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.
Kathan Maistry Vs. Muthuveera Maistry
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-14-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Mad998; (1952)IIMLJ549
ORDERSomasundaram, J.1. The proceedings in this case were started on a private complaint. The case was taken on file only for an offence under Section 415, I. P. C. After hearing the witnesses the Court converted the calendar case into a P. B. case on the ground that the evidence disclosed an offence under Section 477, I. P. C. Under Section 347, Cr. P. C., in my opinion, the Court is entitled to do so, if the Magistrate is of opinion that the ca.se ought to be tried by the Sessions Court. The contention of Mr. Gopalaswami is that Section 347, Cr. P. C., ap-plies only to cases which are triable both by the Sessions Court as well as by the Magistrate and not to cases which are exclusively triable by the Sessions Court. Cases which are exclusively triable by the Sessions Court are cases which ought to be tried by the Sessions Court. In short, Mr. Gopalaswami wants to read into the section words not exclusively triable by the Sessions Court. There is no warrant for it. The section as it s...
Velu Pillai Alias Veluswami Pillai Vs. G.V. Sundararajulu Naidu and or ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-11-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Mad205
Rajamannar, C.J.1. We agree with the learned Judge Panchapakesa Aiyar J. against whose judgment this Letters Patent Appeal has been filed that the execution petition filed by the respondent is not barred by limitation. The decree in question was passed on 2-11-1933. It is a mortgage decree but by inadvertence, interest subsequent to the date of the decree was not awarded by it. On 20-3-1945 the respondent filed an execution petition including subsequent interest also which was not awarded by the decree. The petition was therefore returned to be represented after the decree had been amended. Thereupon the respondent filed an application for amendment within 12 years from the date of the original decree. The amendment, however, was ordered only on 28th March 1946. Thereafter when the respondent wanted to continue the execution proceedings, he was met with the plea that the decree had become barred under Section 48, C. P. C. as 12 years had elapsed from the date of the original decree. We...
In Re: Nallamothu Chimpireyya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-11-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Mad219; (1952)2MLJ441
ORDERRamaswami, J.1. This is a criminal revision case which is sought to be filed against the order made by the learned Joint Magistrate of Ongole under Section 87, Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 19 of 1951.2. The short facts are: Koneri Veeray.ya was appointed as Trustee of the Chennakeswaraswami temple in Kothakote village in Ongole taluk by the Assistant Commissioner for Hindu Religious Endowments, Guntur district, on 9-6-1948. The respondents before the Joint Magistrate, Ongole, who are petitioners before me are the ex-trustees of the temple. In this case, a certificate has been issued as contemplated under Section 87 of the new Act in the prescribed form setting forth certain properties belonging to the religious institution and directing delivery of possession to the person appointed as aforesaid of such properties etc. The ex-trustees have been obstructing and preventing the trustee lawfully appointed by the Assistant Commissioner from taking possession of...
Penugonda Bramaramba Vs. Yaditha Jagannadha Rao
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-11-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Mad548; (1952)IIMLJ655
1. These two appeals are against the judgment of Mack J. disposing of a Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 519 of 1948 preferred against an order passed by the Prin-cipal Subordinate Judge of Visakhapatnam in E. P. 26 of 1948. The transferee decree-holder of the decree in O. S. 14 of 1935 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Visakhapatnam, is the appellant in L. P. Appeal No. 76 of 1949 and the second judgment-debtor who is the contesting respondent therein is the- appellant in the connected appeal No. 90 of 1949.2. There is no dispute about the material facts. A preliminary mortgage decree was passed against two brothers for a sum of about Rs. 15,373 on 27-2-1937 and final decree was passed on 29-10-1937. The Second judgment-debtor filed an application (E. A. 618 of 1938) to scale down the decree debt under the provisions of Madras Act 4 of 1938, This application was allowed and the debt so far as he was concerned was scaled down to Rs. 4,000 for principal and interest at 6 per cent from...
Kuttyal and ors. Vs. P. Sanjiva Rao
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-11-1952
Reported in: AIR1952Mad877; (1952)2MLJ675
Chandra Reddy, J. 1. This civil miscellaneous second appeal raises an interesting question of law bearing on the provisions of Order 34 Rule 14, C. P. C. The following arc the circumstances giving rise to this question. The appellants executed a usufructuary mortgage in favour of one Kodotha Ambu Nair on 7-9-1916 to secure a sum of Rs. 12500. This mortgage amount was made up of Rs. 8000 due in respect of an earlier mortgage in favour of the same mortgagee, Rs. 2000 being the sum in respect of a mortgage deed executed in favour of the mortgagee's elder brother, Rs. 1874 being the arrears of rent due under a lease back in respect of the earlier mortgage and the balance being the cash paid to the mortgagor for his necessities. The period of redemption fixed in the mortgage was 20 years.It was also mentioned therein that in respect of this property the mortgagor had executed a 'geni chit' (a lease back) in favour of the mortgagee. But the 'geni chit' was actually executed only on the next ...
Kollepara Venkata Reddayya and ors. Vs. Muthangi Kondala Rao
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-10-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Mad1007; (1952)IIMLJ665
Basheer Ahmed Sayeed, J.1. This appeal is against the order(sic) the learned Subordinate Judge of Rajahmundry(sic)pholding the decision of the learned District(sic) that the execution application taken out by (sic) decree-holder in O. S. No. 110 of 1941 was not (sic) by limitation.2. The main point that has been urged by the (sic) counsel for the appellants is that the final (sic) which had been passed on 9-2-1946 had be(sic) barred by time on 16-3-1949, when the execu-(sic) application was re-presented with a petition(sic) excuse delay in re-presenting the same petition,(sic) had been returned for complying with(sic) requirements on two previous occasions. In(sic) case, after the final decree was passed on 9-2-(sic), an execution application was presented on(sic)-2-1947. It was returned on 17-3-47 for complying (sic) certain defects. It was re-presented again on(sic)-2-1947 without complying with the defects point-(sic) out and again it was returned on 27-2-1947, with (sic) direction ...
K. Kunjikannan Vs. P.C. Uthayya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-08-1952
Reported in: AIR1954Mad72; (1952)IIMLJ279
ORDERSomasundaram, J.1. In support of the reference Mr. Kuttikrishna Menon has argued this case with great ability touching all aspects of the case particularly with reference to the order of the Munsif first Class Magistrate, as to how it is unsustainable. In the view I am taking, I do not think it necessary to deal with all his arguments. The question whether a particular party has a right of way over any place, is a question of fact, and any finding based on the appreciation of the evidence should not be lightly interfered with in revision. In the letter of reference made by the Sessions Judge, he says as fellows:'In this case, there is hardly any evidence except the bare statement of the counter-petitioners that they were making use of this road.'This suggests that in order to arrive at a finding, the bare statement of the counter petitioners is not sufficient, i.e. to say, that some more witnesses must be examined to supportthe case of the counter-petitioners. Inferentiallyit sugg...
Gada Venkata Subbayya Vs. Koyallamudi Venkanna
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-08-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Mad213; (1952)IIMLJ498
1. This is an appeal under the Letters Patent against the judgment of Panchapakesa Aiyar J. in a Civ. Misc. second appeal arising on the following facts. The respondent obtained a decree in O. S. No. 243 of 1933 on the file of the District Munsif, Kovvur, for Rs. 1053-4-3 and costs. The decree-holder filed applications for execution of the decree the last of which was E. P. No. 338 of 1939. When this was pending, the judgment-debtor filed an application E. A. No. 565 of 1940 on 28th June 1940 under Section 20 of Madras Act, 4 of 1938 and on that application there was an order for stay passed on 2-7-1940. On the same day, E. P. No. 338 of 1939 was "struck off." On 28th August 1940, the judgment-debtor filed a regular application under Section 19 of Madras Act, 4 of 1938 and the decree was eventually scaled down to about Rs. 300 by an order of court dated 31st January 1941. On 22-11-1944 more than three years after the order scaling down the decree, the decree-holder filed E A. No. 1341 ...
Kamarusu Kasi Viswanadhan and anr. Vs. Rudra Viranna
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-08-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Mad220; (1952)IIMLJ443
Chandra Reddi, J.1. The plaintiffs are the appellants. They filed the suit out of which this second appeal arises on behalf of all persons interested in a fund said to be a common fund of the village for directing the defendant to render an account of the amounts entrusted to him. The allegations, material for the purpose of this enquiry, are as follows :2. The plaintiffs and defendant are residents of the village named Duvva. It has been the practice in the village to have a common fund of the village for the use and convenience of the villagers and to keep the same in the custody of somebody in the village selected by a majority of the villagers assembled and to use the fund for such purpose as might be determined by the majority. All the villagers have equal rights to the said common village fund. All the villagers have got a right to demand in what manner and to what extent the said amount is being utilised. The person in charge of the fund is bound to render an account for the use...
R.N. Selvam Mudaliar and ors. Vs. P.A. Raju Mudaliar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-07-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Mad816; (1952)2MLJ653
Rajamannar, C.J.1. The respondents instituted a suit on the Original Side of this Court, C. S. No. 10 of 1949 under Section 92, C. P. C. praying inter alia for the framing of a scheme for the management and working of the Church known as St. Peters Church at Royapuram after cancelling or modifying the scheme framed in an earlier suit on the file of this court and for the removal of certain defendants from the trusteeship of the Church. Defendants 1 to 5 were described as the persons who claimed to be the trustees of the Church. On the plaint there was an endorsement by the Advocate General as follows: 'I consent to the institution of the suit under Section 92, C. P. C.' It was discovered subsequently that another person, one S. A. Raja also claimed to be a trustee of the Church and the respondents applied to the court to add S. A. Raja as a party. Before they took out this application, they obtained the consent of the Advocate General to the addition of Raja as a party defendant. Objec...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »