Chennai Court February 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.
Alphanso Pinto Vs. Thukru Hengsu and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-20-1953
Reported in: AIR1955Mad206; (1954)IIMLJ445
Rajamannar, C.J.1. This second appeal arises out ofa suit in ejectment. The tenant is the appellant. On 12-4-1933, the appellant and his father,the first defendant, executed in favour of theplaintiff-respondent, a chalgenichit in respect ofthe suit holding. The period of the lease wasone year, but after the efflux of the period thetenants did not surrender possession but continued to be in occupation. There was a renewalof the lease in 1937 and again in 1942, Exs. A. 14and A. 13. On 6-11-1945, the landlord issued aregistered notice calling upon the tenants to quitand deliver possession. The suit in ejectmentwas filed on 17-4-1946. Both the courts belowhave decreed the suit.2. In second appeal, Mr. Krishna Rao, learned counsel for the appellant, urged two grounds. He first contended that there was no proper notice to quit. This contention is based entirely on the fact that in the notice to quit, Ex. B. 1, there is a reference to the chalgenichit dated 12-4-1933, but there is no referenc...
In Re: C.G. Menon and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-20-1953
Reported in: AIR1953Mad729; (1953)IIMLJ61
Rajagopalan, J. 1. Under Section 432 Criminal P. C. as amended by the Codes of Civil and Criminal Procedure Amendment Act (Act 24 of 1051), the Chief Presidency Magistrate, Madras, referred two questions of law to this Court : (i) Whether the Fugitive Offenders Act, 1881, applies to India after 26-1-1950, when India became a Sovereign Democratic Republic; and (ii) Whether, even if it applied, it or any of its provisions, particularly Part II thereof, is repugnant to the Constitution of India and is therefore void and/or inoperative. The events that led up to this reference were set out in full in the order of the learned Chief Presidency Magistrate, which was appended to his reference. Mr. C.G. Menon and his wife, Mrs. Villasini Menon, are Indian nationals. Mr. Menon is a Barrister-at-law. He was practising as an 'advocate and solicitor in the colony of Singapore. Mrs. Menon, who was enrolled as an advocate of the Madras High Court lived with her husband at Singapore, and until recent...
Padmanabha Bhatta and ors. Vs. H. Ramachandra Rao and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-19-1953
Reported in: AIR1953Mad842; (1953)2MLJ382
Govinda Menon, J.1. These two second appeals arise out of O. S. No. 113 of 1944 on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court of South Kanara. The appellants in each of these appeals are persons who allege themselves to be the owners of the properties which are the subject-matter of dispute. Defendants 10, 11 and 8 are the appellants in S. A. No. 2 of 1949 and defendants 2 and 4 are the appellants in S. A. No. 47 of 1949. The plaintiffs, who are the contesting respondents, are the trustees of the suit temple appointed by the Hindu Religious Endowments Board and they seek to recover possession of the plaint properties from the defendants on the ground that they are temple properties. The appellants in these appeals originally belonged to one family which became divided long ago and they put forward the contention that the properties are not temple properties but belonged to the joint family of which they constituted members, though there was an obligation fastened on them, viz., that wit...
In Re: V. Bayamma and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-18-1953
Reported in: AIR1953Mad745; (1953)1MLJ793
ORDERSomasundaram, J.1. This revision is filed against an order directing a complaint to be filed against the petitioners for an offence under Section 193, I. P. C. The facts which led up to this complaint are these: On 3-11-1950 at about midnight one Bayamma who is now sought to be prosecuted as the first accused was stabbed on her buttocks. Her son-in-,law who is now sought to be prosecuted as the second accused was sleeping nearby and he rushed to the place on hearing her cries. The other two accused, the servants of Eayamma were said to have been sleeping near her. It is stated that she saw five persons at the time of the occurrence and mentioned the names of four persons and the fifth one could not be identified by her. P. W. 2, the son-in-law, gave information to the Police at about 2 a.m. implicating the four names which she mentioned and also mentioning that there was another person concerned in the offence. The woman was taken to the Pulivendla hospital and on account of her s...
Kunjammal Vs. Krishna Chettiar by Agent, Velayudham Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-17-1953
Reported in: AIR1954Mad170; (1953)2MLJ185
Venkatarama Ayyar, J. 1. This is an appeal under Clause 15, Letters Patent against the judgment or Panchapakesa Ayyar J. in C. M. A. No. 328 of 1948. The judgment-debtor is the appellant. The respondent filed O. S. No. 33 of 1929 in the District Mun-siff's Court, Erode, for partition of certain properties held in co-ownership. There were a number of defendants in that suit. On 3-10-1929 a preliminary decree was passed. Clause 1 of the decree declared the right of the plaintiff to a 5/6 share in the properties and directed a division thereof. Under Clause 2, the plaintiff was declared entitled to mesne profits from 31-10-1927 till date' of delivery of possession at the rate of 7 1/2 pothies of paddy or their value, Rs. 200, per annum. The third clause provided that the plaintiff was entitled to recover the mesne profits subject to the condition that he paid the court-fees payable on the amount of the mesne profits granted under the decree within one week from that date and that in defau...
Gummadi Appayya and ors. Vs. Gavini Venkataratnam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-13-1953
Reported in: AIR1954Mad1; (1953)2MLJ225
Krishnaswami Nayudu, J.1. The appellants are the judgment-debtors in O. S. No. 276 of 1936 on the file of the District Munsif's Court, Repalle, and this appeal arises out of the execution proceedings taken out by the plaintiff-decree-holder. The main point for determination in this appeal is as to whether the execution petition is barred by limitation. The decree was passed on 8-3-1939. The first execution Petn. was on 2-3-1942 which was dismissed on 21-3-1942 as not pressed. The second execution was taken out in E. P. No. 72 of 1946 filed, on 31-1-1946 admittedly more than three years after the disposal of the prior execution. In E. P. No. 72 of 1946 the decree-holder alleged a payment of Rs. 25 said to have been made by the judgment-debtors on 6-2-1944 and relied on that payment as an acknowledgment saving the proceeding from the bar of limitation. That peti-tion was returned from time to lime for information as to the fact and mode of the payment of Rs. 25 and eventually on 28-2-194...
The Royal Calcutta Turf Club Vs. V.K.T. Raman Menon and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-13-1953
Reported in: AIR1953Mad841; (1953)1MLJ810
Rajamannar, C.J.1. This is an appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against an order made by Panchapakesa Ayyar J. on 11-12-1952 on an application by the plaintiff in C. S. No. 255 of 1952. By this order, the learned Judge directed the 2nd defendant in the suit to grant copies of certain original statements to the plaintiff on or before 22-1-1953 and that tilt the copies are granted the advocate for the plaintiff was free to have inspection and discovery of true copies in the two flies by applying to the learned counsel for the 2nd defendant. The 2nd defendant is the appellant.2. A preliminary objection was taken on behalf of the respondent that no appeal lies, because the order of the learned Judge does not amount to a judgment within the meaning of that term in Clause 15, Letters Patent. We are of opinion that the preliminary objection is well founded. It is sufficient for us to refer to the decision in -- 'D K. Asher v. V. Gopala-ratnam', AIR 1927 Mad 409 (A), wherein it was ...
Deva Venkatakrishna Reddi and ors. Vs. G. Govindaraja Mudaliar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-13-1953
Reported in: AIR1953Mad854; (1953)2MLJ814
Rajamannar, C.J. 1. These second appeals arise out of a batch of suits filed by one of the landholders of Sri Vilasapuram in Tiruttani Division in the Chittoor District against the tenants of the village for the recovery of his share of the rent for faslis 1353 to 1355. The main dispute between the parties in the courts below and before us was in respect of two matters: (1) whether the plaintiff who was only one of the co-sharers was entitled to sue for his share of the rent due, and (2) what is the proper rate of rent, whether it was payable cropwar or in cash. The Special Deputy Collector of Chandragiri as well as the learned District Judge of Chittoor decided against the tenants-defendants on both the points. They are the appellants before me. 2. The first contention of the learned counsel for the appellants was that as the plaintiff was admittedly only entitled to 29/40th in a portion of the village which remains undivided between the five sharers including him, he cannot maintain ...
Chittirala Mahalakshmamma Vs. Senisetti Hanumayya and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-13-1953
Reported in: AIR1953Mad916; (1953)1MLJ808
Mack, J.1. This is an appeal against the order by the learned Additional Subordinate Judge of Guntur remanding E. A. No. 331 of 1948 for fresh disposal by the District Munsif of Narasaraopet.2. The appellant is a widow one Mahalakshmamma who was impleaded as defendant 2 in a suit filed by the respondent decree-holder on a pronote executed by her deceased father-in-law Ramakotayya, whose widow was impleaded as defendant 1. In the suit, the appellant was exonerated, with costs, by the learned District Mun-sif and the decree-holder obtained a decree against the assets of Ramakotayya in the hands of his widow. In execution he attached immoveable property to which the appellant laid claim in a petition under Order 21, Rule 58 and Sections 47 and 151, Civil P. C. She claimed the attached property as being her own by virtue of a purchase in execution of decree which she obtained against her own father-in-law, who had, it was alleged, taken possession of valuable moveable property belonging to...
In Re: Nalla Baligadu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-09-1953
Reported in: AIR1953Mad801
Balakrishna Ayyar J. 1. The Station House Officer, Pulivendla, filed a charge sheet against seven persons for offences under Sections 147, 148, 324 and 302 I. P. C. and Section 4(1), Madras Prohibition Act. The Stationary Sub-Magistrate, Pulivandla before whom the charge-sheet was laid, held an enquiry under' Chapter 18, Criminal P.C., and, in exercise of the powers conferred on him by Section 209 of that Code, discharged accused 1 to 3 in respect of the offence under Section 302, I. P. C. This is what he said, '............taking any view of the matter it isimpossible for any Judge to find that A-1 to A-3 had a common intention to kill the deceased. So under those circumstances I feel compelled to discharge the accused for the offence of murder or culpable homicidenot amounting to murder with which they stand charge-sheeted. They shall however be charged for various other offences the evidence disclosed and shall be tried before me. Proceedings shall therefore be converted into one un...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »