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.
In Re: in the Matter of an Advocate
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-08-1947
Reported in: (1947)2MLJ213
Frederick William Gentle, C.J.1. The petitioner was enrolled as an advocate of this Court in 1924. He practised at Tellicherry and from 1928 to 1939, or thereabouts he was the Official Receiver of North Malabar. On the 25th June, 1940, he was convicted by the Joint Magistrate of Tellicherry on charges under Sections 409 and 477-A of the Indian Penal Code in respect of defalcations amounting approximately to Rs. 2,200 in connection with three insolvencies which he was administering as Official Receiver; he was sentenced to terms of imprisonment aggregating to three years. On appeal, against the sentence to the learned District Judge the imprisonment was reduced to a total of two years and, on revision to this Court, it was further reduced to a period of one year. On the 27th October, 1941, he was struck off the roll of advocates. There is no doubt that his conduct and the offences he had committed called for severe condemnation, justified the sentence imposed upon him, amounted to a gra...
Thangathammal Vs. Pugalumperumal Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-08-1947
Reported in: (1947)2MLJ502
Rajamannar, J.1. The plaintiff is the appellant. The suit is in respect of certain property which originally belonged to one Pichaiyammal. She executed a deed of gift on 8th May, 1905, in favour of Veeraperumal Ammal, her daughter, and the decision of this second appeal depends mainly on a construction of the terms of this deed. Veeraperumal 'Ammal had three daughters, Badrakali, Pechi Ammal and Thangathammal, the plaintiff. She died in 1940. The plaintiff instituted the suit out of which this second appeal arises for recovery of property included in the deed of gift of 1905 on the ground that under that deed her mother- Veeraperumal Ammal obtained an absolute interest in the properties covered by that deed including the suit property and on her death she was entitled to the property as she happened to be unmarried on the date of the suit while her two sisters were. married. The defendant-respondent is an alienee of the suit property from Pechi Ammal, the plaintiff's sister.2. The defe...
Chinnaswami Alias Narayana Reddiar Vs. Nallappa Reddiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-08-1947
Reported in: AIR1948Mad111; (1947)2MLJ194
Shahabuddin, J.1. This is an application for leave to appeal to His Majesty in Council against our judgment and decree in App. No. 55 of 1945. The appeal was dismissed and the decree of the trial Court was affirmed. The value of the suit in the trial Court was over Rs. 10,000 and the value of the subject-matter of the proposed appeal to His Majesty in Council is also above that sum. We are asked to certify that this case fulfils the conditions of Section 110, Civil P.C. on the ground that the proposed appeal involves a substantial question of law.2. The point for consideration in the Court below and in this Court was whether the petitioner had blended the properties (immoveables and outstandings) that had fallen to his share at the family partition with the immovable property and outstandings bequeathed to him under the will of his father-in-law and whether his subsequent acquisitions were his self-acquisitions or: belonged to the family consisting of himself and his only son, the resp...
Natesa Naicker Vs. Mari Gramani and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-03-1947
Reported in: AIR1948Mad45; (1947)2MLJ156
ORDERYahya Ali, J.1. This is an application to revise the order of acquittal passed by the Stationary Sub-Magistrate of Chingleput in C.C. No. 2470 of 1946 on his file under Section 247 pf the Code of Criminal Procedure. That case arose upon a complaint filed by the petitioner herein against the respondent alleging the commission of offences by the respondents under Sections 447 and 426 of the Indian Penal Code. The case was posted first and heard on 6th December, 1946. After the examination of the complainant, it was adjourned to 16th December, 1946, for further evidence. On that day when the case was called, the complainant was not present either in person or by pleader and consequently the Sub-Magistrate acting under Section 247 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, acquitted the respondent- accused.2. In the affidavit filed by the petitioner in this Court in this case, it is alleged that on that day he and his witnesses were present in Court from 10 a.m., that just before the case was...
Bolla Narayana Murthy Vs. Cannamaneedi Madhavayya and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-03-1947
Reported in: (1947)2MLJ366
Frederick William Gentle, C.J.1. This is the plaintiff's appeal; it arises out of a suit for specific performance of a contract for the sale of land.2. The first defendant is the elder brother of the second defendant, both are stepbrothers of a man named Ramalingayya, now deceased ; all of them are sons of one Padmanabhudu, who died on 12th June, 1935 ; at that date the second defendant was a minor, he attained majority in 1937. Prior to the father's death, all of them formed an undivided Hindu family owning property and land, approximating to an area of 190 acres, in Manepalli village in the district of East Godavari. In May, 1935, shortly before the father's death, there was a partition in the family, by which about 25 acres of land were allotted to the father, who, by his will dated May, 6,, 1935, left a part of the land allotted to him to his wife for life and after his death to his three sons and the remainder to his daughters. The plaintiff alleges that at the partition in May 19...
Naramsetti Venkatappala Narasimhulu and ors. Vs. Naramsetti Someswara ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-03-1947
Reported in: AIR1948Mad505; (1948)1MLJ150
Patanjali Sastri, J.1. This is an appeal preferred by the Defendants from a preliminary decree in a suit for partition brought by the respondents. The plaintiffs are the sons of the first defendant by his first wife Gangamma. The second defendant is his son by his second wife Kausalyamma. There is no dispute that the parties were members of a Hindu undivided family on the date of suit each being entitled to a 1/4th share in the family properties. The dispute in the appeal relates to the existence and the divisibility of certain assets and the provisions to be made for the maintenance and marriage expenses of the the two unmarried daughters of the first defendant, one of whom was born during the pendency of the suit.2. The main contention of the appellants relates to the claim put forward by the first defendant to the exclusive ownership of certain lands, about 12 acres in extent which are now worth a substantial amount. This item was allotted along with other items of family properties...
P. Gannu Rao Vs. P. Thiagaraja Rao and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-02-1947
Reported in: (1948)2MLJ606
Kunhi Raman, J.1. This application is made on behalf of the first defendant is C.S. No. 89 of 1947 under Section 34 of the Indian Arbitration Act of 1940 (which will hereafter be referred to as the Act in the course of this judgment) and for stay of proceedings in the suit in view of an agreement alleged to have been entered into between the parties that disputes between them should be referred to arbitration. The application is resisted on behalf of the plaintiff and the 2nd defendant. The main contention urged on behalf of the respondents is that it is too late now for the applicant to ask for stay of proceedings under Section 34 of the Act inasmuch as he has already taken 'other steps in the proceedings' within the meaning of Section 34.2. To appreciate these contentions it is necessary to state the facts very briefly. There was a partnership contract between the plaintiff and the defendants, the date of the deed of partnership being the 15th September, 1943. According to Clause (1)...
In Re: Abdul Kareem
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-01-1947
Reported in: (1947)2MLJ117
ORDERYahya Ali, J1. This is a reference by the District Magistrate of Vizagapatam made in the following circumstances. One Abdul Kareem, a clerk in the Fleet Mail Office, Vizagapatam, was charged with having committed theft under Section 381 of the Indian Penal Code. He was tried in C.C. No. 1895 of 1945 on the file of the Stationary Sub-Magistrate, Vizagapatam, and convicted of that offence. The Magistrate was of the opinion that since the accused was a young man without any previous conviction, it would be proper to release him under Section 562(1)(a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure instead of awarding him a sentence. Since he was not empowered under that section he forwarded the accused under Section 380 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to the Additional First Class Magistrate, Vizagapatam, for taking appropriate action, if he considered it fit, under Section 562 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Before the Additional First Class Magistrate could dispose of the matter on the ref...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›