Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1950Mad440
Panchapakesa Ayyar, J.1. In the peculiar circumstances of the case, I am of opinion that the congestion of the jaggery, which belonged to this petitioner, for the offence committed by the lorry driver whom he had engaged to transport it and who transported it at night time against the rules was not justified, as contended by Mr. Y. Rajagopalachari, advocate for the petitioner, since it was not proved that the offence of transporting the jaggery during the night was committed by the lorry driver with the knowledge or connivance or criminal negligence of the petitioner. There is a presumption of innocence under the law, and no man shall suffer in person or property normally unless he is proved to have had the necessary mens rea. Mere suspicion of knowledge or connivance or criminal negligence will not do even for confiscation. Nor will the act of a servant or agent or carrier do. Suppose a carrier of a gun of another was convicted under Section 19, Arms Act, the gun should not normally b...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1950Mad606
Rajamannar, C.J.1. Defendants 2, 8 and 10 in O. S. No. 96 of 1945 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Trichiropoly are the appellants before us. On 9th March 1939, properties described in Schedule B to the plaint which belonged to plaintiff-respondent 1 who was then a minor were sold by defendant 6 his mother as his guardian along with her co-widows defendants 5 and 7 to appellant 1 (defendant 2) for Rs. 2900/-. The plaintiff two years after attaining his majority filed the above suit to recover possession of the properties after setting aside the alienation. The consideration of Rs. 2900/- was made up of 11 items, all set out in the sale deed. The extent of the lands old was 2 acres 48 cents. The learned Subordinate Judge found that the sale deed was true and the entire sum of Rs. 2900/- recited as its consideration was paid by defendant 2 in cash or by adjustment or paid by her husband, D. W. l on her behalf to the persons named as creditors in the sale deed or to th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1950Mad385
ORDERPanchapakesa Ayyar, J.Deliberate attribution of immorality falsely to a wife will certainly fall under the definition of legal cruelty and entitle a wife to live separately from such a husband and claim separate maintenance. Chanakya, the great Prime Minister of the Mauryas, has proclaimed this more than 2200 years ago in his Artha Sastra. In India, this kind of thing has always been considered legal cruelty though not small beatings of wife, cessation of conjugal relations with her for long periods of Deeksha etc. So the petitioner was certainly entitled to live separately from the respondent and claim separate maintenance from him. On the evidence I fix the quantum of maintenance at ten rupees a month payable from the date of the filing of the petition in the lower Court by the petitioner....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1952Mad323; (1952)IMLJ71
1. These second appeals and the civil revision petitions arise out of a batch of suits relating to the village of Manamelpatti, a Dharmasanam village, in the Ramnad District. The suits out of which these second appeals arise were instituted by the trustees of Airabhadeswarar Soundaranayagi Amman Temple for ejectment of the defendants from the lands in their respective possession and for recovery of rent for faslis 1349 and 1350 and for future profits. The village comprises 80 pangus out of which the plaint temple in this batch owns 23 1/2 pangus purchased from the original owners and one pangu taken on othi from the owner. The plaintiffs in the batch of suits out of which the civil revision petitions arise are the managers of the Devasthanam of Nagara Vairavanpatti Valaroleeswaraswami Nagara Vairavaswami Devasthanam. This temple owns 54 and 5/8th pangus or shares in the village and suits were instituted for recovery of the balance of amounts due as 'iru bogam' for faslis 1349 and 1350....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1950Mad488
ORDERKrishnaswami Nayudu, J.1. The question that arises for determination in this revision petition is whether in a petition filed by the arbitrators under Section 14, Arbitration Act (Act X [10] of 1940) for filing an award, persons who were eo nomine, not parties to either the agreement of reference or to the award could be added as necessary parties under Order 1, Rule 10, Civil P. C. On a reference made by three brothers, Subbaratnam Chettiar, Vasudevan Chettiar and Krishnaswami Chettiar to two arbitrators regarding the partition of their family properties the arbitrators gave an award. The award was filed by the arbitrators under Section 14, Arbitration Act, in O. P. No. 90 of 1947, on the file of the Subordinate Court of Trichinopoly. Subbaratnam Chettiar remained ex parte in the arbitration proceedings. He became insolvent since the filing of O. P. No. 9 of 1947, and the Official Receiver of Trichinopoly was brought on record as representing his estate. Subbaratnam Chettiar file...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1950Mad511
ORDERPanchapakesa Ayyar, J.1. The petitioner, P. Krishnamurti, has been convicted under Section 37(4), City Police Act and has been fined Rs. 35 by the 3rd Presidency Magistrate, Madras, for receiving beta on horses running at the Guindy races at about 3-30 P. M. on 4th December 1948.2. Mr. Ghatala, for the petitioner, raised three main contentions: The first was that P. W. 2, who swore to his giving the petitioner Rs. 1.4.0 three times that day for betting, cannot be believed as P. W. 2 did not know the petitioner before and could not have paid him the three bet amounts, especially as there were the regular race course men ready to receive bets. I cannot agree. The regular race course men don't receive petty amounts like Rs. 1-4-0 from betting enthusiasts of poor means like P. W. 2. They cater to gentlemen who can afford to pay the regulation bet amount. Bucket-shop men secretly cater to men of petty means like P. W. 2. Nor is previous friendship essential for giving and taking bets. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1951Mad506; [1950]18ITR586(Mad); (1950)2MLJ353
Satyanarayana Rao, J. 1. Under section 66 (i), Income-tax Act, the Appellate Tribunal referred to this Court the following question :'Whether in the circumstances of the case the finding of the Appellate Tribunal that there has been no partition within the meaning of Section 25-A is right.'The applicant who is the assessee is the karta of a Hindu undivided family which consisted of himself and his two minor sons, Chocka-lingam and Meyyappan. Daring the assessment year 1940-41, the assessee applied under Section 25-A, Income-tax Act, for an order recording a partition which had taken place among the members of the family. The family was assessed till that date as an undivided family. In December 1941, another son was born; but thepartition claimed was long before that date and even before the period of gestation. According to the applicant the partition was on 22-2-1940 which was reduced to writing on 5-4-1940, as evidenced by the partition deed of that date. The property of the family ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1950Mad432
ORDERPanchapakesa Ayyar, J.1. The conviction of the petitioner was undoubtedly correct. An exchange of buildings by two persons inevitably involves the vacancies of both buildings. A vacates building A, B vacates building B then A occupies building B, and B occupies building A. The mere naming of such a double vacancy and double occupation as an exchange cannot alter the facts. So the petitioner was bound to notify the vacancy of the Rs. 35/- building to the Controller and take his permission to occupy it instead of quietly occupying it herself.2. I have held already in two recent cases that 'rent' under Section 3 (2) means the 'actual rent' paid or payable, and not a 'fair rent' when none has been fixed. Surely, a person receiving from another Rs. 35/- as rent in hard cash cannot be allowed to quibble and say that the actual rent will be much less. The rule that a person cannot approbate and reprobate or blow hot and cold in the same breath will apply here also.3. So, I confirm the pe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1950Mad463
Viswanatha Sastri, J.1. C. M. S. A. No. 37 of 1946, C. R. P. No. 822 of 1945 and C. R. P. No. 149 of 1946 all arose oat of C. M. P. No. 846 of 1944 in O. P. No. 57 of 1927 on the file of the District Munsif's Court, Amalapuram, and were all dismissed by Govindarajachari J. who, however, granted leave to appeal in C. M. S. A. No. 37 of 1946 from which this Letters Patent appeal has been filed.2. The facts are these. On llth October 1922 Viswanatharaju created a simple mortgage over his lands in favour of two brothers, Venkataraju and Sooraparaju for Rs. 2500/- repayable in eight annual instalments with interest at RS. 1-0-6 per mensem. Sometime later, the hypotheca was sold to Sayeed Oosman, the original appellant in the Letters Patent appeal since dead, and now represented by his legal representatives. Sayeed Oosman paid several instalments of principal and interest during the years 1925 to 1927 and deposited in the District Munsif's Court of Amalapuram a sum of Rs. 997/- being the bal...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1950Mad601
Rajamannar, C.J. 1. The plaintiff is the appellant. He filed a suit in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Amalapuram for a declaration that he was the adopted son of one Dattatrayalu and for possession of the properties set out in schedules B and C to the plaint from the several defendants who were in possession of portions of them. Defendant 1 who died pending the suit was the widow of Dattatrayalu. Dattatrayalu left behind him his last will and testament dated 27th November 1896. In and by this will he gave his widow authority to make an adoption to him, but he indicated that she should adopt one Durgayya son of Venkatanarasayya, his nearest gnati and only in case the natural father of the said boy was unwilling to give him in adoption, she was given authority to take in adoption any boy of her choice. He owned an extant of 11 acres 75 cents in Indupalli and he disposed of these properties as follows: He gave absolutely 2 acres to his elder brother Subbayya Sastrulu, l acre 50 cen...
Tag this Judgment!