Chennai Court July 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.
Nizampatnam Nagachari Vs. Kondiparti Butchayya (Died) and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-11-1947
Reported in: AIR1948Mad198; (1947)2MLJ277
ORDERChandrasekhar Aiyyar, J.1. It is urged for the appellant that the learned Subordinate Judge went wrong in deciding points 1 and 2 in favour of the legal representatives of the plaintiff and against the fourth defendant. The finding of the Subordinate Judge is to the deflect that though Venkatarattamma and Durgiah were living together and passing themselves off as husband and wife', before society, there was no presumption that they were legally married. It is, of course, true that the presumption to be drawn in favour of marriage from cohabitation will have to vary from country to country or society to society, as pointed out by the Privy Council in Ma Wun Di. v. Ma Kin (1907) 18 M.L.J. 3 : L.R. 35 IndAp 41 : I.L.R. 35 Cal. 232 (P.C.). Where concubinage is permitted or recognised or where even if it is not expressly permitted it is winked at or condoned by the Society to which the parties belong, the presumption in favour of marriage becomes weak. But where it is established by ev...
The Kollegal Silk Filatures Limited Vs. the Province of Madras by the ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-11-1947
Reported in: (1947)2MLJ378
Patanjali Sastri, J.1. This appeal arises put of an award of compensation made by art arbitrator appointed under Section 19 of the Defence of India Act, 1939, which provides for the payment of compensation in accordance with certain principles for compulsory acquisition of immoveable property, etc. The appeal was filed admittedly beyond the time prescribed by Article 156 of the Limitation Act for an appeal to this Court. The appellant, while maintaining that the said article is not applicable to the case, also applied under Section 5 of that Act for admission of the appeal even if it was considered as presented after time, but that application was rejected on the ground that no sufficient cause was shown for not presenting it within the prescribed period. The appeal is now posted before us for determining whether, as contended by the appellant, no time limit has been provided for an appeal of this kind and it must accordingly be deemed to have been duly filed.2. The contention is based...
K. Kannabhiran Mudaliar Vs. Mullangi Lakshmana Perumal Chetty, Trustee ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-11-1947
Reported in: AIR1949Mad201
Yahya Ali, J.1. These are two connected appeals against two orders made in E.P. No. 1257 of 1916 and E.A. No. 2530 of 1946 by the Principal City Civil Judge, Madras. Until 1st October 1916, the Madras House Rent Control Order 1945 was in force. From that date its place was taken by the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (XV [15] of 1946). The date when the prior order expired and the new enactment came into force is of importance in this case having regard to the contentions raised both in the lower Court and before me on behalf of the appellant in respect of a shop No. 339 Esplanade, G.T. Madras, which belongs to a charitable trust the trustee of which is Mullangi Lakshmana Perumal Chetti, the petitioner in E.P. No. 1257 of 1946. The petitioner filed an application before the Rent Controller under Section 7 A (2) (iii) (a), Madras House Rent Control Order, 1945 on the ground that he (appellant-Ed.) had sublet the premises without the written consent of the landlord and that...
The Advocate-general of Madras Vs. Kuppuswami Gurukkal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-09-1947
Reported in: (1947)2MLJ198
Frederick William Gentle, C.J.1. The sole matter for consideration in this appeal is the construction of Section 75-A of the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1927. That section was added by the Amending Act X of 1946 which came into force on 2nd April, 1946.2. The relevant facts can shortly be stated. In C.S. No. 202 of 1938, this Court passed a decree on 2nd December, 1940, framing a scheme for the Sri Dharmaraja and Sri Vembuliamman temples. The scheme provides for a single trustee and that every vacancy in the office of trusteeship shall be filled by the Court on an application made to it for that purpose. The first trustee was named in the scheme, and, he having died, the Court on 31st January, 1946, appointed another in his place. This was before the addition of Section 75-A to the Act. The gentleman so appointed refused to accept the office whereupon the first and second respondents in this appeal, who are worshippers of the temples, made an application to this Court after ...
Namagiri Ammal Vs. T. Subba Rao
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-09-1947
Reported in: (1947)2MLJ364
ORDERRajamannar, J.1. This is an application by the appellant in A.S. No. 49 of 1947 on the file of this Court for an injunction restraining the respondent from taking possession of the properties in suit and administering the estate and effects belonging to the estate of the deceased Srinivasa Rao in pursuance of the decree in O.S. No. 3 of 1946, District Court, Madura, pending disposal of the above appeal therefrom. The petitioner was the defendant in a suit instituted by the respondent arising out of an application by the latter for the issue of probate of the will and the codicil of the said Srinivasa Rao. The learned District Judge of Madura found that the will was genuine and valid and granted the respondent probate.2. This application has been made on the ground that m pursuance of the decree of the lower Court granting him probate, the respondent is attempting to take possession of the properties forming part of the estate of the deceased Srinivasa Rao, he is also attempting to...
The Crown Prosecutor Vs. Mrs. Eliza Rencontre
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-08-1947
Reported in: (1947)2MLJ226
ORDERLakshmana Rao, J.1. The view of the Magistrate that Clause 6 of the Madras Firewood Rationing Order, 1945 is applicable only to authorised dealers in firewood is obviously wrong and the question is whether the cut pieces of the neem tree seized in this case are ' firewood ' within the meaning of Clause 2(10) of that Order. ' Firewood ' as defined in Clause 2(10) means all kinds of wood other than twigs not exceeding two inches in circumference ' used as fuel ' and the evidence of P.W. I is that the neem tree was purchased by him for making rafters for constructing a house. The wood seized is not before the Court nor is it in evidence that such kind of wood is ordinarily used as fuel. Under the circumstances the Magistrate was right in holding that the wood seized was not firewood within the meaning of Clause 2(10) of the Madras Firewood Rationing Order, 1945 and it follows that the order of discharge is correct. The revision is therefore dismissed....
Tadepalle Venkatasastri Vs. Parichi Umamaheswara Venkata Jagannadha Ra ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-08-1947
Reported in: AIR1948Mad200; (1947)2MLJ256
Frederick William Gentle, C.J.1. The appellant was the plaintiff in a suit instituted before the District Munsiff of Repalle claiming a declaration that the decree in Summary Suit No. 4 of 1938 heard by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Tenali, whose decision was upheld on appeal by the District Collector, Guntur, and subsequently by the Board of Revenue, is not binding upon him. The sole matter requiring consideration is whether the Revenue Court had jurisdiction to entertain the summary suit.2. The appellant had occupied the office of a Karnam of a village named Surapalli for many years. In Summary Suit No. 4 of 1938 the plaintiff in that suit the defendant in the proceedings out of which this appeal arises, claimed that he was properly the karnam of the village. The ultimate result of the appeal to the Board of Revenue was that there was a decree in favour of the plaintiff in the summary suit. It is in respect of that decision that the present appellant seeks a declaration that that d...
N. Rangappa Vs. Ranga Gowd and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-08-1947
Reported in: AIR1948Mad184; (1947)2MLJ292
Yaha Ali, J.1. The first defendant is the appellant. The plaintiff's suit related to the easementary right that they claimed to take water to their Survey No. 209/3 through the channel P, P-1, A, B, C, D, E, F, shown in the plaint plan across S. No. 207/1 belonging to the appellant. They also wanted a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from causing any obstruction to the enjoyment of that easementary right ; they further prayed for a declaration in regard to the right to use the pathway marked M, M-1, G, W-1, M-4 and the branch pathway marked as M, M-1, G, W-1, W-3 in order to reach their S. No. 209/3 and 181/1 and 181/2. They further prayed for certain other ancillary reliefs. The plaintiffs' case was that they had been enjoying these rights of easement to take water over S. No. 207/1 and walking along these pathways for over the statutory period and had acquired easementary rights in respect othereof. The appellant purchased S. No. 207/1 under Ex. D-2, dated 24th May, 19...
In Re: Vodde Nagappa and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-08-1947
Reported in: (1947)2MLJ295
ORDERYaha Ali, J.1. The Sessions Judge of Kurnool has convicted accused 1, 2 and 3 before him acquitting the remaining four accused who were tried for various offences. The first accused-appellant was convicted under Section 364 of the Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to five years' rigorous imprisonment and under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code he was further convicted and sentenced to a concurrent period of five years' rigorous imprisonment. The second and third accused were convicted under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to two years' rigorous imprisonment each. In the view I have taken of the case, I have taken up the case so far as the second and third accused also are concerned though they have not preferred any appeal against their convictions and sentences and I do not consider it necessary to direct notice in view of the order I propose to make.2. It is not necessary to set out the facts of the case and the evidence. It appears from the judgment that th...
Shanmugha Mudaliar Vs. P.V. Rathina Mudaliar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-07-1947
Reported in: AIR1948Mad187; (1947)2MLJ241
Frederick William Gentle, C.J.1. This second appeal was referred to a Division Bench by Rajamannar, J., by reason of a conflict between the decision of Bell, J., in Ponnappa Chettiar v. Bodappa Chettiar (1944) 2 M.L.J. 406 and the opinion of Sir John Beaumont, G.J., in Appayya Nijlingappa v. Subrao Babaji I.L.R. (1938) Bom. 102 Rajamannar, J., preferring the opinion of Sir John Beaumont, G.J., to that of Bell, J., made the reference as above stated.2. The facts are as follows : From the 2nd March, 1940, until the 31st March, 1942, the plaintiff and the deceased husband of the second defendant carried on business in partnership. During that period dealings and transactions took place with the first defendant. As a result, his indebtedness to the partnership amounted to a sum of Rs. 819-14-0, and, by the date of suit, that amount was increased by a sum of Rs. 94-4-0 to a sum of Rs. 914-2-0, the amount for which the suit was instituted. It is alleged, and, so far as the matters relevant t...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›