Chennai Court April 1953 Judgments
M.V. Amirdhalakshmi Ammal and ors. Vs. Narayanaswami Mudaliar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-30-1953
Reported in: AIR1954Mad128; (1953)2MLJ366
Rajamannar, C.J. 1. In O. S. No. 357 of 1944 on the file of the District Munsif of Vellore a preliminary mortgage decree was passed on 8-11-1944. The suit was by first mortgagees making the mortgagor, defendant 1, and the puisne mortgagees, defendants 2 to 5, parties to the action. The preliminary decree provided 'inter alia' that if the defendants 2 to 5 paid into Court the amount adjudged due to the plaintiffs the first mortgagees and defendant 1 mortgagor made default in making the said payment, defendants 2 to 5 shall be at liberty to apply to the Court to keep the plaintiffs' mortgage alivefor their benefit and to apply for a final decree in the same manner as the plaintiffs might have done under Clause 4 thereof. Subsequently, a fresh preliminary decree was passed on 19-3-1945 which also provided for an application by defendants 2 to 5 for the passing of a final decree after paying into Court the amount due to the plaintiffs. On 27-4-1945, defendants 2 to 5 made an application I....
Tag this Judgment!Bayanna Vs. Devamma
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-30-1953
Reported in: AIR1954Mad226; (1953)2MLJ522
ORDERGovinda Menon, J.1. This is an application by a husband against the order of the lower Court, directing maintenance to be paid to his wife. The reason on which the wife claimed maintenance was that the husband married a second wife and as such she had to go away from the home of the husband to that of her parents. The lower Court has found that there is no satisfactory evidence to show that the husband beat, ill-treated and drove her away from his house. The lower Court has also found that the husband was unwilling to pay maintenance to the wife but was willing to take her back. In such circumstances the Magistrate has come to the conclusion that there was neglect and refusal on the part of the husband to maintain the wife.2. Mr. Jagannath Rao, the counsel for the petitioner contends that whatever might be the position regarding the liability of the husband on a second marriage to pay a separate maintenance to the wife, under Section 2, Hindu Married Women's Right to Separate Resi...
Tag this Judgment!Velugubantla Narayya Vs. Kona Venkanna and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-30-1953
Reported in: AIR1954Mad264; (1954)IMLJ203
1. This case was referred to a Bench by Our learned brother Subba Rao J. in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in -- 'Rama-swami Iyengar v. Kailasa Thevar', (A), which was followed subsequently by the Full Bench in -- 'C. M. A. Nos. 399 and 642 of 1946 (Mad) (B)' to consider the effect of these two decisions on the earlier decisions of this Court.2. The plaintiff is the appellant. On 29-9-1926 defendants 1 and 2 mortgaged under Ex. D-3 two items of property to defendant 9. The first item is R. S. No. 3/2, 2 acres 15 cents and the second item is a tiled house. We are concerned in this appeal only with the first item. On 8-8-1927 defendants 1 and 2 sold item 1 to defendant 3. On 5-7-1930 defendant 3 entered into an agreement with the plaintiff to mortgage the property to him. As there was default on the part of defendant 3, a suit O. S. No. 21 of 1931 was instituted by the plaintiff to enforce the agreement. The suit was decreed, and in pursuance of the decree a deed of mortgage w...
Tag this Judgment!Rachabhathuni Brahmam and anr. Vs. State of Madras, Represented by the ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-28-1953
Reported in: AIR1954Mad277; (1953)2MLJ307
1. The order of the learned Judge Ramaswami J. directing the appellant to furnish security for stamp duty payable to Government as per decree of the Court below and for the stamp duty payable on the appeal therefrom, cannot be supported in law. The appellant was permitted to file the suit in 'forma pauperis' and also the appeal in 'forma pauperis.' In - 'Secretary of State v. Thayam-mal', AIR 1937 Mad 267 (A), Pandrang Row J. held that where the plaintiff was allowed to sue the defendants in 'forma pauperis' and was directed to pay the court-fee to the Government and there was a further appeal in 'forma pauperis', an application by the Government to direct the appellant to furnish security for court-fee due to it under the lower Court's decree is incompetent under Order 41, Rule 10, Civil P. C. The learned Judge also held that Order 33, Rule 13, Civil P. C. did not support such an application. With respect, we are in complete agreement with this decision.2. The appeal is allowed and th...
Tag this Judgment!Muttangi Jaggayya Vs. Ramanujam Venkata Narsimharao and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-28-1953
Reported in: AIR1954Mad471
Ramaswami, J.1. This civil revision petition and the appeal are against the judgment of the learned District Judge of Rajahmundry in C. M. A. No. 71 of 1947 confirming the order of the learned Subordinate Judge of Rajahmundry in I. A. NO. 1103 of 1947 in O. S. No. 43 of 1936.2. The facts ate: Pandari Brothers obtained a decree in O. S. No. 5 of 1927 against Ramanujam Brothers, who are the contesting respondents in both the lower courts. This decree in O. S No. 5 of 1927 obtained on 4th March 1935 was confirmed by the High Court in A. S. Nos. 299 of 1936 and 329 of 1937. There was a transfer of the decree in O. S. No. 5 of 1927 in favour of the present petitioner Sri Muttangi Jaggayya. This was on 11-11-1940. In the meanwhile, O. S. No 43 of 1936 on the file of the Sub Court, Rajahmundry, a suit for accounts, had been filed by Ramanujam Brothers against the defendants herein. On 30-9-1940, a preliminary decree for accounts in O. S. No. 43 of 1936 was passed against the 2nd defendant alo...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Suruttayyan Alias Vayyapuri Goundan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-28-1953
Reported in: AIR1954Mad523
Balakrishna Aiyar, J.1. I agree that the conviction and sentence should be confirmed and the appeal dismissed. On the views of my learned brother regarding the scope and content of Sections. 85 and 86, I.P.C., I express no opinion one way or the other. I merely desire to guard myself against the possibility of its being understood that I concur with them, for I greatly hesitate to voyage into the twilight between the confines of knowledge that is implied by the law and statutory intention. As I look at this case, the question and problems raised by Mr. Jayarama Aiyar do not really arise. All questions of intention apart, the acts of the accused in stabbing his father in the manner he did is covered by the fourth clause of Section 300, I.P.C.Chandra Reddy, J.2. The appellant one Suruttayan alias Vayya-puri Goundan belonging to Nallipalayam village, Namakkal Taluk, Salem district, has been convicted by the Sessions Judge of Salem under Sections. 302, 323 and 324, I.P.C. and sentenced to ...
Tag this Judgment!P.R.M.S. Chellappa Chettiar Vs. Official Assignee of Madras and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-27-1953
Reported in: AIR1953Mad928; (1953)2MLJ166
ORDERPanchapakesa Ayyar, J.1. This is an application for annulling the adjudication of respondent 2, L. S. Vardon, an Engine Driver, resident at Erode. L. S. Vardon was adjudicated insolvent on his own petition on 4-12-1952. He had alleged in the petilion that he was a permanent resident of Madras and was residing at No. 1/9-A, Jeson Street, Park Town, Madras. On 11-3-1953, more than three months after adjudication, the applicant, Chellappa Chettiar, one of the creditors claiming Rs. 5,000/- as due to him, has brought this application for annulling the adjudication on the ground that it had been obtained by misrepresentation and fraud, and that Vardon, an Engine Driver of the Southern Railways, was a permanent resident of Erode where he has got a permanent official residence, and all his children, and that he was simply on a casual visit to Madras when he filed the petition. The learned counsel for Vardon does not intend to prove the allegations in Vardon's counter that Vardon is reall...
Tag this Judgment!Senthathikalai Pandiya Chinnathambiar and ors. Vs. Varaguna Rama Pandi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-24-1953
Reported in: AIR1954Mad5; (1953)2MLJ387
1. This is an appeal under Section 51 Madras Estates (Abolition & Conversion into Ryot-wari) Act (Act 26 of 1948) (hereinafter called the "Act",) against the decision of the Tribunal to this Bench, which was constituted a Special Tribunal by the Hon'ble the Chief Justice under the said section.2. Under Section 42 of the said Act, appellant 1 made an application to the Tribunal to direct payment of the entire sum of advance compensation deposited with the Tribunal in respect of the zamin estate of Sivagiri in Tinnevelly district. The zamin-dari of Sivagiri was taken over by the Government under the Act and a sum of Rs. 2,40,000 was deposited with the Tribunal as advance compensation. The father of appellant 1 Varaguna Rama pandia Chinnathambiar was the holder of the zamindari, which is an ancient impartible estate, included in the schedule to the Madras Impartible Estates Act (Act 2 of 1904). The management of the estate however was taken over in 1941 by the Court of Wards, at the reque...
Tag this Judgment!Pullancheri Thiruvoth Kunhirama Kurup Vs. Changaroth Kunnummel Narayan ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-24-1953
Reported in: AIR1954Mad375; (1953)IIMLJ670
Mack, J.1. This is an appeal against an order of the learned District Judge of North Malabar appointing a father as guardian of the person and property of his minor daughter Rajalakshmi, who was born on 5-3-1937 and was and is, I understand, still a boarder in a hostel attached to the Convent High School, Badagara. The appellant, who opposed the father's petition, is the minor's maternal uncle, who claimed to be appointed or nominated as the minor's guardian in a partition deed in her mother's tarwad, Ex. B. 1 dated 26-11-1948. The parties are governed by Marumakatayam law and under Section 14 of the Marumakattayam Act the father shall be the guardian of his minor children, other than married minor daughters under the guardianship of their husbands, in respect of person or property. The crux of the dispute, as Mr. Krishna Variar for the father put it is, who should have the right to collect rent's from the tenants of the property, which fell to the share of the minor under the partitio...
Tag this Judgment!M.K. Govinda Reddi Vs. E.K. Pattabhi Rama Reddi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-23-1953
Reported in: AIR1954Mad161; (1953)2MLJ478
ORDERVenkatarama Ayyar, J. 1. This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution for the issue of a writ of: certiorari to quash the decision of the Estates Abolition Tribunal, Mathurai in R. A. No. 369 of 1950. The point for decision is whether the village of Ekkattu Thangal is an Inam estate within the meaning of Section 3(2)(d), Madras Estates Land Act liable to be noted under the provisions of the Madras Act 26 of 1948. The property which is the subject-matter of this dispute is a parcel of land of the extent of about. 179 acres and 35 cents. That was originally granted by the Nawab of Arcot to one Kasim Ali Baig subject to the condition that it should not be alienated. In 1781, the descendants of the grantee became indebted to one Shamier Sultan and in discharge of the debt sold the property to him in. 1787 and put him in possession.Shamier Sultan then applied to the Government for recognition of his title and on that as appears from G. O. No. 2778 of 1913 marked as Ex. ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »