Chennai Court February 1947 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.
Lakshmi Achi Vs. Subramania Pillai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-20-1947
Reported in: AIR1947Mad370; (1947)2MLJ20
Wadsworth, J.1. The petitioner filed a suit claiming a declaration that she was j the trustee of certain properties and that a series of alienations of these properties in favour of the various defendants were not binding on the trust. As she lived outside British India and she had no properties within British India she was at the instance of various defendants required to furnish security for costs of the suit. She failed to furnish the security within the time required and the suit was dismissed on 21st December, 1943. After this order she filed I.A. No. 25 of 1944, a petition to restore to file the suit dismissed for failure to furnish security. She also filed another application praying the Court to receive a draft security bond. With the latter, we are not now concerned. I.A. No. 25 of 1944 was dismissed and it is against the dismissal of that application that C. M. A. No. 434 of 1945 was filed.2. In this appeal an application C. M. P. No. 2918 of 1946 was preferred by respondents...
Kamisetti Subbarayadu Vs. Pathi Subbamma
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-18-1947
Reported in: (1947)1MLJ350
Wadsworth, J.1. One Thayaramma died on the 5th January, 1931 leaving a will dated the 30th December, 1930. Thayaramma had a sister who was the plaintiff in the Court below and two children, the elder being the defendant who is the appellant here and the younger a daughter. Both the children were minors when she died. By the will the paternal aunt of the testatrix one Pedda Venkatasubbamma was appointed executrix along with two others and she was also nominated as the guardian of the minors. The appellant became a major in 1942. He was at that time a ward under the Court and a petition was filed to declare him a major resulting in an order dated the 22nd February, 1943. On the 28th February, 1943 his guardian Pedda Venkatasubbamma handed over the properties to him. On the 24th March, 1943 the plaintiff, sister of the testatrix, demanded the right under the will to purchase the half share of item 3 in ' D ' schedule which is a house belonging originally to the plaintiff and Thayaramma. T...
In Re: M.S. Mehdi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-14-1947
Reported in: (1947)2MLJ192
Happell, J.1. The petitioners are being prorecuted for an offence in contravention of the Military Stores (Unlawful Possession) Ordinance (Ordinance XXXIII of 1943), and on the 12th January, 1946, the Additional District Magistrate of Vizagapatam framed a charge against them under Section 3 of this Ordinance. The petition before us is brought to quash the charge. The ground on which the petition is supported is shortly that the Ordinance has expired and that, as it contains no provision within itself for the continuation of proceedings, the proceedings commenced before its expiration have automatically determined.2. By our order in : AIR1947Mad325 . my learned brother and I have recently held that criminal proceedings instituted under the orders and Ordinances with which the petitions were concerned could be continued after their expiration. These orders and Ordinances, however, were made under the Defence of India Act and the grourds for our decision were (1) that where the orders rel...
Alagappa Corporation by Sole Proprietor, Dr. R.M. Alagappa Chettiar Vs ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-14-1947
Reported in: (1947)2MLJ260
1. The defendants who are called United Brokers sold 700 ordinary shares of the Steel Corporation of Bengal, Ltd., to the plaintiff-corporation. The sales were on 11th May, 1945 of 100 shares at Rs. 33-1-0 and 200 shares at 33-1-6, 100 shares at Rs. 33 per snare on 12th May, 1945, and 200 shares at Rs. 33 per share on 16th May, 1945. Besides these transactions of sale, the defendants took upon themselves the liability to deliver to the plaintiffs 100 ordinary shares of the same Steel Corporation at Rs. 31-11-0, which was an obligation of Messrs. Dalal & Co. The suit is to enforce specific performance of the contract to sell and, in the alternative for damages of Rs. 13,506-4-0, on the basis of the value of the shares at Rs. 52 per share on the date of the plaint. There is also a claim for the recovery of Rs. 612-8-0, being the dividend which has accrued due on the 700 shares. In addition, the plaintiffs seek payment of a sum of Rs. 484-6-0, being the amount due to them on statement of ...
Pokuri Sivaramiah and anr. Vs. Vodde Audi Reddi (Minor) and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-14-1947
Reported in: AIR1947Mad357; (1947)1MLJ239
Kuppuswami Ayyar, J.1. The appellant is the decree-holder. He obtained a decree against the sons of a Hindu father in respect of a sum due on a promissory note executed by the father and endorsed over to the decree-holder. A decree was passed against the assets of the father now in the hands of his sons. The decree was sought to be executed under Sections 52 and 53 of the Code of Civil Procedure and it was contended by the defendants that the father did not have any separate properties of his own and that the decree cannot be executed against the joint family properties. Under Section 53 of the Code of Civil Procedure the property in the hands of an undivided Hindu son or other descendant which is liable under Hindu Law for the payment of the debt of a deceased ancestor, in respect of which a decree has been passed, shall be deemed to be the property of the deceased which has come to the hands of the son or other descendant as his legal representative. The matter was considered in Bhad...
In Re: Rethu Venkata Appala Naidu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-13-1947
Reported in: (1947)1MLJ225
ORDERYahya Ali, J.1. This is a reference made by the Sessions Judge, Vizagapatam, under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to revise the order made by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Vizianagaram, under Section 522(1). It was a case of trespass against the three accused for which they were convicted. Following the conviction the complainant applied under Section 522(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the restoration of possession of the land to him. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate took the view that Section 522(3) would apply only if there was show of force or use of force. The learned Sessions Judge has pointed out that that view is not correct and that what is required is that the offence should have been attended by criminal force or show of force or by criminal intimidation and it should appear to the Court that by such force or show of force the complainant was dispossessed of the land. In the present case there was evidence, as indicated by the learned Sessions Judg...
G.V. Arunachalam Aiyar Vs. Lakshminarasimham and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-12-1947
Reported in: (1947)1MLJ276
Frederick William Gentle, C.J.1. This is an application by the second respondent in the appeal who was the second defendant in the suit. The first respondent was the plaintiff and the appellant was the first defendant. The suit was decreed in favour of the plaintiff (first respondent in this Court). The second respondent has filed cross-objections in the appeal seeking to obtain relief against the first respondent.2. The appellant died a few months ago, and this is an application by the second respondent to bring on record the legal representatives of the appellant. The application is made within time and there is no question of the appeal having abated when the application was instituted.3. It is opposed by the first respondent, the argument being that only the legal representatives of the appellant can make the application, which is not one available at the instance of, in this case, the second respondent. In support of the argument, reference was made to Order 22 Rule 9(2) of the Co...
J. Kuppuswami Chetty Vs. B.V. Anantharamier and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-10-1947
Reported in: AIR1948Mad40; (1947)1MLJ297
Frederick William Gentle, C.J.1. The appellant and the two respondents formerly carried on a business in partnership under the name of Bhagyalakshmi & Co. Disputes arose between them which were referred to the arbitration of three named arbitrators by an agreement in writing between the parties, dated 4th January, 1945. The agreement, inter alia provides that (1) in case P. Govindasawmi Ghetti (one of the arbitrators) declined to act, the appellant should be at liberty to nominate another arbitrator in his place ; (2) in case two of the arbitrators declined to act, the whole arbitration should come to an end and the parties be relegated to their prior rights ; a decision of the majority of the arbitrators should be the decision which must prevail in all matters connected with the arbitration ; (3) the arbitration should be completed within one month from the date of the agreement subject to an extension of time, not exceeding six weeks thereafter, being taken if all the three arbitrato...
In Re: Miyala Narasimhacharya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-07-1947
Reported in: AIR1947Mad413; (1947)1MLJ186
ORDERGovindarajachari, J.1. The same point arises in these four criminal revision cases which can therefore be conveniently dealt with together. Crl. R. C. Nos. 268, 269, 270 and 271 of 1946 have arisen respectively out of C.C. Nos. 138, 139, 140 and 142 of 1943 on the file of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Coondapur. The sole accused in C.C. No. 138 of 1943 is one Miyala Narasimhacharya who held two powers of attorney from the previous Swamiar of Sri Pejawar Mutt in Udipi who died on 16th October, 1939. The accused is said to have continued in management of the affairs of the Mutt even thereafter. It is alleged that he was entrusted with and was having dominion over certain gold jewels belonging to the said Mutt. In C.C. No. 139 of 1943 Narasimhacharya is the first accused and the second accused is a person who is described as his shanbhogue. Narasimhacharya and a clerk are the accused in C.C. No. 140 of 1943. The sole accused in C.C. No. 142 of 1943 is a person who is described as a ...
Gopalaswami Ayyar Vs. Nataraja Chettiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-07-1947
Reported in: AIR1948Mad17; (1947)1MLJ279
Govindarajachari, J.1. The facts necessary for the decision of this appeal may be briefly stated. One Perambala Chettiar and his two sons, one an adult and the other a minor, sold certain lands to the father of the third defendant on 26th January, 1920, for Rs. 46,000. Rs. 34,000 out of the price was paid by the vendee and for the balance of Rs. 12,000 the vendee executed on the same day a deed of simple mortgage mortgaging the properties which he had just purchased. The mortgage (Ex. P-2) was executed in favour of the vendors, namely, Perambala, Kanakasabai, Perambala's son by his first wife and the first plaintiff in the present suit and ' a male child unnamed ', who, it is admitted, is the present first defendant. The present second defendant was not then born. The first and second defendants are Perambala's sons by his second wife. Though the mortgage deed was executed in favour of Perambala and his two sons then in existence, it is obvious that it was a mortgage in favour of the j...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »