Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1951Mad531
Subba Rao, J. 1. These are two connected appeals and the only question that arises in both the appeals is whether the plaintiff would be entitled to the declaration asked for. On 19-4-1936 one T. N. S. Chockalingam Chetty executed a promissory note in favour of the defendant V. S. Subramania Ayyar for a sum of Rs. 31,500 and deposited with him the title deeds of three sets of properties by way of equitable mortgage. The properties so comprised in the equitable mortgage consist of 10 items of Chochaligam Chetty's own properties in Madras, two items in Madras in regard to which he had only mortgage interest and his mortgage interest in some properties situated in Karaikkal in the French territory. The said properties situated in Karaikkal were mortgaged by the plaintiff's father Vythilingam Pillai to Chockalingam Chetty by a deed of the year 1025. Subramania Ayyar filed O. S. 63 of 1939 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Sivaganga to enforce the equitable mortgage and i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1950Mad406
ORDERPanchapakesa Aiyar, J.1. I see no reason to interfere in revision in this case. Hurling down a bundle of bangles of a fellow passenger and breaking them will not allow a passenger, even though he is a railway official travelling in the train, not liable under Section 120, Railways Act, as such an act is not an act done or doable by a railway servant as such and the ruling in Gurunath Shankar v. Emperor : AIR1937Bom357 will not apply. There is no illegality or failure of justice in this case. 2. The petition is dismissed. ...
Tag this Judgment!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 : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1950Cal191
ORDERR.P. Mookerjee, J.1. This application in revision is on behalf of the creditor. On an application by the creditor, an award was made by Fatepur Debt Settlement Board on 25th January 1942. In 1944, an application was filed by the debtor before the Collector of 24 Parganas for permission under Rule 91 (b) read with Section 44, Bengal Agricultural Debtors Act for review of the award which had been made in January 1942 inasmuch as more than 60 days had expired from the making of the award. On 21st July 1944, the order passed by the Collector permitting review of the previous award was received by the Debt Settlement Board. From the order sheet maintained by the Board, it appears that after the receipt of that intimation various orders were passed from time to time, sometimes directing service of notice on the creditor and sometimes on the debtor concerned. On 12th April 1946 up to which the proceedings were continuing before the Board, the latter directed the debtor to file a formal a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1950Cal314,54CWN220
Sen, J.1. This Rule has been obtained by the Corporation of Calcutta against an order passed by Sri P. Basu, Municipal Magistrate, Calcutta, awarding costs against the Corporation and directing the Corporation to pay compensation to the complainant, The proceedings were under, Section 535, Calcutta Municipal Act of 1923. One, Krishna Chandra Sil filed a petition before the Magistrate complaining that a nuisance was being caused by a Dal mill. This matter was gone into by the learned Magistrate and he directed the Corporation to close down the mill within one mouth from the date of his order and in the same order he passed the order for costs and compensation. This was done behind the back of the Corporation as no notice was served upon the Corporation before the order was passed. It is true that Section 535, Calcutta Municipal Act does not provide for any notice being served but in my opinion it would be entirely unfair and unjust and against all principles of law to pass an order pena...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1950All327
Seth, J.1. The appellant in this case is the judgment-debtor. He objected to the execution of the decree against him, pleading that the application for execution was barred by limitation. This objection has been overruled by the lower Court although it was upheld by the Court of first instance. So the judgment-debtor has come up to this Court in second appeal, repeating the same objection.2. The decree sought to be executed was passed ex parte, on 4th November 1933. The defendant applied under Order 9, Rule 13, Civil P C., to have it set aside. This application was dismissed on 30th October 1934, and the appeal from the order dismissing this application was itself dismissed on 30th January 1936. The first application for execution was made on 12th November 1941, and was dismissed for default, eight days later, on 20th November 1941. The second application for execution, which has resulted in this appeal, was made on 3rd October 1944. It would be in time under Article 182 (5), Limitatio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : AIR1950P& H167; 1950CriLJ884
ORDERKapur, J.1. This was a rule directed against an order passed by a learned Magistrate of Karnal whereby he convicted Harbilas, petitioner, for an offence Under Section 161, Penal Code, and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for six months and a fine of B3. 300. The petitioner went up in appeal to the Sessions Judge, Karnal, who upheld the conviction and the sentence. Against this order the petitioner has come up in revision to this Court and a rule was issued by my learned brother Palahaw J.2. The facts of the case are that the petitioner was at one time an unpaid candidate in the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Karnal. The alleged offence is of 23rd July 1948 on which date he was not an unpaid candidate as he was before. It is stated by Raj Kishen, Arms Clerk, O. W. 3 that he was allowed to work in the office by him for the purpose of assisting him (Raj Kishen). According to the statement of Arjun Daa P.W. 6, the petitioner used to make entries in the office registers but t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : AIR1950P& H268; 1950CriLJ1326
ORDERDas, C.J.1. It is intended by this judgment to dispose of forty-one several revision petitions N0S. 231 to 246 of 19:16, 304 to 319 of 1949, 382 to 383 of 1949 and No. 419 of 1949. Bach of the petitioners was sent up for trial for having exported foodgrains from the Province of East Punjab to the Province of Delhi in contravention of the Foodgrains (Movement Control) Order, 1946, and thereby having committed an offence Under Section 7, Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act (Act XXIV [24] of 1946). Each of the petitioners was tried summarily under chap. XXH, Criminal P.C. and was convicted by the trying Magistrate and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three months, the food-grains with respect to which the offence was committed being forfeited to the Crown, Each of the petitioners went to on appeal but the learned Additional Sessions Judge upheld the conviction but in some cases reduced the sentence to two months rigorous imprisonment, the order of forfeiture being maintai...
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!