Chennai Court September 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.
Paturi Venkata Narayana (Died) and ors. Vs. Sunkara Lakshmaiya (Since ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-16-1952
Reported in: AIR1954Mad353; (1953)IIMLJ167
1. The plaintiffs who were successful in the trial Court but lost the suit in the appellate Court are the appellants in the second appeal.2. The suit was for an injunction restraining the defendants from, starting proceedings to dismiss from service the plaintiffs on the ground that they are not reciting 'swastivacha-kam' daily. The defendants are the trustees of Sri Rajagopalaswamivaru temple at Dhulipudi. The plaintiffs appellants hold an inam of the extent of 1'4 acres and 49 cents in the said village which was admittedly granted by a previous zamindar for reciting 'swastivachakam,' in the temple. On 6-10-1943 the trustees issued a notice requiring the plaintiffs to recite 'swastivachakam' daily and in default they threatened to dismiss them. The plaintiffs therefore instituted the present suit on 19-10-1943. Their case in short is that the grant of the inam was to them burdened with service, namely, the recital of 'swastivachakam' in the temple and was not a grant at the temple ove...
Kamalam Vs. Saradambal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-16-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Mad576; (1953)IMLJ135
ORDERChandra Reddi, J.1. This is a reference under Section 5, Court-fees Act. The facts leading up to this reference may be briefly stated. The plaintiff brought an administration suit against her mother and her three sisters for partition of the plaint schedule property into four shares and for delivery of separate possession of her share and for rendition of accounts of other assets and income from the family property. For purpose of jurisdiction, the suit was valued at Rs. 1,000/- and a fixed court-fee of Rs. 100 was paid under Article 17-B of Schedule 2, Court-fees Act. A preliminary decree was passed, and there was a direction for an inquiry into other assets and income from the family. A Commissioner was appointed for the purpose and on looking into the accounts, he found that defendant 2 who was virtually in management of the estate was liable to pay the plaintiff a sum of Rs. 3152-8-9. Basing on the Commissioner's report, the District Judge gave a decree 'inter alia' for that s...
Varadarajan Vs. Muthu Venkatapathi Reddy and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-16-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Mad587a; (1953)IMLJ148
1. In O. S. No. 20 of 1937 on the file of the District Court of South Arcot a mortgage decree was passed on 6-1-1939 for a sum of Rs. 3540-15-4, the mortgagee being the first defendant and the 2nd defendant being his minor son represented by the father 1st defendant as guardian-ad-litem. One Muthu Venkatapathi Reddiar as the assignee-decree-holder brought the mortgaged property to sale, the sales having been held on 11th and 12-9-1944, and three parsons Mahadeva Goundan, Natesa Goundan and Swami Kannu Goundan and the decree-holder purchased the property at the auction. M. P. No. 302 of 1944 was filed on behalf of the minor second defendant for setting aside the sale under Order 21, Rule 90 and Section 47, C. P. C. Mainly on the ground that there was no proper advertisement and publication of the sale and that the property which was of the value of about Rs. 16.000 fetched a low price of about Rs. 6442. Sufficient security in immoveable properties was furnished on behalf of the second d...
Chilakuri Venkateswara Rao and ors. Vs. Chamarthi Ramanadham and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-12-1952
Reported in: AIR1954Mad102; (1952)IIMLJ931
Govinda Menon, J.1. The learned District Judge is in error in thinking that Section 78, Hindu Religious Endowments Act is not applicable to the present case. The respondents, who claim to be in possession of the disputed properties either under Ex. A. 3 dated 4-5-1940 or under Ex. A. 4 dated 17-1-1944, contend that they are lawfully in possession and cannot be dispossessed by an application under Section 78. The learned Judge says that on the documents produced before him it is not easy to find that the lessor under Ex. A. 3 had not acquired any rights to the properties or that the respondents are estopped from urging occupancy rights therein.2. NOW, the petitioners both before the lower Court and here are the three trustees appointed by the Hindu Religious Endowments Board for the purpose of managing the endowment connected with the Sri Markendeswara Swami Vari temple at Markandapadu. Any application by such trustees for recovery of possession of the trust property, the temple or the ...
Kothandaraman and ors. Vs. Collector of Chingleput District
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-12-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Mad415; (1952)2MLJ852
1. O. S. No. 23 of 1944 was a suit filed in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Chingleput on the foot of a mortgage against the present appellants. The learned Subordinate Judge passed a preliminary decree in favour of the plaintiffs. The appellants applied for leave to appeal to the District Court in forma pauperis. This application was rejected by the learned District Judge. Thereupon, the appellants filed a revision petition to this court, C. R. P. No. 767 of 184S. By order dated 5-4-1948 this Court allowed the appellants to file the appeal in forma pauperis. The appeal was therefore numbered as A. S. No. 277 of 1948. In the meantime the learned Subordinate Judge proceeded to pass a final decree. The appellants filed an appeal therefrom and also sought to file it in forma pauperis. The learned District Judge allowed this application and that appeal against the final decree was numbered as A. S. No. 325 of 1947. Both appeals were heard and disposed of by a common judgment. The res...
Narayanan Chettiar Vs. Rathinasami Padayachi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-12-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Mad421; (1952)2MLJ859
Rajamannar, C.J.1. There is no reason whatever to Interfere with the order passed by the learned District Munsif. The petitioner is the decree-holder. The respondent who was the first judgment-debtor made an application on 3-6-1949 under Section 19 of Madras Act 4 of 1938 as amended by Act 23 of 1948 for scaling down the decree which had been passed against him on 24-11-1933. The decree-holder raised a preliminary objection that the application was not maintainable on the ground that the judgment-debtor had previously filed an application for stay under Section 20 of the Act and there was an order staying execution passed on 14-3-1946, but he did not file any application within 60 days thereafter and there-fore the Judgment-debtor was not entitled to once more file an application for stay as he did and then file a substantive application under seetibn 19. It may be mentioned that prior to the present application under Section 19 there was another application under Section 20, and there...
In Re: Pattu Alias Kadirvelu Muthiriyan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-12-1952
Reported in: AIR1954Mad319; (1953)IMLJ69
Chandra Reddy, J. 1. Criminal Ap. No. 522 of 1951 is a jail appeal preferred by accused 1 in sessions case No. 59 of 1951 against the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge of Trichinopoly, convicting him under Section 304, I. P. C., and sentencing him to three years R. I., while Crl. Ap. No. 237 of 1952 is by the State against the acquittal of accused 2 in the same case. The charge against these two accused and accused 3 and 4, acquitted by the trial court, was that ait of them murdered one Ganesan on 19-11-1950 at about 7 a.m. 2. The case for the prosecution is briefly this. There was long standing animosity between the deceased on the one hand and accused l to 4 on the other and there were a number of clashes between them resulting in complaints and counter-complaints. Because of this ill-feeling between the parties, the deceased always used to carry a 'bitchuva' with him. 3. On the morning of 19-11-1950, when the deceased was going from his house towards the Uyyakondan river, the a...
The Public Prosecutor Vs. Indla China Lingiah and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-12-1952
Reported in: AIR1954Mad433
Ramaswami, J.1. This is an appeal preferred by the State against the order of acquittal by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Kandukuru in C. C. No. 38 of 1951.2. The facts are: On the night of 24-4-1950 at Ayyanakota there was house-breaking by night and theft in the house of P. W. 1 Venkatasubbiah. This burglary was discovered by him the next morning. It was then found that the big wooden chest or Bhoshanam box had been broken open and the boxes M. O. 1 belonging to P. W. 1 and M. O. 2 belonging to the son-in-law of P. W. 1 viz., P. W. 2 and 3 boxes M. Os. 3 to 5 belonging to P. W. 3 and valuable jewellery and clothing of the family of P. W. 1 and the clothes left for safe custody by some shepherds had been removed from that Bhoshanam Box. P. W. 1 found 3 or 4 chains away from his house some of these opened boxes which he identified as those kept in the chest. Then P. W. 1 went to inform the Triune Officer P. W. 6 who was in the fields who visited the scene of offence andgot a report Ex....
Bojja Venkataraju Vs. the State of Madras, Represented by the Secretar ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-12-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Mad593; (1953)IMLJ247
ORDERSubba Rao, J.1. This is an application under Article 226, Constitution of India for issuing a writ of certiorari to quash the order of the Government of Madras dated 28-8-1951 in R. O. C. No. 65013-50 H. 4.2. The petitioner was elected president of the Panchayat. Board, Bbogapuram, Pithapuram taluk in the year 1940. The Madras Village Panchayats Act (Act 10 of 1950) came into force on 1-4-1951. After the Act came into force, on 31-7-1953, the Inspector of Local Boards issued a notice to the petitioner to show cause why he should not be removed from his office. In that notice, four irregularities alleged to have been committed by the petitioners were detailed:1. The President failed to convene meetings of the Panchayat Board in May and November 1948, January, February, April, June, July, August and November 1949 and in the months of June, July, August, October and November 1950.2. When three members of the Panchayat Board ceased to be members for not attending three consecutive mee...
The Public Prosecutor Vs. India China Lingiah and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-12-1952
Reported in: 1954CriLJ583
Ramaswami, J.1. This is an appeal preferred by the State against the order of acquittal by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Kandukuru in C. C, No. 38 of 1951.2. The facts are: On the night of 24-4-1950 at Ayyanakota there was house-breaking by night and theft in the house of P. W. 1 Venkatasubbiah. This burglary was discovered by him the next morning. It was then found that the big wooden chest or Bhoshanam box had been broken open and the boxes M. O. 1 belonging to P. W. 1 and M. O. 2 belonging to the son-in-law of P. W. 1 viz., P. W. 2 and 3 boxes M. Os. 3 to 5 belonging to P. W. 3 and valuable jewellery and clothing of the family of P. W. 1 and the clothes left for safe custody by some shepherds had been removed from that Bhoshanam Box. P. W. 1 found 3 or 4 chains away from his house some of these opened boxes which he identified as those kept in the chest. Then P. W. 1 went to inform the Triune Officer P. W. 6 who was in the fields who visited the scene of offence and got a report Ex...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »