Chennai Court March 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.
Ganesan Minor by Guardian Vs. M. Ganapathy Iyer and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-21-1947
Reported in: AIR1947Mad440; (1947)2MLJ126
Lakshmana Rao, J.1. This second appeal arises out of a suit by the reversioners of one Venkatarama Iyer for recovery of his estate and the question for decision is whether the adoption of the minor first appellant by Venkatarama Iyer's widow Naravani Ammal is valid.2. Venkatarama Iyer died without issue on 8th February 1925, leaving a resistered will, Ex D-1, dated 24th November, 1924, and Narayani Ammal adopted a boy named Nataraja on 19th February, 1925 under the authority conferred on her by the will. He died a bachelor at the age of i7 years on 4th September, 1942, and Narayani Ammal adopted the first appellant on 15th September 1944. She died three days later and the suit was filed soon after on the ground that the will gave no authority to make the second adoption.3. The will is in Tamil and the agreed translation is as follows:As I am now weak in my body and as I have no issue the undermentioned properties worth about Rs. 4, 000 shall be enjoyed by me so long as I am alive and a...
Minor Balaraj Represented by Next Friend, Vijayalakshmi Ammal Vs. Pich ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-21-1947
Reported in: (1947)2MLJ161
Rajamannar, J.1. The lower Courts have dismissed the plaintiff's suit for a declaration that the property described in the schedule to the plaint belongs to the plaintiff and for a permanent injunction restraining the first defendant from interfering with their possession. They held that the plaintiffs were precluded from agitating this claim because it had been found against their father in a prior litigation, O.S. No. 165 of 1935, on the file of the District Munsiff's Court, Trichinopoly. Of the two plaintiffs who were minors, the second plaintiff died in the trial Court itself. The first plaintiff was the appellant in the lower appellate Court and is the appellant here. According to the first plaintiff he was born on the 16th April, 1935. The prior suit was instituted on the 18th March, 1935, that is to say, on the date of the institution of the prior suit the first plaintiff was in the womb.2. Mr. K.V. Srinivasa Aiyar, the learned advocate for the appellant, contended that the deci...
Khaja Hassanulla Khan, Sajja-da-nishIn of Royal Mosque Vs. Royal Mosqu ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-21-1947
Reported in: AIR1948Mad134; (1947)1MLJ395
Frederick William Gentle, C.J.1. The plaintiff is the appellant in this appeal which relates to a mosque known as the 'Royal Mosque' in Rajahmundry. In respect of the mosque a scheme was framed under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure and decreed in 1930 by the learned Subordinate Judge's Court in O.S. No. 46 of 1924, and the decree was upheld on appeal. The scheme vested the properties of the Royal Mosque and the control and administration of its affairs in a Board of trustees. The appellant was not a party to the scheme suit.2. When the trustees sought to obtain possession of the mosque, in pursuance of the scheme decree, they were obstructed by one Sheikh Mowla and his tenant, a man named Hanumantha Rao, who claimed the right to occupy one room. The trustees instituted O.S. No, 23 of 1940 in the same Court against Hanumantha Rao for possession of the room and, ultimately, on appeal to this Court, possession was decreed. When the trustees applied for possession, they were obst...
R.M.P.R.M.M. Subramaniam Chettiar and ors. Vs. Navaneethakrishna Marud ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-19-1947
Reported in: (1947)1MLJ357
Frederick William Gentle, C.J.1. In this civil miscellaneous petition the applicants seek to be made parties to an appeal now pending before His Majesty in Council. The first applicant was a party to all the proceedings which have now eventuated in the appeal to the Judicial Committee, but throughout he entered no appearance, and remained ex parte. He appears to have been a financier of one of the parties in the litigation and his present object is to obtain more moneys in addition to what he has already received as consideration for financing the litigation. The other applicants are his sons.2. The appeal was admitted nearly three years ago. The records were printed in India, were transmitted to the Privy Council in December, 1946, and were received there on the 17th January, 1947, as evidenced by a better of that date from the Registrar of the Privy Council to the Registrar of this Court acknowledging the receipt of the records of the proceedings and stating that the appeal has been ...
The Tirumalai Tirupati Devasthanams Committee, Represented by Its Comm ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-19-1947
Reported in: AIR1947Mad390; (1947)1MLJ411
ORDERYahya Ali, J.1. This is a petition by the plaintiffs in O.S. No. 305 of 1945 (District Munsiff's Court, Tirupati) for a temporary injunction restraining the respondents who are the defendants in the suit from interfering in any manner with the free and uninterrupted flow of water from the plaint channel to the petitioners' lands. The suit was filed for a declaration that plaintiffs 2 to 7 are entitled exclusively to the supply of water from the suit channel and for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with that supply and from taking away water from that channel in its course towards their lands. An application for a temporary injunction was made in the trial Court and the District Munsiff who had granted an ad interim injunction made that injunction absolute on 14th December, 1946, in I .A. No. 821 of 1945. The defendants in the suit had filed I.A. No. 894 of 1945 to set aside the interim injunction and that petition wad dismissed. Appeals were taken...
In Re: Munuswamy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-18-1947
Reported in: AIR1947Mad386; (1947)1MLJ336
Yahya Ali, J.1. The appellant has been convicted by a Special Honorary Presidency Magistrate under Section 379 read with Section 75 of the I.P.C. and sentenced to two years' rigorous imprisonment. The Magistrate has further directed that out of that period, one month should be passed in solitary confinement.2. This is a simple case of theft. P.W. 1, a weaver in the Buckingham and Carnatic Mills, was, after receiving his pay, coming home. On the way he stopped at a shop and bargained for a ready-made shirt. At that place the appellant is said to have removed from P.W. 1 is pocket some currency notes which represented his salary. He was immediately caught and handed over to the police with the currency notes.3. The appellant admitted the offence and pleaded guilty to the charge under Section 379 as well as to the charge under Section 75 of the Penal Code. The only question therefore is as to the sentence. In a case of this kind which does not contain any circumstances whatever of an aggr...
Puppala Ramamurthi Vs. Kandulapati Kanakaratnam and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-14-1947
Reported in: AIR1948Mad208; (1947)2MLJ281
Govindarajachari, J.1. This appeal is by the third defendant in a suit for maintenance filed by the first respondent, the junior widow of one Gopalam, who died on the 8th June, 1931. Gopalam's senior widow, Mahalakshmamma, is alive, but is not a party to the suit or appeal. The first defendant was adopted to Gopalam by Mahalakshmamma on the 20th October, 1931. Shortly after Gopalam's death there were disputes between his widows culminating in a suit for partition (O.S. No. 578 of 1931) on the file of the District Munsiff's Court of Ellore. The present first respondent was the plaintiff in that suit and the senior widow was the defendant. The adoption of the present first defendant would appear to have been made during the pendency of that suit, to which, however, the adopted son was not a party. That suit resulted in a decree in favour of the first respondent for a half share in Gopalam's estate. Possession in pursuance of the decree was given to her on 17th May, 1936. From 1931 to 193...
In Re: T.C. Kandaswamy Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-14-1947
Reported in: (1947)1MLJ331
ORDERRajamannar, J.1. This appears to be a case which, in the words of Singleton J., in a recent case in the King's Bench Division, ' is very much easier to argue than one in which to give judgment.'2. The petitioner was convicted under Rule 81(4) of the Defence of India Rules read with Clause 2 of the Madras Rice Mills Licensing Order, 1943, and sentenced to one month's rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 150. On appeal to the Sessions Judge the conviction was confirmed, but the sentence of imprisonment was reduced to the period already served and the sentence of fine was upheld. The petitioner seeks to revise the said decision of the Sessions Judge.3. The offence with which he was charged was that he hulled paddy in his rice mill without a licence in contravention of Clause 2 of the Madras Rice Mills Licensing Order, 1943. Under Clause 2 of that order, on and after the date from which that order came into force no person shall carry on the business of milling rice by power-driven...
The Western India Oil Distributing Co., Ltd., Through Its Local Agent ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-14-1947
Reported in: (1947)1MLJ360
Frederick William Gentle, C.J.1. This is a Letters Patent Appeal against the judgment of Chandrasekhara Aiyar, J., who reversed the decision of the learned Additional Second Judge, City Civil Court, decreeing the appellants' (plaintiffs in the suit) claim for the return of a petrol pump and tank or Rs. 2,900 its value. Since, prior to the suit, the respondent, (defendant in the suit), alleged he had purchased the pump from the appellants there was a claim in the alternative, for the price. At the trial, and also at the hearing before Chandrasekhara Aiyar, J., the ownership of the petrol pump was asserted by the respondent. Both Courts held against this contention ; there is no appeal by the respondent and no notice of cross objections has been given by him. Consequently the finding regarding the appellant's ownership is conclusive. The learned Additional Second Judge held the suit was not barred. Chandrasekhara Aiyar, J., found to the contrary and this is the plaintiffs' appeal against...
The Receiver Vs. Muttangi Buchiramayya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-13-1947
Reported in: AIR1948Mad151; (1947)2MLJ144
Patanjali Sastri, J.1. This is an application to revise an order of the Agent to the Government of Madras refusing to refund one half of the court-fee paid by the petitioner on his plaint in Q.S. No. 1 of 1941 on his file.2. After the defendant filed his written statement, issues were framed in the suit, but before the. suit proceeded to trial, the parties compromised the matter and a decree was passed in terms of the compromise. The petitioner claims that under Rule 29(2)(ii) of the Agency Rules he is entitled to a refund of half the Court-fee paid. The clause runs as follows:In all suits which are adjusted by an agreement or razinama or which are otherwise settled out of Court or which are withdrawn or are decreed on confession, the plaintiff shall be entitled to a refund of one half of the Court-fee paid on the plaint if the agreement or razinama is reported to it or the withdrawal or the confession is made before any hearing of the suit has been held.The question is whether the raz...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »