Chennai Court January 1953 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.
Kolandayammal Vs. Krishnaswami Goundan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-27-1953
Reported in: AIR1954Mad167; (1953)2MLJ80
1. The appellant is defendant 3. The appeal is against a wholly untenable order passed by the learned District Judge of Coim-batore remanding O. S. No. 188 of 1947 on the file of the District Munsif's Court, Dharapuram, for fresh disposal with an opportunity to be given to the parties to adduce additional evi-dence. The plaintiff, who sued in 'forma pau-peris' for partition and separate possession of some property, is the son of the appellant's brother. The appellant was in the position of an alienee of certain items of property. The District Munsif who first heard the suit partially decreed it and in A. S. No. 63 of 1949 the suit was remanded for fresh disposal on the ground, it would appear, that the evidence and the findings were incomplete. Subsequent to this remand, P. Ws. 2 and 3 and D. Ws. 3 to 6 were examined.2. The learned District Munsif found on all the issues framed and again gave the plaintiff a partial preliminary decree. The learned District Judge again remanded the suit...
Akella China Venkatavadhamulu and ors. Vs. Muthangi Bachi Ramayya Garu ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-27-1953
Reported in: AIR1954Mad383; (1954)IMLJ97
ORDER1. The facts necessary for appreciating the contentions raised may be briefly narrated. To enforce a mortgage executed by the Akella family in favour of Muthangi Butchi Ramiah, on 18th June 1917, he filed O. S. No. 21 of 1930 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Amalapuram. There was a preliminary decree against all the members of the joint family. On 12th April 1932 a final decree was passed. Defendants 1, 2, 3 and the 13th defendant are brothers. Defendants 5 to 8 are the sons of the first defendant. Defendants 33 to 35 are the grandsons of the first defendant being the sons of his son, the fourth defendant. Defendants 9 to 12 are the sons of the second defendant. The other defendants are purchasers of some of the items of the property.First defendant was adjudicated insolvent in 1926. In execution of the decree in E. P. No. 403 of 1941, the decree-schedule properties were sold on 17th and 18th of July 1942, and were purchased by the plaintiffs, Muthangi Ayyanna ...
Coral Indira Gonsalves, Falsely Called Iswariah Vs. Joseph Prabhakar I ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-27-1953
Reported in: AIR1953Mad858; (1953)IMLJ591
Panchapakesa Ayyar, J.1. This is a petition by one Coral Indira Gonsalves, aged 23, for declaring her marriage with Joseph Prabhakar Iswariah a nullity, on the ground of his impotency and continuing and total inability to have sexual intercourse with her, At first the respondent opposed the petition vigorously, alleging that he was not impotent. Both the petitioner and the respondent are Protestant Indian Christians.2. The following issues were framed:1. Is the defendant impotent and unable to have sexual intercourse with the plaintiff, as alleged? 2. To what relief, if any, is the plaintiff entitled? 3. Before the matter came on for final hearing and disposal, the respondent, Iswariah, wanted this Court to have him examined by a competent doctor for finding out whether he was really impotent and totally unable to have sexual intercourse. Ultimately, Lt. Col. Krishnamoorthi, No. 2 Boag Road, T. Nagar, was appointed by Court as the doctor for examining him carefully and giving a certifi...
Mattupalli Venkata Subbarao and ors. Vs. Mattupalli Lakshminarasamma A ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-23-1953
Reported in: AIR1954Mad222
Rajamannar, C.J.1. A. S. No. 393 of 1947 is an appeal by defendants 1 to 3 in O. S. No. 12 of 1940 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Tenali against the final decree passed therein. The suit was filed by the first respondent for a partition of the properties alleged to belong to the joint family and for incidental reliefs. Originally, there were five defendants to the suit. The parties were related as follows. The plaintiff was the widow of one Venkataratnam, and the first defendant his son by a predeceased wife. Defendants 2 and 3 were the minor sons of the first defendant. The fourth defendant was the natural son of the first defendant but had been adopted to one Venkatappiah, a brother of Venkataratnam. The fifth defendant was the daughter of Venkataratnam. The fourth defendant died during the pendency of the suit, and his minor son and widow were brought on record as his legal representatives and added as defendants 6 and 7 respectively. The fifth defendant died '...
Annasami Mudaliar Vs. Ekambari Ammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-23-1953
Reported in: AIR1953Mad712; (1953)1MLJ649
Govinda Menon, J. 1. A preliminary objection is raised by Mr. Muthiah Mudaliar who appears for the contesting respondent that the order of the lower court is not appealable; and in order to appreciate the point raised by the learned counsel it is necessary to set forth a few facts. 2. Original Suit No. 71 of 1947 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Vellore, is a suit by one Ekambari Ammal, daughter of one Lokanatha Mudaliar, for partition and recovery of possession of her share in the properties which belonged to her father. Defendants 1 to 3 are the surviving brothers of Lokanatha Mudaliar and the fourth defendant, Manikkammal, is a sister of the plaintiff and a daughter of Lokanatha Mudaliar. According to the plaintiff, it was stated that before the death of Lokanatha Mudaliar there was a division in status of the joint family properties between Lokanatha Mudaliar and his three brothers but that there was no separation by metes and bounds and the property remained join...
Ramayya and anr. Vs. Venkatachellamma and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-22-1953
Reported in: AIR1953Mad834; (1953)IMLJ572
Mack, J.1. The appellants are the plaintiffs, who sued the two defendants on 25-6-1948 for a permanent injunction restraining them from opening a doorway into an alleged private lane belonging to them and for a mandatory injunction directing the removal of a wall which encroached on their site. This appeal arises out of a reference to arbitration outside court subsequent to the filing of the suit, which degenerated into a regrettable fiasco as between the arbitrators themselves, three of them giving the He direct to the fourth arbitrator one S. Rattiah. The learned District Munsif accepted the evidence of three arbitrators examined for the plaintiffs as P. Ws. 1, 2 and 3 that there was an award in writing signed by all the four arbitrators and decreed the suit in accordance with a copy kept by P. W. 1 The finding on their evidence was that Rattiah suppressed the signed award. The learned Subordinate Judge in appeal preferred to believe Rattiah and remanded the suit for fresh disposal.2...
Natesa Udayar Vs. Kanagasabai Udayar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-21-1953
Reported in: AIR1954Mad279; (1953)2MLJ25
ORDERRamaswami, J. 1. This is a criminal revision case which has been filed against the order of compensation made by the Stationary Sub Magistrate of Perambalur in C. C. No. 1224 of 1951 and confirmed in C. A. No. 6 of 1952 by the Additional First Class Magistrate of Tiruchirapalli. 2. The facts are: Natesa Udayar, the petitioner before us, of Melamathur filed a complaint against Kanakasabai Udayar and four others alleging that on 23-9-1051 at about 10 a.m., he was assaulted by the accused when he went with the process server of the Ariyalur District Munsif's court to serve summons on the accused. The complaint was taken on file under Section 355, I. P. C., against accused 1 and 5 and under Section 323, I. P. C., against accused 2. 3 and 4. In support of his case this Natesa Udayar examined himself and three others, viz., P. Ws. 2 and 3, eyewitnesses, and P. W. 4, the process server. The case for the accused persons was that on account of enmity arising out of civil suit and in which ...
Visakapatnam Co-operative Motor Transport Ltd., Visakapatnam Vs. G. Ba ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-21-1953
Reported in: (1956)1MLJ212
1. The same question of law is involved in these three Letters Patent Appeals against the judgments of Subba Rao J. in three applications for the issue of writs of 'certiorari' and 'mandamus' against proceedings under the Motor Vehicles Act. The question arises on the following facts which are substantially common to all the three petitions though they related to different districts in the State. There were applications to the concerned Regional Transport Authorities for the issue of bus permits. One of the applicants was the District Co-operative Society for Ex-servicemen. It is common ground that the Collector of the concerned district is the President of the respective Co-operative Society. It is also common ground that the Collector of the district is a member of the Regional Transport Authority which has to adjudicate on the comparative claims of the applicants and which is under a duty to decide as to who should be granted the permit.In all the three cases, a permit was granted t...
In Re: Ganapathia Pillai and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-20-1953
Reported in: AIR1953Mad936
ORDERRamaswami, J.1. This is a criminal revision case which has been filed against the conviction and sentence of the learned Sub-Magistrate of Tiruenendur in C. C. No. 447 of 1951 and confirmed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Tuticorin in C. A. No. 14 of 1952.2. The facts are : The petitioners who are father and son, are running a grocery shop in Udangudi, a major Panchayat. P. W. 1, Shanmugham, Assistant Inspector of Labour, made a surprise inspection of this shop under the Shops and Establishments Act on the night of 5-2-1951 (Monday and a shandy day) at 10-30 p. m. according to his watch and at 9-20 p. m. according to the timepiece in the shop. This P. W. I wanted to note the time of inspection in the register kept for that purpose. The accused objected and wanted this P. W. 1 to record the time as 9-30 p. m. as well as per the time-piece in the shop. There was a dispute and according to P. W. 1 accused 1 pushed him by the chest and accused 3 snatched away the register from his...
Dowlath Vs. Dey, District Forest Officer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-19-1953
Reported in: (1953)2MLJ28
ORDER1. This is a criminal revision case which has been filed against the order made by the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Tirupathur, in C.C. No. 326 of 1951 which was confirmed by the District Magistrate of North Arcot in G.R.P. No. 15 of 1952.2. The facts are : A complaint was filed in the Court of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Tirupathur by one Dowlath against the District Forest Officer, Tirupathur Mr. Dey and seven others. The complaint was that at about 11 a.m. on 6th August, 1951, when the complainant was grazing his goats in the private land of one Abdul Rahim Sahib, the District Forest Officer, who was accused 1 in the complaint directed the other accused, viz., accused 2 to 7 who were forest subordinates and the eighth accused, being a non-official, to take the animals to the pound and that some of the other accused accordingly drove away these animals and impounded them and that the District Forest Officer slapped the complianant on his cheek and kicked him resulting...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »