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.
Angathevan Minor by Guardian Mother, Nagathal and ors. Vs. A.R.L.V. Na ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-13-1947
Reported in: (1947)2MLJ189
Horwill, J.1. In a former execution proceedings in execution of another decree, the same question arose as arises in the present suit, i.e., 'whether the property in dispute was the property of the first defendant or whether it was property in which the third defendant had a share which could be attached and sold in execution of the decree against him ?' It was there held that the third defendant did have a share in the property, it being the property of the joint family consisting of the first defendant and his two sons, the second and third defendants. This same question arises now in execution of another decree. The Courts below held that the earlier decision operated as res judicata in the present proceedings ; because (i) the question arose between the first defendant and the third defendant, (ii) it was necessary to decide that question for the purpose of disposing of the claim by the plaintiff, and (iii) the question was finally decided. The lower appellate Court also found that...
T.M. Ramakrishnan Chettiar Alias Mannar Krishnan Chettiar and ors. Vs. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-12-1947
Reported in: AIR1948Mad13; (1947)2MLJ72
Frederick William Gentle, C.J.1. This appeal arises out of an order by the learned Subordinate Judge of Trichinopoly who allowed the first respondent's application to correct a mortgage deed, a judgment, a preliminary decree and the final decree passed upon the mortgage deed. The first appellant is the original mortgagor, the other two appellants are his grandsons, and the first respondent is the assignee of the original mortgagee. The mortgage was created in 1922 in favour of one Vadivelam Pillai in respect of three items of property including one to which I will refer as No. 1467. In 1928 a preliminary decree was passed followed by the final decree in 1929. Shortly thereafter, the mortgagee discovered mat the mortgagor had no title to No. 1467 and in 1930, in E.A. No. 494 of 1939, he applied for attachment of property No. 1466 to which, it is apparently common ground, the mortgagor had a title. That application was ordered and attachment was effected. Nothing further was done for nea...
In Re: Pakkiriswami Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-12-1947
Reported in: AIR1948Mad297; (1947)2MLJ384
ORDERYaha Ali, J.1. There is no finding given by the Magistrates that the prosecution is expedient in the interests of justice. This is an incurable defect in the order made by the Magistrates under Section 476 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petition is allowed. The complaint filed will be withdrawn....
Pavayamal and anr. Vs. Samiappa Goundan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-12-1947
Reported in: AIR1947Mad376; (1947)1MLJ329
Chandrasekhara Aiyar, J.1. The plaintiffs who are the wife and the daughter respectively of the first defendant filed the suit for maintenance. Defendants 2 and 3 are the alienees from the first defendant of properties belonging to him. The District Munsiff decreed maintenance to the plaintiffs and made the payment a charge on the properties alienated by the first defendant to defendants 2 and 3 under Ex. D-2. On appeal by defendants 2 and 3 the Subordinate Judge has negatived the charge holding that Section 59 of the Transfer of Property Act does not apply because there was no evidence worth the name about the second and third defendants having knowledge of the claim for maintenance by the plaintiffs.2. In the first place, it cannot be said of the plaintiffs that they have got a right to receive maintenance ' from the profits of immoveable property ' when only Section 39 will come into play. Secondly, mere knowledge of the legal right would not appear to be enough as, if it were so, t...
Mrs. Grisilda Titus Vs. Mr. Louis Titus
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-12-1947
Reported in: AIR1947Mad425; (1947)1MLJ321
ORDERYahya Ali, J.1. The Joint Magistrate has completely ignored in this case the provisions of Section 489(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. On an application filed under this section it is the duty of the Court to consider whether a decision of the Civil Court leads to the consequence that the order passed by the Criminal Court under Section 488 should be cancelled or varied. There is no question of his considering whether the decision of the Civil Court has altered the circumstances of the case as the Magistrate has found. For the purpose of Section 489(2) the Criminal Court should take the decision as it stands and consider the necessary effect of it upon the order passed by the Criminal Court. If the consequence is that it should be varied or cancelled, effect must be given to it by cancelling the order or varying it accordingly. The discretion that is given in that sub-section to the Criminal Court is only for this limited purpose. In this case the Magistrate has taken upon h...
In Re: Ramanjulu Naidu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-12-1947
Reported in: AIR1947Mad281; (1947)1MLJ410
ORDERYahya Ali, J.1. I have given notice of this appeal to the Crown Prosecutor and heard him.2. The appellant has been convicted by the Special Honorary Presidency Magistrate under Sections 379 and 75 of the Penal Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for two years. The Magistrate has further directed under Section 73 of the Indian Penal Code that out of the above period of imprisonment, three months should be passed in solitary confinement.3. The conviction is undoubtedly warranted by the evidence. When P.W. 1, after shopping with his wife and another person boarded a tram, the appellant and another person boarded the same tram. The appellant pushed P.W. 1 forcibly and in that act snatched away a pocket watch with a rolled gold chain which was in the possession of P.W. 1. The appellant swiftly passed on the watch and the chain to the other person. P.W. 1 and others present immediately caught hold of the appellant and handed him over to the police.4. Before the Magistrate, the a...
The Corporation of Madras Vs. S.A. Khan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-11-1947
Reported in: AIR1947Mad447; (1947)2MLJ120
Frederick William Gentle, C.J.1. Plaintiffs Nos. 1 to 9 in the suit are stall-holders in the Moore Market, Madras. This is a public market in which there are altogether about 300 stalls and stall-holders. It is owned by the Corporation of Madras, the defendant in the suit. The stall-holders carry on various trades and businesses and sell their wares to the members of the public. Plaintiffs Nos. 1 to 9 allege that they were tenants of their respective stalls prior to September, 1944. It is not in dispute that they were stall-holders prior to that date ; but the Corporation disputes that they were tenants but alleges that they were mere licensees. The tenth plaintiff is an association, the members of which are stall-holders in the Moore Market, including plaintiffs Nos. 1 to 9, and the association seeks to represent in the suit the entire body of all stall-holders.2. It is beyond doubt that prior to the year 1936, each stall-holder entered into an agreement with the Corporation through i...
In Re: M.R. Venkataraman and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-10-1947
Reported in: (1947)2MLJ202
Horwill, J.1. Seven persons have filed a joint application that this Court should issue directions in the nature of habeas corpus under Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to produce the petitioners before this Court and to set them at liberty.2. Although the evidence adduced by the petitioners is very unsatisfactory, in that they have filed only one affidavit, and that by a person who had no acquaintance with the facts to which he has sworn, yet two allegations relied on by the petitioners seem to be true and are not denied by the learned Public Prosecutor The first is that they were remanded to the Central Jail, Trichinopoly, instead of to the Central Jail, Madura, which is the Jail to which prisoners are normally remanded when under trial in the Courts of the Madura district, including that of the Stationary Sub-Magistrate of Madura, in whose Court the petitioners were being tried. The other complaint of the petitioners is that the provisions of Sections 167 and 344 cf the...
Karunai Ammal and ors. Vs. Karuppan Goundan and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-10-1947
Reported in: AIR1947Mad373; (1947)1MLJ337
ORDERYahya Ali, J.1. The order of the Magistrate in this case is clearly wrong. At the time of the filing of the civil suit, the property was in custodia legis and all that was necessary for the plaintiff in the civil suit was to seek a declaration of his title. It was not necessary for him to ask further for possession of the property as the criminal Court would be bound to respect the declaration made by the Civil Court and to give due effect to it. See Sundaresa v. Sarvajana Sowkiabi Virdhi Nidhi : AIR1939Mad914 and Sesha Reddi v. Narasimha Reddi : AIR1941Mad803 . Another circumstance to be noticed in this case is that the present respondents were defendants 1 and 2 in the civil suit. When they raised the contention in that suit that the suit was bad because it was for a mere declaration and no consequential relief was prayed for, issue No. 10 was framed upon this contention in these words, ' Whether the suit is barred by Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act.'2. The Court found tha...
In Re: Karumuri Venkataratnam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-07-1947
Reported in: AIR1948Mad9; (1947)1MLJ359
ORDERYahya Ali, J.1. The petitioner has been convicted by the first Class Bench Magistrate, Rajahmundry, under Section 504, Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 25. He is said to have sold on the previous day some tobacco to the complainant. Next day the complainant came to the petitioner and without paying him the money removed the tobacco. This infuriated the petitioner and the petitioner is said to have used abusive words which provoked the complainant to beat him. It is also urged by the complainant that the petitioner besides abusing threatened to strike him with a knife ; but the Magistrates did not accept that part of the case. They found, however, that the accused did abuse the complainant for the non-payment of his dues and for removing the produce without payment and this abuse brought about the breach of the peace.2. This finding is not sufficient to support the conviction under Section 504, Indian Penal Code. That section requires firstly that there should ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »