Chennai Court July 1952 Judgments
The Dominion of India Formerly the Governor General in Council, New De ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-31-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Mad217; (1952)2MLJ713
1. Appellant is the South Indian Railway impleaded in the suit filed in 1945 as the Governor General in Council, New Delhi, represented by the General Manager. There has been much evolutionary change since, with all the Railways in the Union nationalised and today the appellant is the Dominion of India. The original plaintiff was Adam Haji Pir Muhammad Esack and he too is now represented by the Custodian of Evacuee Property. He will however, be referred to in this judgment for convenience as the plaintiff. He sued to recover Rs. 5600 from the South Indian Railway in respect of a consignment of 200 bags of Bengal gram, which were booked at Cawnpore on the G.I.P. Railway on 1-11-1944 to Cuddalore on the South Indian Railway. The learned Subordinate Judge decreed his suit in full.2. The relevant facts are these: Plaintiff, a wholesale dealer in grains, groceries and so on had business ramifications throughout what was then British India. He had a branch at Cawnpore and another at Cuddalor...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Nimmagadda Raghavalu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-31-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Mad243; (1952)IIMLJ686
ORDERRamaswami, J.1. This is a criminal revision case filed against the conviction and sentence of the petitioners in C. A. No. 67 of 1951 on the file of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Bandar confirming the conviction and sentence in C.C. Nos. 70 to 76 of 1951 on the file of the Stationary Sub-Magistrate, Avanigadda. 2. The facts are: On 12-1-1951 the Sub-Inspector of Police of Avanigadda approached the Stationary Sub Magistrate of Avanigadda with a requisition, Ex. P. 2; in which he stated that he had reliable information that gambling on a large scale was going on in a common gaming house bearing door No. 21/4 in the fourth ward of Avanigadda belonging to Tangiralla Viswanadha Sastri and requested the issue of a search warrant to enable him to search the house. The Sub-Magistrate is stated to have put further questions also to the Sub Inspector of Police as would justify him to issue the warrant and he is said to have after satisfying himself, issued a search warrant, Ex. D. 1. Thi...
Tag this Judgment!Sethuraja Gounder Vs. Board of Revenue, Chepauk, Madras, Represented b ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-31-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Mad972; (1953)2MLJ644
ORDERSubba Rao, J. 1. This is an application for issuing a writ of certiorari to quash the order of the Board of Revenue dated 28-4-1952. One Kalappa Gounder was the last 'Miras' Headman of Kilaveneri village, Thirumangalam taluk, Mathurai district. He resigned his post on 16-10-1945. The petitioner, the grandson of the said Gounder and who was alleged to be the adopted son of the said Kalappa Gounder, was registered to the office. In regard to the question whether the petitioner was the adopted son of Kalappa Gounder, there was litigation which finally ended in the High Court. The High Court held that he was not the adopted son of Kalappa Gounder. Respondent 2, who is a minor, filed a regulation suit No. 1 of 1950 claiming himself to be next heir of Kalappa Gounder and for his being registered as Headman. On 20-4-1951, the Revenue Divisional Officer Bet aside the order registering the petitioner and passed orders that respondent 2 should be registered in his place.The petitioner prefe...
Tag this Judgment!A.N. Subramanian, Late a Minor by G.S. Lakshmi Ammal, as Next Friend b ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-30-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Mad22; (1952)2MLJ575
Krishnaswami Nayudu, J.1. The appellant is the plaintiff in a suit for partition and separate possession in respect of the properties of his grand father one Subramania Iyer. Subramania Iyer had two sons, the first defendant and Narayana Iyer, father of the plaintiff. Subramania Iyer died in 1945 leaving his widow the 2nd defendant. The plaintiff's claim is in respect of the properties left by Subramania Iyer which consists of properties which were allotted to the share of Subramania Iyer in a partition between Subramania Iyer, Kalyanarama Iyer and Narayana Iyer entered into under Ex. B-l dated 4-2-1935. The second defendant is the widow of Subramania Iyer and the lower court conceded to her a share under the Hindu Women's Rights to Property Act. The present appeal is confined to the finding as to the widow being entitled to a share in the partition under the Hindu Women's Rights to Property Act and as to the rejection of the plaintiff's claim to items 29 and 30 of the A schedule to th...
Tag this Judgment!Rengaswami Naicker Vs. Muruga Naicken
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-30-1952
Reported in: AIR1954Mad169; (1952)IIMLJ497
ORDER1. Notice to Public Prosecutor.2. These are two criminal revision petitions, which have been filed against the orders made by the learned Stationary Sub-Magistrate. Kulitalai that he should examine an officer as a court witness in C. C. Nos. 839 and 840 of 1950.3. I am unable to see any objection to thecourse adopted by the learned Stationary Sub-Magistrate. Under S. 540, Cri P. C. a Courthas unrestricted powers of summoning a witness.The only restriction is that this power shouldnot be exercised as has been pointed out bySomasundaram J. in - 'In re K. V. R. S. Mani' : AIR1951Mad707 , to save the parties fromtrouble and expense. Subject to this, it is notonly the prerogative but also the plain duty ofa Court to examine such as those witnesses asit considers absolutely necessary for doingjustice between the State and the subject. Itwould not be an improper exercise of the powersof the Court under S. 540, Cri. P. C. merelybecause the evidence taken supports the case ofthe prosecutio...
Tag this Judgment!A. Innasia Pillai and ors. Vs. Perumal Chettiar (Complainant) and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-30-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Mad1008; (1952)IIMLJ706
ORDERRamaswami, J.1. This is a criminal revision case illustrating the very abuse pointed out by the High Court in their Circular Order dated 10-1-1931. It was pointed out by this Court 'Instances have come up to the High court which disclose that a system of procedure not contemplated by the Code is developing in the subordinate criminal courts. In warrant cases, the accused persons, before they are charged and put upon their defence anticipate their defence by petitions raising preliminary points upon which the court passes judgment and these are then brought up on revision to the High Court pending which the trial of the case is adjourned. The High Court desires to impress upon the lower courts that this procedure is unwarranted and makes for delay and extra work. An accused person has no right to raise a preliminary point before he is charged. He must wait to defend himself till he is charged and if he is convicted, his first remedy is in most cases by way of appeal.'2. The facts o...
Tag this Judgment!Aparanji Chetti Vs. Arunachalam Chettiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-29-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Mad28; (1952)2MLJ580
Krishnaswami Nayudu, J.1. This appeal arises out of an application for payment of monies remaining in court-deposit under the Land Acquisition Act (I of 1894). The lands acquired belonged to one Kanniya Chetti and the acquisition was after his demise. Kanniya Chetti had no issue but left a widow, Bangaru Animal, and during her lifetime, the properties were acquired and the monies deposited into Court under the provisions of Section 31 of the Land Acquisition Act as she was a limited owner. During her lifetime she was paid the interest accruing from the deposit. She died on the 17th February 1945, and one Arunachalam Chettiar, claiming to be the sister's grandson of Kanniya Chetti filed a petition, M. P. No. 307 of 1946 in O. P. No. 236 of 1925 for payment of the monies. The next of kin of Kanniya Chetti were made party respondents to the petition. The petitioner claimed this amount by virtue of being the son of Kanniya Chetti's sister, Ammayi Ammal's son, Veeraraghava Chetti, and relie...
Tag this Judgment!K. Raman and Co., Tellicherry by Its Managing Proprietor, Kodirvo Kann ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-29-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Mad84; [1952]22ITR377(Mad); (1952)2MLJ544
ORDERSubba Rao, J.1. This is an application for the issue of a Writ of Certiorari to quash the order of the Collector of Malabar refusing to renew the licence in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner is a firm carrying on business in Tellicherry in North Malabar district under the style of K. Raman and Co. The firm was a holder of a Retail Yarn Dealer's licence No. 10 KTM, wholesale cloth licence No. 26/MBR and Retail cloth licence No. 221/KTM under the provisions of the Yarn Dealer's Order, the Textile Control Order and the Madras Cloth (Dealers) Control Order, 1948. These three licences were renewed upto 31-3-1950. The petitioner applied for further renewal of the licences but the Collector of Malabar refused to renew the licences on the sole ground that he had not produced the Income Tax and Excess Profits tax verification certificates and that the firm was in arrears to the extent of Rs. 37293-14-0.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the order of the Collector w...
Tag this Judgment!Ratnam Pillai and ors. Vs. Ganapathi Subramaniya Aiyar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-29-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Mad238; (1952)2MLJ679
Raghava Rao, J.1. This, in my opinion, is a clear case in which the appeal hag to be allowed. I have, however, since reservation of judgment, carefully considered the pathetic appeal that Mr. M. Section Venkatarama Aiyar, made on behalf of the widow and the alienee from the widow. I still find that the only course which I can take is to allow the appeal. The widow in this case sold practically all the immoveable property in her possession for a sum of Rs. 4800 out of which she utilised a sum of Rs. 1440 for the discharge of debts binding on the estate, and as regards the balance of the consideration of the sale deed, she deposited it with her brother as more or less a fund for her future maintenance. It has been argued for the alienee that the widow was a paralytic and also an aged woman, and unless from year to year one bit or other of the estate in her possession should be sold out, the money required for her actual maintenance could not be met by the widow, so that if instead of goi...
Tag this Judgment!P. Narasimha Reddy Vs. District Magistrate, Cuddapah
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-29-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Mad476; (1953)IMLJ418
ORDERSubba Rao, J.1. C. M. P. No 7676 of 1951 is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the District Magistrate, Cuddapah, to issue a licence applied for by the petitioner for the possession of a single-barrel cartridge gun No. 12 bore (S. B. B. L.). C. M. P. No. 7677 of 1951 is an application by the same party for issue of a Writ of 'Certiorari' to call for the records of the District Magistrate, Cuddapah, and to quash his order dated 9-3-1951.The petitioner is a citizen of the Indian Union residing in the village of Anantharjupet, Kodur firka, Cuddapah district. It is stated in the affidavit that both on the eastern and southern side of the village, where his lands are situated, there are reserve forests & also unreserved forests and that these forests are infested by wild animals of various types like deer, stag, sambur, wild pigs, cheetahs, bears and tigers. As those animals cause considerable destruction of food crops an...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »