMack, J.1. When this petition was called for hearing, it was brought to my notice that Mr. V. Suryanarayana who represented the respondent passed away several months ago. No notice of his death as required by Order 239 of the Standing Orders of the High Court office appears to have been issued to the respondent. No one apparently has appeared from the office of the late Mr. Suryanarayana or troubled about looking after the work that he had left behind, a sad commentary on the existing system of advocates working singly one which ensures no continuity of legal service either to the client or to the Court. Instead of granting an adjournment in a civil revision petition of 1950 to enable a notice, death notice as it is called, to be issued by the office, I heard Mr. Balaparameswara Rao in support of the petitioner on its merits as to whether it was really sustainable.2. The suit was one for recovery of Rs. 851 being the value of bricks supplied at Rs. 20 per thousand. The main point ...
Tag this Judgment!Mukkattumbrath Ayisumma Vs. Vayyaprath Pazhae Bangalayil Mayomoothy Um ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-24-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Mad425; (1952)2MLJ933
Basheer Ahmed Sayeed, J.1. This civil revision petition is against the order of the learned Subordinate Judge of Tellicherry, dismissing the application of the petitioner, a third party, filed by her to get herself impleaded in the suit on the ground that the rights of Mappilla Tarwads stand unaffected even after the passing of the Muslim Shariat Act and that no individual member would have ,any heritable right in the tarwad properties unless he himself volunteered to become a divided member during his lifetime.2. Plaintiffs 1 to 5 in O. S. No. 35 of 1949 on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Tellicherry, brought a suit for partition of Mopla Tarwad property said to be governed by the Marumakathayam law. The petitioner is the widow of a member of the tarwad, namely, Kuttiatha Musaliar, who had died sometime before the filing of the suit for partition. It is alleged that before the suit had been filed, he had expressed no intention to separate from the tarwad. This Kuttiatha Mus...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Kakana Ramana Reddy and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-23-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Mad74; (1952)2MLJ501
1. Criminal Appeals Nos. 229 and 232 of 1951 are appeals by A. 3 and A. 5 who were found guilty on the unanimous verdict of Jury at the Madras Criminal Sessions under Sections 120B, 489C and 489D I.P.C. A. 3 was in addition found guilty under Section 489-A, I.P.C. They were each sentenced to five years rigorous imprisonment by Panchapakesa Aiyar J.2. Crl. Ap. No. 238 of 1951 is an appeal by the 6th accused, who was found guilty on a majority jury verdict of 8 : 1 only under Section 489C IPC and sentenced to three years' rigorous imprisonment. The jury returned a unanimous verdict of not guilty as regards the 6th accused on the count under Section 120-B IPC. The State appeals against his acquittal on this count in Crl. Ap. 626 of 1951.3. It may be mentioned that there were six accused charged with conspiracy to counterfeit 100 rupee currency notes. A. 1 who was convicted on four counts on the unanimous verdict of the jury and sentenced to concurrent sentences of five years has not appea...
Tag this Judgment!Proprietor, St. Joseph's Automobile and Mechanical Works, TuticorIn Vs ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-23-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Mad206; (1952)2MLJ436
Chandra Reddi, J.1. This appeal arises out of an application filed by the respondent herein for compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act. The respondent's son who was of tender years was employed as a workman in the appellant's workshop as a cleaner on a daily wage of Rs. 0-4-0. The workman met with an accident on 8-5-1949 while working in the factory during night time which resulted in his death. The respondent claimed a Iump sum payment of Rs. 800 under Section 3 of the Act.2. This application was opposed by the employer on the ground that respondent's son was not a workman within the meaning of the Act as he was only an apprentice, that the accident did not arise during the course of his employment and lastly that the application was incompetent as the applicant was not a dependent within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d) of the Act. The Commissioner for workmen's compensation overruled these objections and granted a sum of Rs. 500 by way of compensation to the applicant. He f...
Tag this Judgment!Dhanammal Vs. Raju Gramani (Died) and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-23-1952
Reported in: AIR1954Mad193; (1952)IIMLJ458
Krishnaswami Nayudu, J.1. The question that arises for determination in this appeal is one of limitation. The appellant is the representative of the mortgagor and Instituted the suit out of which the appeal arises for redemption. The first Court decreed the suit. But in appeal the learned District Judge of Chingleput reversed the decision of the District Munsif and held that the suit was barred by limitation. The usufructuary mortgage deed is dated 21-8-1882 and is in Tamil. That was in renewal of an earlier usufructuary morgage deed which was for a period of three faslis ending with Ani 1885. At the end of the document it is provided that the prescribed time for the mortgage deed runs from the date of the deed till the end of fasli 1295, i.e., 15-7-1885. in the body of the document the mortgagor states that he will redeem the property at the time fixed under the mortgage deed. There is a further clause where he states that if he did not pay the amount according or as per the period fi...
Tag this Judgment!S. Athimoolam Achari Vs. the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Kovilpatti ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-22-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Mad10; (1952)IIMLJ285
ORDERSubba Rao, J.1.This is an application for issuing a writ of prohibition directing the respondent to forbear from assessing the petitioner for sales-tax for 1950-51. The petitioner is a merchant trading in bullion and specie ai Eltayapuram Naduveerapatti in Tirunelveli district. Whenthe Madras General Sales-tax Act was passed in 1939, bullion and specie were exempt from taxation. In 1947, Sections 5 of the old Act was substituted by the Madras General Sales-tax Amendment Act, 1947 (Madras Act XXV of 1947). Under that section the sale of bullion and specie shall be liable to tax only at a single point in the series of sales by successive dealers as may be prescribed and only at the rate of one fourth of one per cent of the turnover at that point. In exercise of the powers conferred on the Provincial Government by Sections 19 of the Act, rules were made for licensing the persons engaged in the sale of goods and the imposing of conditions in respect of the same for purpose of enforcin...
Tag this Judgment!Veerni Soorayya Vs. Veerni Mallayya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-22-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Mad164; (1952)2MLJ452
Mack, J. 1. Petitioner and defendants were made jointly and severally liable on a decree for costs amounting to Rs. 442-8-0. Petitioner paid the whole amount and filed a small cause suit to recover Rs. 86-11-0 from defendants 1, 2 and 3 and from defendants 4 to 7. The learned Small Cause Judge erroneously held that this suit was not cognizable by a Small Cause Court and returned it for presentation to the proper court. He followed a Patna decision -- 'Mt. Sarror Fatima v. Chaudhury Seikh Mohammad Safiuddin', AIR 1941 Patna 49, which is not in point. It was there held that where a suit was brought by one co-sharer, who had paid land revenue to Government to recover contribution from the other co-sharers it could not be tried by a Small Cause Court under Article 41 of Schedule II of the Small Cause Courts Act. In a suit of that kind, there were several avenues for contest open which took it out of the category of a small cause suit. The present suit is clearly not covered by Article 41 w...
Tag this Judgment!K. Somasundaram and ors. Vs. the State of Madras and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-22-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Mad246; (1952)1MLJ202
Krishnaswami Nayudu, J. 1. C.M.P. No. 2615 of 1951 and 13245 of 1950: These petitions are for issue of writs of certiorari and they arise out of proceedings taken under the Madras Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act 26 of 1948. In C.M.P. No. 2615 of 1951 the village of Sudiyur in the Paramakudi taluk of the Ramanathapuram District has been declared to be an Inam Estate under Act 26 of 1948. The contention of the petitioners is that it is not an inam estate and the Government has no jurisdiction to apply the provisions of the Act to the said village. From the Inam Fair Register (Ex. A. 1) it will be seen that the entire village of Sudiyur was granted originally as Dharmasanam inam in 1774. In 1794 one Marudu Servakaran the then Dewan of Sivaganga purchased a portion, that is, 11 1/2 vritties, and granted it for the support of Sudiyur chatram. A portion of the village was therefore owned as Dharmasanam and the remaining extent was owned by the chatram. At the time of the...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Samatham Veerabhadrudu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-22-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Mad1006; (1952)IIMLJ288
Mack, J.1. The appellant aped about 28 has been found guilty of the murder of one Koti Veeramma a well-to-do elderly woman aged sixty who lived by herself at Narasapur and disappeared from her house on the night of 17-11-49. According to the prosecution case she was throttled to death by four persons including A. 1 and A. 2 who were actually tried for this murder, one Basavayya, a relation of Veeramma and one Ankisetti who has been absconding.2. The motive centred round Easavayya who is said to have died in jail while on remand and who was the deceased's sister's grand-daughter's husband. The deceased Veeramma is said to have made a settlement deed of her property in favour of Basavayya and to have sought to revoke it by a lawyer's notice, Ex. P. 3 dated 9-6-1949 issued by an advocate, P. W. 6. The prosecution case briefly is that Basavayya in conspiracy with the other accused persons encompassed her death before she could revoke the settlement which had been made in his favour. While ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »