Chennai Court April 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.
V. Barnard Vs. Mrs. Averil May Tresslor Barnard
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-16-1947
Reported in: AIR1947Mad437; (1947)2MLJ134
Frederick William Gentle, C.J.1. This matter comes before us under Section 17 of the Indian Divorce Act for confirmation of a decree for dissolution of marriage granted by the learned District Judge of Chingleput on the 13th February, 1946. Since it is impossible to confirm the decree and there are matters of irregularity appearing, it is desirable to state the relevant facts and circumstances.2. The husband is the petitioner seeking dissolution on the ground of adultery of his wife, the respondent. According to the petition she deserted him, that is to say, she left his house in Chingleput, about April, 1943 and it would seem that she joined the Women's Auxiliary Corps (India). The petition states that about a year before the date of the petition, which was instituted on the 10th October, I945, the husband was informed that the wife had been court-martialled for improper behaviour at Vizagapatam. It also alleges that before she left his house her conduct was such that he was suspiciou...
Alapati Venkata Krishniah Vs. Vemuri Manikyarau
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-16-1947
Reported in: AIR1948Mad171; (1947)2MLJ196
Rajamannar, J.1. The petitioner instituted a suit in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Tenali to recover the principal and interest due on a promissory note, dated 7th January, 1944, executed by the first defendant in favour of the second defendant and transferred to him for consideration on 27th March, 1944. The third defendant is the son of the first defendant and the fourth defendant is the son of the second defendant. The lower Court granted a decree to the plaintiff against his transferor, the second defendant, and his son, the fourth defendant, but dismissed the suit against the first defendant, the third defendant having died before the suit. The petitioner seeks to revise the decree of the lower Court in so far as it dismissed his suit against the first defendant, the maker of the promissory note.2. The defence of the first defendant was that he had made payment of the entire amount of principal and interest due under the promissory note to the second defendant and obtained...
Bhagavatula Pankala Rao Vs. Kadiyala Venkatasubbayya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-16-1947
Reported in: (1947)2MLJ337
Wadsworth, J.1. The petitioner sued to recover an amount of seigniorage which he had been required to pay to the Government, alleging that this amount should have been paid by the respondent under the terms of an unregistered lease for quarrying limestone. The lease provided that the respondent should have the right for four years to quarry limestone in the petitioner's land in consideration of payment of rent for Rs. 200 and on the respondent undertaking to pay the seigniorage due to the Government. The rent was paid and according to the findings of the Court below the seigniorage was not paid by the respondent although the respondent did quarry limestone. The result was that the petitioner's land was attached and the petitioner was obliged to pay the seigniorage to the Government.2. There was a previous suit, S.C. No. 157 of 1944, filed by the petitioner against the respondent and two other individuals who were alleged to have similarly defaulted in connection with another lease. Obj...
Abbakka Shedthi and anr. Vs. Palli Vittal Hegda and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-15-1947
Reported in: (1947)2MLJ177
1. Some of the senior members of an Aliyasanthana family mortgaged some properties of the family to the sixth defendant, but took them on lease from him for one year at a certain rent. The sixth defendant sued them in O.S, No. 580 of 1937 for six years' arrears of rent. They remained ex parte and there was a decree passed against them on 6th December, 1937. Some of the junior members of the family have now filed the present suit on 7th March, 1943, for a declaration that the said decree is not binding against them so far as it relates to the rent for three years before the suit was filed. The District Munsiff held that as the lease was only for one year and the lessees were in the position of tenants holding over after the expiry of the period, rent could be only on this basis and not on the basis of any provision contained in a registered lease deed and that therefore the sixth defendant was entitled to get a decree only for three' years' rent and not for six years' rent as he did get...
Koru Issaku and ors. Vs. Gottumukkala Seetharamaraju and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-15-1947
Reported in: AIR1948Mad1; (1947)2MLJ166
Rajarnannar, J.1. This is an appeal from the judgment and decree of the learned Subordinate Judge of Narasapur confirming the decree and the judgment of the learned District Munsiff of Bhimavaram in a suit instituted by the first respondent. The first and second defendants are the sons of One Swami by his first wife ; the third defendant is the son by his second wife. At all material times defendants 1 and 2 were undivided, but the third defendant was divided from them. By a sale deed dated 22nd November, 1929, (Ex. P-1) the first and second defendants sold to the plaintiff for Rs. 6,000, the lands in two survey numbers of the extent of 8 acres 44 cents in R.S. No. 815 and one acre 34 cents in R.S. No. 817/1, in the village of Srungavruksham in West Godavari district. On the date of sale R.S. No. 817/1 was subject to a mortgage dated 1st December, 1924 executed by the first defendant in favour of one Bhaskara Rao. On the same date as Ex. P-1, i.e., 22nd November, 1929, defendants 1 and...
Yella Thippanna Vs. Yella Venkataramanappa of Unsound Mind by Guardian ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-15-1947
Reported in: (1947)2MLJ245
Horwill. J.1. O.S. No. 7 of 1943 out of which this appeal arises was tried in part with O.S. No. 3 of 1944. Reference may be made to my judgment in Appeal No. 385 of 1945 for a statement of the claims of the various parties to this litigation. The parties will be described according to their array in O.S. No. 3 of 1944. The plaintiff in O.S. No. 7 of 1943 was the third defendant in O.S. No. 3 of 1944. We have heard Mr. Umamaheswaram for the third defendant on the question of the validity of the will ; and our opinion was, for the reasons given in the judgment in Appeal No. 385 of 1945 : (1947)2MLJ247 that the will was executed while the testator was in a sound disposing state of mind and that it effectively disposed of the whole of the testator's property.2. Two additional questions have been argued in this appeal:(1) Whether the third defendant was an illatom son-in-law of the late Chin-nayya, the testator ; and(2) Whether even though the third defendant was the illatom son-in-law, th...
Singanamalla Krishnamurthy Alias Yella Krishnamurthy Vs. Yella Venkata ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-15-1947
Reported in: (1947)2MLJ247
Horwill J.1. The property which is the subject-matter of the suit out of which this appeal arises belonged to one Chinnayya. The plaintiff claims to be a son of Chinnayya by a permanently kept concubine. The first defendant is the legitimate son of Chinnayya, a man of feeble intellect. The second defendant is his wife. The third defendant, who is the husband of Gangamma, a daughter of Chinnayya, claims to have been taken into the family of Chinnayya as his illatom son-in-law. This suit was tried in part with another suit filed by the third defendant, claiming an equal share in the property of Chinnayya with the legitimate son, the first defendant, on the basis of his adoption as an illatom son-in-law ; and a common judgment was delivered.2. The principal questions tried in the suit were whether the plaintiff was a dasi putra, entitled to a half of the share of a legitimate son, and (2) whether the will, Ex. D-I, was true and valid. The learned Judge upheld the contention of the plainti...
Bandara Jogi and ors. Vs. Sri Rajah Chintalapati Seetharamamurthi Raja ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-15-1947
Reported in: (1947)2MLJ263
Frederick William Gentle, C.J.1. These two letters Patent Appeals have been referred to a Full Bench; each arises out of a land suit instituted, under the provisions of Section 77 of the Madras Estates Land Act, 1908, in the Court of the sub-Collector of Narasapatam division, district of Vizagapatam, by the receiver of an estate known as Kota Uratla. The defendants are the tenants; the suits relate to the same land, but in respect of different faslis ; the claims made were for rent and, in one case, for sale of, and in the other, for creation of a charge upon, the holding, to recover the rent. It is common ground that, formerly, the lands were ryoti lands, but, according to the plaintiff, they have been converted into private, or home farm lands, which is denied by the defendants. The suits and proceedings leading to the present appeals have been heard together and there was one judgment in each point. The reference of the appeals to a Full Bench was made by reason of the conflict betw...
R. Krishnamoorthy Iyer Vs. R. Nataraja Iyer and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-15-1947
Reported in: (1948)1MLJ430
Wadsworth, J.1. The appellant unsuccessfully sued for partition and separate possession of a fourth share of the properties described in schedule A to the plaint and a half share in the properties described in schedules B and C together with past and future profits and certain minor reliefs to which no specific reference is necessary. The relevant relationships are admitted and may be shortly stated as follows. There were two brothers Venkatarama Aiyar and Dharma Ayyar. Venkatarama Ayyar left two sons, Ramaswami Ayyar and Lakshmana Ayyar. Ramaswami Ayyar died on the 17th July, 1931, leaving two sons, the first defendant Nataraja Ayyar and the plaintiff Krishnamurthy Ayyar. Lakshmana Ayyar was the 109th defendant. Dharma Ayyar had a son Subramania Ayyar whose son is Thiagaraja Ayyar, the 4th defendant. The family originally belonged to a village called Thozhudur in Tanjore district. On the 24th August, 1927, Ramaswami Ayyar and Lakshmana Ayyar divided their properties where by the forme...
In Re: Lakshmanan Nadar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-11-1947
Reported in: AIR1948Mad115; (1947)2MLJ119
Yahya Ali, J.1. This is an application to quash the charge and proceedings in P.R.C. No. 1 of 1947 on the file of the Second Class Magistrate, Ambasamudram Two contentions are raised by Mr. Krishnamurthi. The first is that, as the facts. of the complaint disclose an offence under Section 206 of the Indian Penal Code there should be a written complaint by the District Munsiff's Court, Ambasamudram under Section 195(1)(b), Criminal Procedure Code, and that in the absence of such a complaint, an enquiry even into the charge of decoity which forms the subject-matter of this case cannot proceed. The second objection is that on the showing of the complaint itself there was no dishonest intention on the part of the petitioners and that therefore a charge under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code cannot stand. 2. Some cattle belonging to the second and third petitioners were attached before judgment by the complainant P.W. 2 as the plaintiff in S.C.S. No. 494 in the District Munsiff's Court, ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »