Chennai Court August 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.
In Re: V.V.L. Narasimhamurthy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-12-1953
Reported in: AIR1955Mad237; 1955CriLJ716; (1954)IMLJ650
ORDERSomasundaram, J.1. This is a petition to quash the order of committal passed in P. R. C. No. 11 of 1953 on the file of the Stationary Sub-Magistrate; Rajahmundry. The circumstances under which this petition has been preferred are these:The petitioner herein as the guardian of his minor daughter filed a suit in O. S. No. 33 of 1848 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Rajahmundry, on the basis of a will said to have been executed by one Gunnamma. The will was filed along with the plaint. There was also a letter said to have been written by the two sons of Gunnamma confirming the will and it was also filed along with the plaint and the will. This suit was filed against the complainant in P. R. C. No. 11 of 1953 who was the first defendant in the suit. The defendant there claimed the properties under a settlement said to have been executed by one of the sons of Gunnamma. The defendant in his written statement attacked the will and the letter as forgery. The documents were sent to th...
P. Abdul Azeez and Co. and ors. Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-12-1953
Reported in: AIR1954Mad520; (1953)2MLJ714
1. This is an appeal against the judgment of Panchapagesa Sastri J. granting a decree in favour of the plaintiff in C.S. No. 804 of 1943. The defendant, P. Abdul Azeez and Co. is the appellant. Its sole proprietor is one Abdul Azeez. He was doing considerable business in Madras and had large properties, and he had been insuring his properties with the respondent, the New India Assurance Co., Ltd. The suit was to recover a sum of Rs. 37,103-10-0 due from the defendant on account of premia due on various policies issued by the plaintiff to him. The dispute in the suit related only to a sum of Rs. 13,233-15-0 claimed on account of fire policies issued for the years 1946 and 1947 to the defendant. These policies have been marked as Exs. P. 1, P. 15, P. 22, P. 25, P. 35, P. 36, P. 38, P. 39, P. 41 and P. 45. The defendant contested the suit on the ground that it was a condition precedent to the policy taking effect that premia should be paid thereon and as that had not been done no suit sho...
Karuppanan Servai Vs. Daivasigamania Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-12-1953
Reported in: AIR1954Mad650; (1954)IIMLJ12
Venkatarama Aiyar, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for redemption instituted by the respondent. The properties which are the subject-matter of this litigation consist of two plots Survey No. 61 and Survey No. 115 in the village Tirumehoor in the District of Macturai. They belonged to two brothers Solamalai Piliai and Vaduhanatha Pillai. On 7-8-1830 Solamalai Pillai executed a usufructuary mortgage for Rs. 100 over Survey No. 115 in favour of one Srinisava Iyengar, Ex. D. 1. On 5-5-1892 Solamalai Pillai and Vaduhanatha Pillai executed a usufructuary mortgage Ex. P. 1 over both Survey No. 61 and Survey No. 115 in favour of one Venkatadri Iyengar for Rs. 500 directing him to redeem the mortgage Ex. D. 1 in favour Of Srinivasa Iyengar. The present action is for the redemption of this mortgage. Venkatadri Iyengar got into possession of Suryey No. 61 under this mortgage and before the time for redeeming Ex. D. 1 had arrived, he executed on 5-1-1893 a sub-usufructuary mortgage over both...
Chidambara Iyer Vs. Bhavadasan Nambudiripad and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-10-1953
Reported in: AIR1954Mad287; (1953)IIMLJ673
1. The question to be answered by the Full Bench. is whether a provision in a Kanom demise that a tenant shall pay to his landlord one-third of the price realised by leasing out the full growing forests for cutting trees is unenforceable as contravening the provisions of the Malabar Compensation for Tenants' Improvements Act (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act). The reference was necessitated by a conflict between two Bench decisions of this Court in -- 'Neelakantan v. Anantanarayana', AIR 1934 Mad 718 (A) and --'Sreedevi v. Kurikkal', AIR 1939 Mad 934 (B).2. The suit out of which this reference arose was instituted in the Court of the District Munsif of Palghat for the recovery of Rs. 1336-12-11 being the one-third share of the amount realised by defendants by granting a felling lease of the reared forest comprised in the holding for Rs. 3800 and interest thereon The properties in question belonged in jenm Olappamanna Mana of which the plaintiffs are receivers appointed in O.S. ...
Kanthy Balavendram Vs. S. Harry
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-10-1953
Reported in: AIR1954Mad316; (1953)IIMLJ689
1. This is a petition under Section 18, Indian Divorce Act for a declaration that the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent is null and void. The petitioner is the wife and the respondent the husband. They were married under the Christian Marriage Act, 1872, at Cuddalore on 29-5-1945. The petition was founded on the allegation that the respondent, the husband, was impotent at the time of the marriage and at the time of the institution of the suit. Under Section 19(1) of the Act, a decree for nullity of marriage can be made on that ground. The petitioner alleged that the respondent's male organ was so abnormally big as to render sexual intercourse with her impracticable, and it proved to be positively dangerous to the life of the petitioner; that on the several occassions when the respondent attempted to have intercourse with her the petitioner evinced great aversion to the act and also suffered great pain on each occasion, with the result that she had to push the responden...
R.M.V. Seshasayana Rao and ors. Vs. Manuri Venkatesa Rao and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-07-1953
Reported in: AIR1954Mad531; (1953)2MLJ647
Venkatarama Aiyar, J.1. This revision arises out Of proceedings taken by the respondents for evicting the petitioners who ate in occupation of a house at Guntur as their tenants. The respondents are brothers and it is stated by the petitioners that they (respondents) are members of a joint undivided Hindu family. The application for eviction was filed under Section 7(3)(a)(i) of the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act XXV of 1949, on the allegation that the only house in which the members of the family were residing was a small one and that one of the brothers who had just retired from service, the first applicant wanted this house for his own occupation. The Rent Controller dismissed the application on the ground that the house which was in the occupation of the family 'afforded enough of accommodation for the first applicant, also'. It is conceded that this was due to a mistake, as the house inspected by the Rent Controller was not the house in the occupation of the family....
In Re: Sellamuthu Padayachi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-05-1953
Reported in: AIR1954Mad313
Govinda Menon, J.1. The appellant has been sentenced to transportation for life by the learned Sessions Judge of Tiruchirapalli division for the murder of one Kaliyaperumal by beating him with a bamboo stick at Karadikulam village, Udayarpalayam taluk, on 12-6-1952. We do not wish to express any opinion regarding the credibility of the prosecution evidence in view of the course which we are adopting.The learned Sessions Judge believed P. Ws. 1 to 4 and 9 who, according to him, deposed consistently and with very good demeanour. The evidence of these witnesses may or may not be trustworthy, but it is unnecessary to express any opinion about it. The question of importance that has been argued is whether the proceedings before the Sessions Judge were vitiated by an event that happened in the committing court and if that is so, whether the entire committal and trial are thereby rendered null and void. 2. As stated by the learned Sessions Judge, in the committing court, the investigating off...
HussaIn Kasam Dada, Represented by Sakoor Dawood, Agent and anr. Vs. V ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-05-1953
Reported in: AIR1954Mad528; (1954)IMLJ27
Govinda Menon, J.1. These two appeals arise under the provisions of the Indian Arbitration Act from the orders of the Subordinate Judge of Vizagapatam, allowing O.P. No. 36 of 1946 and dismissing O. P. No. 24 of 1936 on his file.2. The appellant had entered into three contracts with the contesting respondent for the sale of groundnut and though the contracts themselves have not been exhibited in the court below, the specimens have been admitted by consent of parties in order to know the nature of the agreements. The first contract related to the sale of 500 bags of groundnut and is dated 23-8-1945 at the rate of Rs. 20-12-0 per bag with the stipulation that the delivery would take place in December 1945. Towards the price, a sum of Rs. 2500 was paid as advance. The second contract dated 26-8-1945 related to the sale of another 500 bags of groundnut at the rate of Rs. 21 a bag with the stipulation for delivery in December 1045 itself. As advance towards this transaction a sum of Rs. 250...
Chinnadorai Alias Loganathan (Minor by Guardian P. Ramaswami Pillai) V ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-04-1953
Reported in: AIR1954Mad642; (1954)IMLJ100
1. This is an appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against an order of Rajagopalan J. dismissing an application by the appellant for review of the order made by him on 26th April 1950 directing a preliminary decree for partition to be passed. The learned Judge says it was virtually a consent order. But that circumstance does not make a material difference so far as the point on which we think this appeal should be disposed of is concerned. In our opinion, we think that no appeal lies against the order.2. The application for review was filed evidently under Order XLVIT, Rule 1. Civil Procedure Code. Order XLVII, Rule 7 of the Code clearly Rays that an order rejecting an application for, review is not appealable. Obviously, that should conclude the matter. It was, however, contended by Mr. Gopalakrishnan on behalf of the appellant that in spite of the express provision in Order XLVII, Ruls 7, the order in question would be a "judgment" within the meaning of Clause 15 of the Lette...
Public Prosecutor Vs. Rajanga Chetti and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-03-1953
Reported in: AIR1954Mad285; (1953)2MLJ499
Govinda Menon, J. 1. These are appeals by the State under Section 417, Criminal P. C. against the acquittal of the respective respondents for an offence under Section 250 read with Section 313, Madras District Municipalities Act by the First Class Bench Court of Cuddalore O. T. The question raised in each one of them is identical and so all the cases can be dealt with together by one and the same judgment. 2. The Sanitary Inspector of the Cuddalore Municipality filed complaints against each of the respondents on the ground that each one of them had installed and worked an oil engine of 5 H. P. in agricultural lands without obtaining a licence from the Municipality. The defence was that under Section 250, Madras District Municipalities Act no licence was necessary, because the section does not apply to the installation and working of oil engines in agricultural land. The Bench of Magistrates relied upon a judgment of our learned brother Panchapakesa Aiyar J. in -- 'Venkatachala v. Execu...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›