Chennai Court October 1954 Judgments
Perumal Chetti Vs. Province of Madras and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-29-1954
Reported in: AIR1955Mad382
Hajamannar, C.J. 1. This appeal under the Letters Paten against the judgment of Raghava Rao J. in S. A. No. 1851 of 1947, arises out of a suit brought by the province of Madras in the Court of the District Munsif of Chingleput to set aside an order passed by the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Chingleput on a claim petition in the following circumstances: Certain minors represented by their mother as next friend brought a suit 'in forma pauperfs' in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Chinglepul for the partition of alleged family properties against the father and grandfather of the minors and others. (The statement in the judgment of the learned Judge that the suit was brought by defendant 2 as the next friend is not accurate). Pending the suit, the mother died, and defendant 2 in the present suit was appointed nextfriend in her place. The suit (O. S. No. 72 of1940), was not heard and disposed of. On9-8-1940, when the case was called, defendant 2,the next friend was not present, a...
Tag this Judgment!Munian Vs. Kesava Pandithan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-29-1954
Reported in: AIR1955Mad467
ORDERBasheer Ahmed Sayeed, J.1. C. R. P. No. 1079 of 1952 arises out of an order passed by the learned District Munsif of Vridhachalam, refusing leave to the petitioner to file a suit in 'iorma pauperis' on the ground that he has means to pay court-fee due on the plaint. In the order relesing leave to sue as a pauper the learned District Munsif directed the petitioner to pay court-fee on or before 31-1-1952. This direction was not complied with by the petitioner and when the matter came up again and after giving further extension of time, the learned District Munsif dismissed the original petition for leave to sue in 'forma pauperis'. No appeal or revision has beep preferred against that subsequent order dismissing the original petition for leave to sue as a pauper.2. A preliminary objection has been taken by the learned counsel for the respondent that the C. R. P. No. 1079 of 1952 is not competent by reason of the subsequent order rejecting the plaint in toto for non-compliance with t...
Tag this Judgment!A. Krishnaiyya Vs. Dominion of India, Represented by the General Manag ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-29-1954
Reported in: AIR1955Mad619
ORDERBasheer Ahmed Sayeed, J.1. This civil revision petition has arisen out of an order passed by the Full Bench of the Presidency Court of Small Causes on a new trial application filed by the railway administration against a decree passed by the learned Registrar of the Court of Small Causes, Madras, in the sum of Re. 0-2-6 against the railway administration and in favour of the petitioner in this Court.2. The petitioner is the holder of a season ticket to travel between Pointed and Madras. At the time he was possessed of this ticket, he was employed as an arbitrator under the Town Planing Act and he had to go to Madras in connection with his official duties. On a particular day, it is stated that the petitioner was obliged to travel in a class lower than the class for which he held the season ticket.It may be noted that his season ticket was for enabling him to travel by the second class but on the day in question he actually travelled by third class because in the train by which he ...
Tag this Judgment!Chellu Vs. Municipal Council, Palghat and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-28-1954
Reported in: AIR1955Mad562
Govinda Menon, J.1. This second appeal arises out of a suit for damages for malicious prosecution by the defeated plaintiff in both the lower courts.2. The respondents defendants, are respectively the Municipal Council, Palghat, the Commissioner of that municipality during the years 1943 to 1946 and a neighbour of the plaintiff. The learned District Minis if as well as the learned Subordinate Judge held that though the plaintiff was acquitted in the criminal proceedings the prosecution was not without reasonable and probable cause and was not actuated by any malice and also that the suit against the Commissioner was bad for want of notice under Section 80, C. P. C. The plaintiff has come up in second appeal against the decision of the lower, appellate court.3. Both the plaintiff and the third defendant were owners of neighbouring compounds in each of which is situated a house with appurtenant gardens containing fruit trees and other trees. The plaintiff became the owner of one pf the p...
Tag this Judgment!R.S. Subbiah Chettiar Vs. Seeranga Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-15-1954
Reported in: AIR1955Mad557
Govinda Menon, J.1. A question of contribution under Section 82, T. P. Act, is the subject-matter of controversy in this second appeal which arises out of a suit by the present respondent for a sum of Rs. 1327-14-0 being two-thirds of the price of the property lost by him.2. One Arumugham Chettiar was the owner of the two items of properties and he mortgaged both of them to Komaran Chettiar on 3-11-1930. On 5-9-1938 Arumugham Chetty sold item 1 to the plaintiff. In execution of a money decree against Arumugham Chetti, item 2 was purchased by the fourth defendant who is the appellant in this second appeal. After this decree, the mortgagee, Komaran Chettiar filed O. S. No. 647 of 1944 on the file of the lower Court for realisation of the sum of money due under the mortgage of 3-11-1930.In that suit both present plaintiff and the fourth defendant were made parties, the plaintiff being the fourth defendant and the fourth defendant being the fifth defendant in O. S. No. 647 of 1944. It may ...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: A.S. Socha Gowder
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-14-1954
Reported in: 1956CriLJ754
ORDERSomasundaram, J.1. The petitioner in this case has been convicted for an offence under Section 175, I.P.C. and sentenced to a fine of Rs. 100 by the first court, which was reduced to Rs. 25 by the appellate court. The petitioner was acting as karnam of certain villages during the absence on leave of another karnam. The Collector appointed P. W. 3 as the karnam of those villages to whom the accused has to surrender all his records.The order appointing P-.W. 3 was communicated to the petitioner and in spite of P. W. 3 asking for the records, the accused failed to hand over the records to P. W. 3.On 9-11-1953 the Tahsildar personally directed the accused to hand over charge to P. W. 3. Even, then the accused did not do so. On 12-11-1953. the Tahsildar went to the village of the accused. He was found absent.The collector then issued an order to the police to take necessary action against the accused. Then, on 24-11-1953 the accused voluntarily handed over charge to the revenue inspect...
Tag this Judgment!A. Veerabhadran Chettiar Vs. E.V. Ramaswami Naicker and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-13-1954
Reported in: AIR1955Mad550; 1955CriLJ1268
ORDERSomasundaram, J.1. This is a revision against the order of the Sessions Judge of Tiruchirapalli division refusing to order further inquiry in a case in which the First Additional First Class, Magistrate of Tiruchirapalli dismissed the complaint under Section 203, Criminal P. C.2. A complaint was laid by the petitioner herein against the respondents for offences under Sections 295 and 295-A. I. P. C. The complaint is that accused 1 broke the mud image of Ganesa in public at the Town Hall maidan on 27-5-1953 at 5-30 p. m. So far as the offence under Section 295-A is concerned, sanction of the Government is necessary under Section 196, Criminal P. C., and as no such sanction was obtained, the trial Court was perfectly justified in stating that he could not take cognizance of that offence.3. As regards the offence under Section 295, I. P. C., what is stated by the trial Court is that the mud figure of Ganesa alleged to have been broken by accused 1 was not an object held sacred or wor...
Tag this Judgment!Mettur Chemical and Industrial Corporation Ltd. Vs. their Workers
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-13-1954
Reported in: (1955)ILLJ27Mad
ORDERRajagopalan, J.1. On 20 March 1964 in exercise of the powers conferred on the Government of Madras by Section 10(1)(c) of the industrial Disputes Act (XIV of 1947), the Government referred for adjudication to the industrial tribunal, Coimbatore, disputes between the management and the workers of Mettur Chemicals and industrial Corporation. The claims of the workers' for additional bonus and additional dearness allowance formed the subject-matter of the disputes. In due course the management and the workers' union filed their statements before industrial tribunal. On 11 May 1954 the management filed a list of the witnesses it desired to examine during the enquiry as also a list of documents, copies of these documents were also filed which included balance sheets of the company for each of the years ending 31 March 1950, 1951, 1952 and 1953, abstracts of the company's accounts under five heads were also furnished for the years 1950-51, 1951-52 and 1952-53, (1) details for raw materi...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: T. Subramania Achari
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-12-1954
Reported in: AIR1955Mad129; 1955CriLJ514
ORDERRamaswami, J.1. These are two connected matters for (a) setting aside the Order made by the learned District Magistrate (Judicial) Salem in O. A. No. 71 of 1954 dismissing an appeal sought to be preferred in his court on the ground of limitation; and (b) for quashing the proceedings in C. C. 149 of 1954 on the file of the Sub-divisional Magistrate, Dharmapuri.2. The facts are : The petitioner herein Subramania Asari, Kammala Street, Dharmapuri, presented a typed complaint before the Sub-Magistrate, Dharmapuri, to the effect that his widowed daughter-in-law Sukirtham alias Manotunani Ammal who was living away from her husband for three years prior to his death on 27-1-1952 had become pregnant and had brought about a miscarriage and secretly burled the foctus ten days prior to the filing of the complaint. The father of this girl was accused of having abetted the commission of these offences. The Sub-Magistrate of Dharmapuri without recording the sworn statement of this complainant a...
Tag this Judgment!Muniammal Vs. P.M. Ranganatha Nayagar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-11-1954
Reported in: AIR1955Mad571
Ramaswami, J.1.These are two connected applications filed in a pauper suit, C. S. No. 99 of 1954 for (a) interim maintenance and (b) appointment of a Receiver.2. The facts are: The properties which constitute the subject-matter of this suit, viz., houses bearing door Nos. 80, 81, 82 and 83 in Edapalayam Street and No. 5, Rangapillai Garden St. (Kondi-thope), Park Town, Madras, and other properties originally belonged or were acquired out of the assets left by the late Ramaswami Naidu. This Ramaswami Naidu died in December 1905, surviving him his second wife by name Salammal and a son by name Govindarajulu Naidu.The plaintiff Muni animal is the widow of that Govindarajulu Naidu who died in 1918. This Govinda-rajulu Naidu was also survived by another wife by name Amirthavalli Animal. This plaintiff bore a child to this Govindarajulu Naidu which died after birth even before Govindarajulu's death. Salammal died in 1937. Amirthavalli Animal also bore 110 issue to Govindarajulu Naidu.The sec...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »