Chennai Court February 1958 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.
Muthu Sethurayar and anr. Vs. Louduswami Odayar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-20-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Mad111; 1959CriLJ335; (1958)2MLJ619
ORDERSomasundaram, J. 1. This is a revision petition against the order of the Ex-Officio First Class Magistrate at Mannargudi in M. S. No. 1 of 1957 on his file. The petitioners herein are A party, and the respondents B party. A party, that is, the petitioners herein, asked for an order under Section 145, Criminal P. C., in respect of the properties which are subject-matter of dispute and which are mentioned in the schedule annexed to the petition.In accordance with the procedure laid down, affidavits and also documents were filed by both parties. As the lower court was unable to decide as to who was in possession of the properties, the matter was referred to the Subordinate Court. Tanjore, under Clause 1 of Section 146, Criminal Procedure Code. The Subordinate Court, after perusing the affidavits and the documents, gave a finding that B party was in possession of the lands and transmitted the findings together with records of proceedings to the Magistrate who made the reference.The ma...
In Re: P. Kousalya Ammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-19-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Mad184
ORDERRamaswami, J. 1. This is an application for impleading P. Kausalya Ammal as heir of the deceased P. B, Kalahasthi Chetti, the second defendant in O. S. No. 884 of 1955, who died on 18th June 1957, pending disposal of the suit. 2. The contest to be brought on record as the heir of deceased Kalahasthi Chetti is between the father's brother's daughter's adopted son of the deceased by name Guruwayya Chetti and the father's brother's son's widow of the deceased Kalahasthi Chetti. 3. Looked at from any point of view the petitioner cannot be impleaded. Here are my reasons. 4. Taking the Hindu Mitakshara system as administered in Madras the father's brother's daughter's adopted son of the deceased will be a Athma Bandhu. This petitioner will not be a heir because the heirship can be claimed only by birth and not by matrimony. In the Mitakshara system as administered in Bombay undoubtedly this Kausalya Ammal will be heir No. 45 and will exclude this Guruvayya Chetti. Under the Dayabagha sy...
Muthuramalinga thevar Vs. the State of Madras Represented by the Chief ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-18-1958
Reported in: AIR1958Mad425; 1958CriLJ1047; (1958)IIMLJ169
P. Rajagopalan, Offg. C.J.1. On 28-9-1957 the petitioner was taken into custody for preventive detention and he was served with an order passed by the Collector of Ramanathapuram District who was the Additional District Magistrate ex-officio, under Section 3(2) of the Preventive Detention Act. 4 of 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).That order of detention was approved of by the Government of Madras on 5-10-1957 under Section 3(3) of the Act. Meanwhile in compliance with the requirements of Section 7(1) of the Act, the grounds on which the order of detention was passed were set out in the memorandum dated 28-9-1957, and this was served on the petitioner on 30-9-1957. On 17-10-1957 the petitioner's case was referred to the Advisory Board under 8. 9 of the Act, and when the petitioner submitted his written representations on 24-10-1957 those papers also were forwarded to the Advisory Board.The petitioner exercised his right to be heard in person, and the Advisory Board heard him o...
Coimbatore Municipality, Represented by the Commissioner Vs. K.L. Nara ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-14-1958
Reported in: AIR1958Mad416; 1958CriLJ1046; (1958)IMLJ388
ORDERRamaswami, J.1. The point that arises for determination is whether when there is a delay beyond' 60 days in preferring under Section 417 (4), CrIPC an application for granting special leave to appeal the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act will apply. Section 29 (2) of the Limitation Act runs as follows:Where any special or local law prescribes for any suit, appeal or application a period of limitation different from the period prescribed therefor by the first schedule, the provisions of Section 3 shall apply, as if such period were prescribed therefor in that schedule, and for the purpose of determining any period of limitation prescribed for any suit, appeal or application by any special or local law (a) the provisions contained in Section 4, Sections 9 to 18, and S- 22 shall apply only in so far as, and to the extent to which, they are not expressly excluded by such special or local law; andb) the remaining provisions of this Act shall not apply.This question has been...
Raghava Reddy Vs. Kanniappan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-14-1958
Reported in: (1958)2MLJ177
ORDERRamaswami, J.1. This Criminal Revision Case is preferred against the acquittal of the accused. In this case no doubt notice has been given, and I have looked into the application for excusing the delay after hearing the other side. The delay is 23 days after excluding the time for obtaining the copies. The affidavit discloses sufficient circumstances for excusing the delay. But incidentally the point that arises for determination is whether the extreme position taken by the learned advocate for the respondent, namely, that such an application for excusing delay cannot be disposed of without giving notice to the accused in this Revision Petition filed under Section 439, Criminal Procedure Code, is really well founded. The power of revision can be exercised both suo motu and on being moved on behalf of the aggrieved party. It is a paternal and supervisory jurisdiction. Its object is to correct miscarriage of justice, errors, etc. Section 439, Criminal Procedure Code itself does not ...
Venkatasubbaraya Ayyar Alias Papier and ors. Vs. State of Madras and a ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-13-1958
Reported in: (1958)1MLJ413
P. Rajagopalan, C.J.1. We are in entire agreement with the reasoning and the conclusions of Rajagopala Ayyangar, J. That the appellants were entitled to the Thirishvekam grant was never in dispute. It was also common ground that the mode of payment of the Thirishvekam allowance, to which the appellants and their predecessors-in-title were entitled, was by adjusting what was payable to each of the sharers of the Thirishvekam grant to what was payable by him as rent on the holdings he held in the estate. The Thirishvekam grant was one-sixth of the beriz of the village of Papanaickenpatti. So long as Papanaickenpatti was an estate village, the permanent patta, under which this adjustment was permissible with reference to the holding of each of the appellants, was enforceable and it was so enforced, e.g., A.S. No. 26 of 1911 on the file of the District Court, Salem. But now the rights and liabilities of the appellants in relation to Papanaickenpatti, which was one of the villages in the es...
K. Sarojini Devi Vs. A. Krishnamoorthy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-13-1958
Reported in: (1958)2MLJ166
P. Rajagopalan, O.C.J.1. This appeal filed under clause 15 of the Letters Patent arose out of proceedings which commenced with the presentation of O.P. No. 254 of 1954 in the City Civil Court. That petition was presented by Krishnamoorthy, the respondent in the appeal before us, under the provisions of the Hindu (Bigamy Prevention and Divorce) Act, Madras Act VI of 1949. The reliefs Krishnamoorthy sought were: (1) dissolution of his marriage with his wife Sarojini Devi, the appellant before us, and (2) the custody of the only child of the marriage, then aged about four. The application was dismissed by the Principal City Civil Judge. Neither of the prayers was granted. Krishnamoorthi appealed (C.M.A. No. 58 of 1956). In disposing of that appeal Ganapatia Pillai, J., upheld the findings of the trial Court and came to the conclusion that, as the wife had been living away from the husband for reasons which could be justified, the dissolution of the marriage asked for by the husband could ...
D. Sitaraman and ors. Vs. S.S. Pattabhiraman Alias Rathnam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-13-1958
Reported in: AIR1958Mad453; (1958)2MLJ255
ORDERBalakrishna Ayyar, J.1. In C.M.P. No. 2995 of 1957 the appellants in S.A. No. 326 of 1957 applied for stay of the execution of the decree of the Court below. On 2nd September, 1957, Ramaswami, J., passed the following order in the C.M.P.:Stay asked for will stand granted if security is furnished in the sum of Rs. 5,000 to the satisfaction of the trial Court within two months from the date of this order and failing which this application will stand dismissed with costs. This will be in addition to the sum of Rs. 2,000 already deposited, which will not be allowed to be withdrawn pending disposal of the appeal by the appellants.2. In order to obtain the benefit of this order the appellants had to furnish security by 2nd January, 1957. On 25th October, 1957, they tendered security of property which was valued by the Amin at over Rs. 11,000. Objection was taken that the 1st petitioner had only a fractional interest in the property and that therefore the security was insufficient. On 4t...
R. Subramania Odayar Vs. Board of Revenue by Commissioner of Land Reve ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-12-1958
Reported in: (1958)1MLJ410
ORDERBalakrishna Ayyar, J.1. On 20th February, 1956, the Additional District Magistrate of Tiruchirapalli issued a licence under Section 7 of the Places of Public Resort Act, 1888 to the Manager of the Kala Touring Talkies, permitting him to put up a temporary cinema-shed on S.F. Nos. 310/1, 310/2 and 245/1 of Melakalkandar Kottai Village, hamlet of Alathur. In April 1957, the Collector of Tiruchirapalli issued what is described as a ' no-objection' certificate to the proprietor of the same talkies in respect of S.F. No. 310/1 of Alathur Village. This meant that subject to the other requirements of the statute in that behalf being satisfied a temporary cinema could be constructed and run in S.F. No. 310/1 of Alathur village. In June, 1957, the Collector granted a similar ' no-objection ' certificate to the proprietor of the Vani Touring Talkies in respect of a survey field which is . two furlongs away from S.F. No. 310/1. One of the rules framed under the Madras Cinemas Regulation Act ...
V. Narayanaswami Vs. Sri Mohan Prasad Singh Deo Zamindar of Bodogode E ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-11-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Mad82
Ramachandra Iyer, J.1. This appeal arises out of the decree and judgment in C. S. No. 14 of 1950, on the original side of this court. The plaintiff is the appellant. He instituted the suit under the Summary Chapter against the respondent for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 35,350 on the foot of a registered bond, Ex. P. 1 dated 3-3-1937, executed by the respondent and his father. The debt remained undischarged to any extent till the date of the suit. The respondent was granted on his application leave to defend, on condition that he deposited a sum of Rs. 3617 in court.This was done by the respondent. In the trial the only plea that was raised was that the action was barred by limitation inasmuch as the bond was one which stipulated for the repayment of the debt in seven annual instalments commencing from 1-1-J938, and that under Art. 74 of the Limitation Act only the claim in respect of the last instalment of Rs. 2000 which fell due on 1-1-1944 was in time. Ramaswami Gounder J., who trie...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »