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.
Velicheti Satyanarayana Vs. Koppaka Venkataramayya (Minor) Represented ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-07-1947
Reported in: AIR1947Mad401; (1947)1MLJ313
Frederick William Gentle, C.J.1. This is an appeal pursuant to the Letters Patent of this Court by the plaintiff in the suit from a judgment of Somayya, J., sitting in second appeal, reversing the learned Subordinate Judge of Narasapur, who dismissed an appeal from the learned District Munsif of Narasapur. The matter for determination is whether an order passed by the Provincial Government under Section 57 of the Madras Co-operative Societies Act VI of 1932 (hereinafter called ' the Act') is valid.2. The facts are a little complicated, but, so far as they are relevant to this appeal, they can be shortly stated.3. On 8th January, 1935, the plaintiff purchased an immoveable property at a sale in execution of a decree upon an award passed under the Act. On 6th March 1935, the sale was confirmed and on 17th September of the same year a sale certificate was issued to the plaintiff and he was put in possession of the property. Before the confirmation of the sale the first defendant in the su...
Chodagiri Seshayya Vs. Alluri Venkataraju and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-06-1947
Reported in: AIR1947Mad381; (1947)1MLJ240
Frederick William Gentle, C.J.1. At some time prior to the year 1893, the exact date is unknown, one Chodagiri Bojjigadu died leaving a widow, Viri, and a daughter. At the time of his death he owned three items of immoveable property. The widow died about the year 1917. Prior to her death she had alienated those items of property and two other items which the Court below held were her stridhanam property. The daughter died in 1943. The plaintiff in the suit is the nephew of Bojjigadu and he claimed from the alienees or their successors all the five items of property on the ground that they formerly belonged to Bojjigadu and that the alienations were not binding upon him.2. The plaintiff was unsuccessful in respect of all items of property and the present appeal was filed challenging the judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge of Narsapur before whom the suit came on for hearing and by whom it was decided. At the outset Mr. Chandrasekhara Sastri for the plaintiff-appellant informed us...
Kammela Somasundaramma Vs. Kammela Seshagiri Rao Alias Professor Giri ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-06-1947
Reported in: AIR1947Mad378; (1947)1MLJ292
Wadsworth, J.1. This appeal arises out of a judgment which purports to dismiss the appellant's suit on a preliminary issue. An objection was raised to the maintainability of the appeal based on the contention that the decision must really be regarded as one of dismissal for default under Order XVII Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and that in such circumstances the only remedy is by way of an application under Order IX, Rule 9 to set aside the dismissal, and that such an application having been made in this case and having been rejected, no appeal against the decree in the suit can lie.2. The plaintiff appellant filed the suit against her two brothers praying that the first defendant be directed to deliver to the plaintiff certain moveable properties or pay the value thereof. The suit was filed in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Bezwada and was transferred to the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Masulipatam. In the latter Court the contention was taken by the first defenda...
D. Chenchiah and ors. Vs. the Commissioner of Police and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-05-1947
Reported in: (1947)1MLJ190
Horwill, J.1. On the 23rd January, 1947, at 4-30 or 5 a.m., the twelve petitioners were arrested by police officers; but were not told why they were arrested, or under whose orders they were arrested, or even under what provision of law. From their homes they were taken to the Central Jail at Vellore. Later on, during the working hours of the Government Press, Ordinance I of 1947, signed by the Governor of Madras, was published in the Fort St. George Gazette of that day, Part IV-B, Extraordinary, which empowered the Provincial Government or the Chief Presidency Magistrate to issue an order for the detention of any person, if the Provincial Government or the Chief Presidency Magistrate, as the case might be, was satisfied that it was necessary to detain that person with a view to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the public safety or to the maintenance of public order. In the course of the same day, two of the petitioners filed applications under Section 491 of the Co...
The Public Prosecutor Vs. Atchamma and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-05-1947
Reported in: AIR1948Mad487; 1949CriLJ30; (1947)1MLJ197
ORDERYahya Ali, J.1. This batch of revision petitions involves a common point which can be disposed of by one judgment. Two sets of statements are said to have been made by the respective respondents in all these cases which are contradictory and the trial Magistrate directed the making of a complaint by means of an order under Section 476 of the Criminal Procedure Code. That order was reversed on appeal by the Sessions Judge, Cuddappah. The learned Sessions Judge came to the conclusion on a scrutiny of all the facts in evidence that it is not expedient in the interests of justice to prosecute the respondents for the alleged offence of giving false evidence. With that finding based as it is on evidence I entirely agree.2. The learned Public Prosecutor points out that in the course of the judgment, the learned Sessions Judge has committed two errors of law which in the interests of the administration of justice should not be allowed to remain unrectified. The first question relates to t...
V. Subramania Aiyar Vs. S.C. Annasami Iyer and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-03-1947
Reported in: (1947)2MLJ279
Kuppuswami Aiyyar, J.1. The appellant is the legal representative of the judgment-debtor in O.S. No. 323 of Andu IIII on the file of the Principal District Munsiff's Court, Trivandrum. The respondent is the decree-holder. The appeal arises out of proceedings in execution of the decree in the suit stated above. The defendant in the suit was not a resident of Travancore State and it has been held by both the lower Courts that the suit was not one cognizable by the Trivandrum District Munsiff's Court, against the defendant therein and the plea raised by the legal representative of the defendant was that the decree was passed without jurisdiction and therefore ought not to be executed. Both the Courts have found that there was submission to the jurisdiction and therefore the decree was validly passed and could be executed. It is as against that order this appeal has been filed.2. It has been held by a Bench of this Court in Narappa Maicker v. Govindaraja Naicken (1934) 67 M.L.J. 187 : I.L....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›