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.
Nookala Appayyamma Vs. Nookala Subba Rao
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-11-1947
Reported in: (1947)2MLJ288
ORDERYahya Ali, J.1. The petitioner was awarded separate maintenance in 1924. Subsequently that order was cancelled on the application of her husband, the respondent, that he was willing to take her back ; but the petitioner refused to live with him and consequently the Additional First Class Magistrate, Cocanada, has cancelled the order granting maintenance. The first objection taken is that the original order having been passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Cocanada, the Additional First Class Magistrate who cancelled it in 1945 could not do so as there was a Magistrate bearing the designation ' Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Cocanada.' It is contended that the Additional First Class Magistrate was not the successor of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, but it would appear that the Additional First Class Magistrate has been invested with powers to entertain applications under Section 488, Criminal Procedure Code, and that the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Cocanada, has no jurisdiction to tr...
P.R.M.S. Chellappa Chettiar Vs. Manickam Pillai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-11-1947
Reported in: (1947)2MLJ357
Happell, J.1. The appellant had obtained a decree in O.S. No. 143 of 1936 in the District Munsiff's Court of Trichinopoly and to execute that decree he had filed E.P. No. 853 of 1943. In pursuance of that petition property had been attached and sale papers had been filed. Before, however, the property was brought to sale respondents 3 and 4 who held a decree against the same judgment-debtor in O.S. No. 157 of 1938 on the file of the District Munsiff's Court, Erode had that decree transferred to the District Munsiff's Court, Trichinopoly and in E.P. No. 118 of 1943 asked for sale of the same property as that attached by the present appellant subject to an encumbrance of Rs. 7,000 in their favour. The appellant, in E.P. No. 118 of 194.3 filed by the respondents 3 and 4 filed E.A. No. 795 of 1943 in which he prayed for the sale of the property free of encumbrances. The learned District Munsiff dismissed this application on the ground that the appellant should prove his contention that the...
Thammana Gangaraju Chetty and ors. Vs. Pabbichetty Bhimalingam and ors ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-11-1947
Reported in: (1947)2MLJ423
Happell, J.1. The question in this civil miscellaneous second appeal is whether a petition for execution filed by the decree-holder in O.S. No. 64 of 1931 was barred by limitation or not. It was not barred by limitation if it could be regarded as having been filed in continuation of the previous petition in E.P. No. 137 of 1934. It was barred by limitation if that petition had been finally dismissed.2. The learned District Munsiff of Chodavaram who dismissed the petition expressed the opinion that the facts in the two cases decided by this Court cited before him, viz., Pattannayya v. Pattayya (1925) 50 M.L.J. 215 and Madanapalli Lakshmikantha Nidhi, Ltd. v. Raghunathackarlu : (1943)2MLJ561 were not applicable to the facts with which he was concerned. The learned District Judge on the other hand was of opinion that the two decisions applied and in that view allowed the appeal to him. In E.P. No. 137 of 1934 the property was put up for sale on the 6th December, 1937, but was not sold bec...
Ponnuswami Chettiar Vs. Kailasam Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-10-1947
Reported in: AIR1947Mad422; (1947)2MLJ116
1. The plaintiff in S.C.S. No. 61 of 1945 on the file of the District Munsiff's Court, Kulitalai, applies to revise the order of the learned District Munsiff dismissing his suit brought for recovery of Rs. 209-8-0 from the respondent. The respondent borrowed from one Nallvangalammal a sum of Rs. 100 on 2nd May, 1940 and a sum of Rs. 90 on the 24th July, 1940 agreeing to pay the amounts with interest at six per cent. per annum. Nallvangalammal died and the plaintiff claimed to be her heir and though this fact was not admitted, it is not necessary any longer to deal with this objection because the plaintiff obtained a succession certificate in respect of the suit claim. 2. In the plaint it was alleged that those two loans were evidenced by two documents described as hand-letters. They were admittedly unstamped. It appears that before the trial stamp duty and penalty were levied by the Court on the footing that they were bonds.3. The defendant admitted the execution of the two documents, ...
In Re: K. Govindaswami Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-10-1947
Reported in: (1947)2MLJ163
ORDERYahya Ali, J.1. The Second Class Magistrate, Tiruvannamalai, who is trying this case framed a charge against the accused who is the petitioner herein under Section 408 of the Indian Penal Code on the 27th July, 1946. In that charge it is stated that the accused between the 28th September, 1945, and the 10th October, 1945, at Tiruvannamalai being employed as a clerk or agent of the K.T.R. Company, Tiruvarur and in such capacity entrusted with domain (dominion) over a sum of Rs. 788-8-7 committed criminal breach of trust with respect to the said property. If the charge had merely been that the alleged breach of trust was committed in the capacity of a clerk of the company there could have been no objection to the charge framed under Section 408 of the Indian Penal Code and to such a charge-being tried by a Second Class Magistrate. But the charge is on the alternative footing that the breach of trust was committed either as 'a clerk or as an agent of the company '. An offence of crim...
Varadaraja Chettiar Vs. Swami Maistry and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-10-1947
Reported in: (1947)2MLJ179
ORDERYahya Ali, J.1. This is a revision against the acquittal of the accused. They were acquitted of an offence under Section 447 of the Indian Penal Code with which they were charged for having carried away the usufruct of a tamarind tree which was in the possession and enjoyment of Varadaraja Chetty who was examined as P.W, 1 the case. They were also acquitted of the offence under Section 426 of the Indian Penal Code for carrying away the stones of the compound wall Varada raja Chetty filed O.S. No. 174 of 1943 in the District Munsiff's Court, Chingleput, for a declaration of his title to the tamarind tree in question. The suit was dismissed by the District Muhsiff but on appeal the District Judge set aside the District Munsiff's decree and allowed the appeal with the result that the right and title of Varadaraja Chetty to the tamarind tree was established. In acquitting the accused the Magistrate has completely disregarded the decree of the District Judge in A.S. No. 59 of 1944 decl...
Chappalli China Satyalingam Vs. Kalidindi China Venkataratnam and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-10-1947
Reported in: (1947)2MLJ385
Wadsworth, J.1. This appeal arises out of a petition under the rules framed under Madras Act IV of 1938, praying the Court to scale down the debt due on a mortgage bond dated the 1st February, 1930. The appellant here is the creditor. The debtors borrowed Rs. 1,500 under the mortgage Ex. P-1 on the security of a house site and a house covenanting to pay interest at 12 per cent. The mortgage stipulated that the debt should be repayable in 18 annual instalments consisting of a sum of Rs. 79 towards the principal together with the interest due. In case of default compound interest was to be payable at 12 per cent. On the same date under Ex. P-2, a registered document which is described as a cowl, the mortgagors demised their inam land to the mortgagee for & period of 19 years, the lessee undertaking to pay a rent of Rs. 210 on the 1st of February each year which is the same date as the date on which the instalments were due under the mortgage and get the payments endorsed on the contempor...
In Re: A.K.M. Ahmad Naina Maracair
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-09-1947
Reported in: AIR1947Mad451; (1947)2MLJ102
Yahya Ali, J.1. The petitioner has been convicted by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Negapatam under Section 21 of the Indian Arms Act and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 100, in default rigorous imprisonment for one month. He appealed to the Sessions Judge, Negapatam who confirmed the conviction but reduced the fine to Rs. 30.2. The petitioner held a licence for an S.R.B.L. gun for the years 1944-45 and he was permitted by that licence to possess 50 cartridges or one pound of gun powder. He also possessed a licence under the Indian Explosives Act by which he was entitled to keep for sale 50 lbs. of gun powder at a particular place which was described in that licence. He applied for the renewal of the gun powder licence and in the ordinary course, the application went to the Taluk Magistrate, who on 5th April, 1946, inspected the site where the gun powder was stored. The Taluk Magistrate found that only 30 lbs. were in store at the place mentioned in the licence under the Indian Explosiv...
In Re: Muppana Appana and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-09-1947
Reported in: (1947)2MLJ203
Horwill, J.1. The five appellants have been convicted by the Sessions Judge of East Godavari of an offence punishable under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code. Since death had resulted from an injury caused by the first appellant, he was sentenced to transportation for life. The other appellants were sentenced to ten years' rigorous imprisonment each. 2. The deceased had been on bad terms with appellants 1 to 3 for some time, because the first appellant I ad abducted his daughter, Appayamma and after keeping her for some time had sent her back. The second appellant had abducted the niece of the deceased ; and she too was sent back after some time. The first three appellants are brothers. The fourth and fifth appellants are friends and associates of the first appellant. On the night of the 25th/26th of June last, while the deceased, his wife (P.W. 7), his daughter (P.W. 10), and his son (P.W. 11), were sleeping outside near their house, the five appellants came there. P.W. 7 woke up a...
C.N. Suganantha Mudaliar Vs. S.K. Kuppuswami Chetty and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-09-1947
Reported in: AIR1948Mad205; (1947)2MLJ273
Widsworth, J.1. The appellant was the plaintiff in a suit on a mortgage executed on 5th February, 1935, by the first defendant. In July, 1937, the second defendant who is the contesting respondent here, purchased the hypotheca in Court auction under a money decree against the mortgagor-first defendant. Madras Act IV of 1938 came into force on the 22nd March, 1938. On this date the mortgagor who is admittedly an agriculturist was under a personal liability to discharge the debt. However no action was taken by the mortgagee to recover the debt from him. In 1940 the contesting respondent deposited two sums of Rs. 1,287 and Rs. 18 under Section 83 of the Transfer of Property Act claiming that this was all that was due under the mortgage having regard to the provision of Madras Act IV of 1938 and asking to redeem the mortgage. This petition was dismissed but it appears that the mortgagee was permitted to withdraw the amounts deposited and he has given credit to those amounts in the suit. Th...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »