Chennai Court August 1946 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.
Moturu Nagaraju Vs. Moturu Parvatamma
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-07-1946
Reported in: AIR1947Mad316; (1947)1MLJ81
Kuppuswami Ayyar, J.1. The defendant is the appellant. The appeal arises out of a suit filed by the wife for recovery of separate maintenance due to her from her husband. Her case was that there was neglect and ill-treatment. The first Court found that the plaintiff had not made out a case for separate maintenance and dismissed the suit. When the matter came up before the appellate Court, it was proposed by both the parties that they would try to settle between themselves and that some time might be given to see if it would be possible for them to live together happily. Some time was given and after that, they reported that they could not live together with the result that the learned District Judge gave a decree for maintenance at Rs. 15 a month. He has not considered the question whether the plaintiffs entitled to a separate maintenance. The case in the first Court has been disposed of on the ground that the plaintiff has not made out a case for separate maintenance and it is on that...
Vellai Goundan Alias Munisami Goundan and ors. Vs. Manian Rajagopal Mu ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-06-1946
Reported in: AIR1947Mad310; (1947)1MLJ68
Kuppuswami Ayyar, J.1. The defendants are the appellants and the appeal arises out of a suit for recovery of money due on a mortgage bond for Rs. 400 executed on 5th February, 1931, by the first defendant, the father of defendants 2 and 3, in favour of the plaintiff. The trial Court found that the mortgage bond was supported by consideration to the extent of Rs. 75 only and gave a decree for that amount and interest thereon. On appeal by the plaintiffs, the learned District Judge of North Arcot at Vellore holding that the burden of proof was on the defendants following the observations of the Privy Council in Bhagwan Singh v. Bishambar Nath (1940) 2 M.L.J. 452 : I.L.R. 1940 Mad. 267 (P.C.) held that it is not for the plaintiff to prove affirmatively the passing of the consideration and decreed the suit as prayed for. Hence this second appeal.2. It is true in this case evidence was let in by both parties examining a witness each and the case could have been disposed of on that evidence ...
Ramaswami Naicker Vs. Rangaswami Naicker and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-02-1946
Reported in: AIR1947Mad245; (1946)2MLJ251
ORDERYahya Ali, J.1. This case was first tried by the Sub-Magistrate of Sattur, who after examining the witnesses for the prosecution framed a charge against accused 1 and 2 under Sections 324 and 323 Indian Penal Code respectively on the 3rd May, 1945. Subsequently the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Sivakasi transferred the case to the file of the Sub-Magistrate of Virudhunagar. The case was taken on file on the 20th June, 1945, and summons issued to the accused and notice to the complainant. On 27th July, 1945, the accused applied to the Magistrate for a de novo trial and the application was granted and all the prosecution witnesses were resumnoned and reheard. The case stood posted on the 18th September, 1945, for the examination of the medical witness who was the only remaining prosecution witness. On that day the complainant was absent when called. The Sub-Magistrate of Virudhunagar discharged the accused and passed the following order:The complainant not appearing this day, the dat...
K. Kandaswami and anr. Vs. K.K. Neelamagam Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-02-1946
Reported in: AIR1947Mad112; (1946)2MLJ368
Chandrasekhara Aiyar, J. 1. The Rent Controller, Kumbakonam, made an order for delivery of a house to the petitioner. The order is in these terms:The petitioner and 1st respondent are present. The 1st respondent agrees to put the petitioner in possession of the property on 11th December, 1945. The petitioner agrees to this proposal. It is ordered accordingly. 2. Possession of the house was not delivered as per the order and the petitioner sought execution of it in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Kumbakonam not only against the 1st respondent, Muthuswami Thevar, but also against respondents 2 and 3, K. Kandaswami and K. Kamalambal Ammal, the second respondent being the brother-in-law of the first respondent and the third respondent being the second respondent's wife. They were party-respondents to the application for eviction before the Rent Controller. It is pointed out by the learned Subordinate Judge that the second respondent agreed to the eviction order and that the third res...
Rahima Bibi Vs. A.K. Sherfuddin
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-01-1946
Reported in: AIR1947Mad155; (1946)2MLJ305
Horwill, J.1. The appellant (the second defendant) was at all relevant times a minor Muhammadan girl. The first defendant is her brother and the third defendant her father. Both her father and brother were desirous of getting the girl married; and an opportunity arose of marrying her to a rich man, her guardian-ad-litem in this suit. The parents, however, were unable to raise sufficient funds to conduct the marriage and so approached the plaintiff, the girl's maternal uncle, and told him of their need. Although he did not enter into a contract with the first and third defendants, yet he expressed his willingness to spend such money as was necessary for the marriage. He did not intend to do so gratuitously and as the money was not repaid, he brought this suit impleading the girl, her father and her brother. The trial Court granted him relief under Section 68 of the Contract Act. The lower appellate Court upheld the finding of the trial Court.2. Although the principle enunciated in Secti...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›