Chennai Court September 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.
Picha Mooppanar Vs. Velu Pillai and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-06-1946
Reported in: AIR1947Mad203; (1946)2MLJ404
Govindarajachari, J.1. The appellant in this second appeal filed Small Cause Suit No. 644 of 1940 in the Court of the District Munsiff of Ambasamudram against one Krishna Pillai on a promissory note executed by him and obtained a decree. The appellant sought to execute his decree by attaching the properties set out in the schedule appended to the present plaint. The first defendant in this suit who is the first respondent in the second appeal filed a claim petition objecting to the attachment on the ground that the suit property fell to his share in a family partition entered into between Krishna Pillai his father, himself and his brother Arumugham Pillai who is the second defendant in the present suit and the second respondent in the second appeal. The claim petition was allowed and the attachment was raised. The appellant thereupon filed the suit out of which this second appeal has arisen alleging that the partition relied upon by the first defendant was entered into with intent to d...
Kannan alias Raman Nair Vs. Valia Meladethil alias Vadakke Meladethil ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-06-1946
Reported in: AIR1947Mad209; (1946)2MLJ436
Happell, J.1. This is an appeal from the judgment in appeal of the Subordinate Judge of South Malabar at Palghat confirming the decree of the District Munsiff of Alathur in favour of the plaintiff in O.S. No. 90 of 1943. The first defendant in the suit is the appellant.2. The plaintiff had been the karnavan of the Kavasseri Vadakke Meledom. By the decree in O.S. No. 35 of 1917 in the Court of the District Munsiff of Alathur, he was removed from the management of the Edom, but the decree at the same time provided that the plaintiff was to be given 300 paras of paddy per annum by the Edom for his maintenance. The karnavan who was appointed in the plaintiff's place was removed by the decree in O.S. No. 14 of 1925 in the District Munsiff's Court of Alathur and defendants 2 and 3 in the present suit were appointed managers in his place. Subsequent to the decree in O.S. No. 35 of 1917 the managers mortgaged the properties of the Edom. On the 1st of November, 1927, they executed a usufructuar...
Meenakshi Ammal Vs. T.S. Chidambaram Chettiar (Died) and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-06-1946
Reported in: AIR1947Mad341; (1947)1MLJ66
Yahya Ali, J.1. This appeal is against the order of the Subordinate Judge of Madura in E.P. No. 33 of 1944, in O.S. No. 96 of 1926, on his file. The application was for the sale of the share of the deceased first defendant in items 2, 3 and 5 of A schedule property in realisation of the decree amount. This petition was dismissed chiefly on the grounds that the plaintiff's application with regard to these items was barred under Section 48 of the Code of Civil Procedure, that items 2, 3 and 5 are inalienable service inam land and their sales are opposed to public policy and that it was not open to the executing Court to entertain an application for their sale in execution.2. Mr. Ramaswami Aiyar argued before me that both these conclusions were wrong. It will be convenient to deal with the second point first. The principle is undoubtedly well settled that an executing Court cannot go behind the decree and pass an order in execution which will have the effect of nullifying the decree. To t...
T.S. Dorairaj Vs. S.R. Lakshmi Alias Rajalakshmi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-05-1946
Reported in: AIR1947Mad172; (1946)2MLJ318
Sydney Wadsworth, Officiating C.J.1. This appeal arises out of an application under Section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act preferred by the present respondent in which she prays for an order for the restoration of the custody of her minor son of whom the appellant is admittedly the father. The facts are not seriously in dispute. Both the appellant and the respondent are cinema artists, the appellant apparently being a man of importance in the cinema world and the respondent being comparatively unimportant. In 1941, they met in the course of their profession and the appellant took the respondent into his house as his concubine. She lived with him at Madura in a house in which the appellant's wife was also, living. In March 1943, the child with whose welfare we are now concerned was. born and at or about the time of its birth the appellant added to his household the younger sister of the respondent who also became his concubine. In 1945 relations, between the appellant and the respond...
In Re: Bommareddi Satyanarayana Reddi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-04-1946
Reported in: AIR1947Mad174; (1946)2MLJ364
ORDERYahya Ali, J.1. This is an application to quash two additional charges framed by the Sub-Magistrate of Bezwada against the petitioner who is the accused in C.C. No. 9 of 1946 on the file of that Court. The case started on a private complaint in which the petitioner was charged with having committed offences under sections. 323, 325 and 355 of the Indian Penal Code. After hearing the evidence adduced for the complainant, the Magistrate framed a charge only under Section 323, but subsequently, he added the charges under Sections 325 and 355 and it is with reference to these additional charges that this application is filed.2. The contention of the learned advocate for the petitioner is that the act of the Magistrate in framing a charge only under Section 323 when the complaint alleged three specific offences, amounted to a discharge of the petitioner under Sections 325 and 355, and after that discharge was made the Magistrate had no jurisdiction to frame the additional charges. He c...
Sri Raja D.K. Venkata Lingama Nayanim Bahadur Varu (Since Deceased) an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-04-1946
Reported in: AIR1947Mad216; (1946)2MLJ383
Patanjali Sastri, J.1. This appeal arises out of proceedings in execution of a final decree for sale passed as far back as 3rd May, 1927, for a large sum of money claimed as arrears of maintenance due to a junior member of the family of the Rajah of Kalahasti. The 24th defendant in the suit (O.S. No. 86 of 1916 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Chittoor) who is the appellant before us, pleaded that the application filed in the lower Court on the 1st November, 1939 (E.A. No. 379 of 1939) more than 12 years from the date of the decree was barred under the provisions of Section 48 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The respondent decree-holder claimed exemption under Sub-section (2) of that section on the ground that the appellant had prevented him by fraud from executing the decree. The Court below upheld the claim and ordered execution to proceed. The appeal is directed against that order.2. The appeal first came on for hearing before Mockett, J., and one of us on 23rd July, 1...
The Public Prosecutor Vs. Modi Kondayya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-03-1946
Reported in: AIR1947Mad184; (1946)2MLJ311
Yahya Ali, J.1. This is an appeal by the Public Prosecutor against the acquittal of the respondent by the Stationary Sub-Magistrate of Narsapur of the alleged offence of adulterating milk, an offence punishable under Rule 29 of the rules framed under the Madras Prevention of Adulteration Act, 1918 (hereinafter called the Act). As the respondent was not represented and the matter was of some public importance, Mr. B. T. Sundararajan was appointed amicus curiae and I am obliged to him for the valuable assistance rendered by him.2. The case brought by the Municipality of Palacole against the respondent who is a milk vendor, was that he was in possession, for the purpose of sale, of buffalo's milk which had been adulterated by the addition of 13 per cent, of water. A sample of the milk was obtained by the Sanitary Inspector, P.W. 1 who, aftre complying with the prescribed formalities, sent it to the Government Analyst who in his certificate Ex. F, gave the opinion that the sample sent to h...
Srimanthu Rajah Yarlagadda, Sivarama Prasad Bahadur Zamindar Garu, Zam ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-03-1946
Reported in: AIR1947Mad266; (1947)1MLJ57
Rajamannar, J.1. These appeals arise out of suits filed by the appellant, the Zamindar of Devakota who is a landholder under the Estates Land Act, for recovery of rent against several tenants in his estates in the village of Endakuduru. The lands comprised in the holdings of the defendants were dry, mamool wet, and bapat wet. The landholder claimed assessment at the rate of Rs. 1-7-0 for dry lands, Rs. 5-13-0 for mamool wet and Rs. 2-12-0 for bapat wet lands. The Deputy Collector decreed the suits as prayed by the plaintiff. But on appeal the learned District Judge has modified the rate as regards bapat wet lands for which he has awarded at the rate of Rs. 1-7-0 per acre, i.e., the rate pertaining to dry lands.2. From the evidence on record it appears that the lands now described as bapat wet lands were originally dry but were converted into wet lands when they could be irrigated with the aid of the water from the Krishna Anicut. It is not suggested by the landholder either in the plai...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›