Chennai Court July 1952 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Bandi Veeraju and ors. Vs. Bandi Narayanamma
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-25-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Mad159; (1952)IIMLJ734
1. This second appeal was first heard by Ramaswami J. who considered that an important question affecting the award of maintenance to the widow of a deceased coparcener against the surviving coparceners arose in this case, on which there appeared to be a conflict of judicial opinion. Hence this reference to a Full Bench.2. The second appeal arises out of a suit filed by the respondent for the recovery of maintenance at the rate of Rs. 1000 per annum from, the date of suit and for arrears of maintenance for about a year before the institution of the suit at the same rate, for provision for residence and other minor reliefs. The respondent's deceased husband, Venkatarayudu, and defendants 2 and 4 who are appellants 1 and 3 were the undivided sons of the first defendant. The 3rd defendant (2nd appellant) is the son of the 1st appellant, The respondent's husband died undivided from the family nearly 30 years before the suit. The respondent claimed a sum of Rs. 1000 as a proper rate of main...
Public Prosecutor Vs. Dada Haji Ebrahim Helari
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-24-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Mad241; (1952)2MLJ565
Ramaswami, J.1. This is an appeal preferred by the State against the order of acquittal by the Stationary Sub-Magistrate, Mangalore, in C. C. Nos. 14 and 19 of 1951.2. The short facts are: On information received) the Sanitary Inspector Sri Sanjeevi Rao went to the shop of Janab Dada Haji Ibrahim Halari on 28-9-1950 at about 10-45 a.m. The Sanitary Inspector demanded and purchased one pavu of Bengal gram dhal and ten palams of flour at two annas each from out of the stock which was kept for sale in the godown situated at door No. 113 of the 20th Ward of Mangalore municipality. This purchase is spoken to not only by this Sanjeevi Rao examined as P. W. 1 but also by two receipts taken from this merchant marked as Exs. P. 1 and P. 2 & which have been signed 'per pro. Dada Haji Ibrahim Halari' by a clerk of that firm. The purchases were bottled and then they have been submitted to the Analyst. On examination it has been found that they contained artificial water-soluble-yellow-colouring ma...
M.K. Chengalroya Chetti Vs. the Special Deputy Collector for Land Acqu ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-24-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Mad348; (1952)IIMLJ863
ORDERSubba Rao, J.1. This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuing a writ of prohibition restraining the 1st respondent from proceeding with the enquiry under the Land Acquisition Act in respect of R. S. No. 3762/7 in Mylapore Western section area Town Planning scheme. The petitioner is the owner of a bungalow bearing D. No. 79 Mow-bray's Road, Alwarpet, Madras. He purchased the site on 4-11-1936 from one C. V. Raja- ' gopalachariar. After having obtained the sanction of the Corporation, he put up the bunga-low in accordance with the plan sanctioned by the Corporation. On 14-8-1934, the Provincial Government required the Council of the Corporation, Madras, to prepare, publish and submit for their sanction a draft scheme in respect of Mylapore Western section area. Town Planning scheme on or before 1st July 1935. From time to time, the time was extended and finally on 14-10-1946 it was extended to 30-11-1946. Pursuant to the directions given by the G...
Poomalai Ammal (Died) and ors. Vs. Subbammal (Minor) and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-24-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Mad566; (1952)2MLJ884
Chandra Reddi, J.1. This second appeal is brought from the judgment of the Subordinate Judge of Tuticorin setting aside the decree of the trial Court giving the relief to the plaintiffs as prayed for. The material facts of the case are these:2. One Sankaralinga had two sons, Ramaswami and Arunachala, and three daughters, the plaintiffs in the present suit. His two sons were demented. He was anxious that his sons should get married in spite of their being insane. Arunachala was first married to one Pulamadi and as she died Sankaralinga wanted to get Arunachala married a second time. For that purpose, he approached the parents of one Sivanananji. The latter was not willing to give Sivanananji in marriage to Arunachala unless some properties were settled upon the girl before marriage. Accordingly Sankaralinga executed a settlement deed conveying the suit properties to Sivanananji. It is this document that falls to be considered in this second appeal.3. Sankaralinga died early in 1930. Dur...
In Re: V.V. Satyanarayanamurthy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-23-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Mad137; (1952)2MLJ777
ORDERRamaswami, J.1. This is a revision petition sought to be filed against the affirming judgment of the learned Sessions Judge of Krishna in C.A. No. 17 of 1952 confirming the conviction and sentence of the Additional First Class Magistrate of Vijayawada in C. C. No. 432 of 1950. 2. The facts of the case have been fully set out in the judgments of the lower courts and the record shows that there was valid, acceptable, 'and adequate evidence for the conviction that followed and the sentence is also found to be appropriate. Therefore, there are no grounds to interfere in regard to the merits as well as the extent of the sentence. 3. The substantial point of law taken before me is the contention based upon the decision of the Punjab High Court in -- 'The State v. Gurcharan Singh', , wherein it was held that Section 5(1)(c) of Act II of 1947 repealed 'pro tanto' Section 409 I. P. C. But with greatest respect for the decision, I find no reasons whatsoever for holding that Section 5 (1) (c...
The Public Prosecutor Vs. Veerabhadrappa Lakshminarayana Setty
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-23-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Mad204; (1952)2MLJ453
1. In this case, the Inspector of Factories inspected the factory in question on 5-10-1950 and found that the accused had failed to construct a pucca dust-proof husk Chamber as required by Section 14, Factories Act. The failure to do this is an offence punishable under section 92 of the Act. Under section 106 of the Act no court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under this Act unless complaint thereof is made within 3 months of the date on which the alleged commission of the offence came to the knowledge of the inspector. A complaint for this offence must be laid within 3 months from the above date, i.e., 5-10-1950. But the complaint was laid on 15-3-1951 and it is clearly beyond 3 months.But it is argued that the Inspector visited the factory again on 24-1-1951 when also he found the above defect and the complaint being within 3 months from the later date, the complaint is within time. In support of this conlention a decision of Subba Rao J. in -- 'Cr. P. C. No. 417 of 1...
Achammagari Venkata Reddy Vs. the State
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-23-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Mad242; (1952)2MLJ554
ORDERRamaswami, J.1. The short point for determination in this revision is whether the act attributed to the accused amounted to a public nuisance.2. The word 'nuisance' has been defined by Stephen to be anything done to the hurt or annoyance of the lands, tenements, or hereditaments of another and not amounting to trespass. (Stephen, III, 499). The word 'nuisance' is derived from the French word 'nuire', to do hurt or to annoy. Blackstone describes (no cumentum) as something that 'worketh hurt, inconvenience or damage'. The offence of public nuisance may thus be analysed (i) it may be caused either by an act or illegal omission (ii) the effect thereof must be either injury, danger or annoyance (iii) actually caused either to the public or to that portion of the public who dwell or occupy property in the vicinity or (iv) threatened of necessity to persons who may have occasion to use any public right.3. Bearing these principles in mind, let us examine what the accused did. The accusati...
In Re: Chinnathambi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-23-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Mad239; (1952)2MLJ550
Basheer Ahmed Sayeed, J. 1. The appellant in this case has been convicted for having murdered his wife, one Pappal, on or about the 28th July 1951, at about lamplighting time at Thiruvagoundanur, and sentenced to transportation for life by the learned Additional Sessions Judge of Salem division. 2. The prosecution story is that there have been some misunderstanding and quarrels between the appellant and his wife, both being young couple, in respect of certain jewels that had been made for the wife by the appellant. The silver anklet which was made for her by the appellant seems to have been given away to a relation of the wife; and she was questioned about it and then some quarrel ensued in respect thereof. Subsequently, when the wife again went to her parents' house she is said to have parted with silver bangles that were made for her by the appellant. On that occasion the appellant grew very wild and after rebuking her seems to have dealt a blow as a result or which two injuries were...
Medikenduri and ors. Vs. Kata Venkatayya and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-22-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Mad210; (1952)IIMLJ484
Chandra Reddy, J.1. This second appeal is filed by the plaintiffs against the judgment of the Subordinate Judge of Guntur reversing the decree of the District Munsif, Guntur, in their favour. The reliefs claimed in the plaint are a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from disturbing their possession or in the alternative for possession and alternatively for division of the suit properties and allotment of 4/5 share to them. There was prayer for mesne profits also.2. The material facts are these: The plaintiffs who were minors at the time of the filing of this suit are the sons of the first defendant. The first defendant and the plaintiff's constitute a Hindu joint family of which the first defendant is the manager. The family owned considerable properties including the suit properties. The properties in suit were given to the adoptive mother of the first defendant in lieu of her maintenance. On the 2nd of February 1944, the first defendant entered into an agreement for the ...
Veeri Chettiar and ors. Vs. Karion Chettiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-22-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Mad240; (1952)2MLJ584
Chandra Reddi, J.1. Defendants 1 to 4 are the appellants. The plaintiff filed the suit for partition of the joint family properties of himself and defendants 1 to 6, defendants 1, 5 and 6 being his brothers and defendants 2 to 4 being the sons of a deceased brother of his, who died even during the lifetime of their father, Peddi Chetti. The joint family properties consisted of 76 acres of land, two houses and vacant sites. In 1329, a creditor of the plaintiff filed a small cause suit, obtained a decree and brought his share of the joint family properties to sale in execution of the decree. The decree-holder himself purchased the share and obtained symbolical delivery of the same. Shortly thereafter, Peddi Chetti, as manager of the joint family, obtained a release of it from the auction purchaser on payment of Rs. 300 as seen from Ex. B. 1 dated 13-9-1933. Peddi Chetti seems to have died in or about 1937 and the members of the family seem to have continued as a joint family. Later on, t...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »