Chennai Court September 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.
Molla Madina Saheb Vs. Bhano Bi Bi Saheba and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-05-1947
Reported in: (1948)2MLJ453
Govindarajachari, J.1. This is a revision petition filed by the first defendant in O.S. No-131 of 1944, on the file of the District Munsiff's Court, Razole, which was a suit under Section 9 of the Specific Relief Act. The material facts are the following: One Sheik Sahib had two sons, Khasim Sahib and Imam Sahib. Khasim Sahib had a son, Peda Dada Sahib, whose sons are alleged to have sold their half share in three items of property to the first defendant. The first plaintiff is the wife of China Dada Sahib and claims that her husband conveyed to her those items under documents dated 6th December, 1943, and 8th May, 1918, respectively. The plaint allegations are that the first plaintiff's husband and latterly the first plaintiff were in exclusive possession of the three items till 12th May, 1944, when the first defendant and his tenant the second defendant trespassed on half of each of the said items. The suit was filed on 17th June, 1944. The first defendant claims that he is entitled ...
Subbammal Vs. Alamelu Ammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-05-1947
Reported in: AIR1948Mad225; (1947)2MLJ461
ORDERYaha Ali, J.1. One Govinda Chetti had two wives, Subbammal, the petitioner and Alamelu Ammal, the counter-petitioner. By the former he had a daughter Saraswathi aged 7 years. After his death, the two wives and the little girl were living together. Subbammal's case is that when she went to some village tempo-rarily and returned, Alamelu Ammal refused to hand over custody of Saraswathi to her. She filed an application under Section 552 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to compel restoration of Saraswathi to her. The senior widow stated in the Magistrate's Court that the conduct of Subbammal was immoral, that she had eloped with one Elumalai and that Govinda Chetti, before his death, had entrusted to-her the custody of the child in view of Subbammal's immoral conduct. Evidence was adduced on both sides but the Magistrate did not give any findings on any of these points. Subbammal stated in her application that the intention of Alamelu Ammal in detaining the girl was to get her marrie...
In Re: Ar. L.S.V.L. Sevugam Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-05-1947
Reported in: (1947)2MLJ457
ORDERRajamannar, J.1. The petitioner as the managing trustee of the Iluppakudi devasthanam was convicted under Rule 30(2) read with Rule 36 of Chapter IV to the District Municipalities Act for wilful omission to pay the property tax due to the Karaikudi Municipality for the first half year 1944-45, amounting to Rs. 795-6-3, and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 10 or two days' simple imprisonment in default. He was also directed to pay the property tax of Rs. 696-15-0. On appeal to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Devakottai, the conviction and sentence were confirmed.2. The learned advocate for the petitioner raised several interesting points of law; but, I do not propose to express my opinion on any of those points, excepting one, namely, the point of limitation. This is because, admittedly, these points were .not raised in the lower Courts and I consider that the points cannot be satisfactorily disposed of without further facts. It is common ground that there is another prosecution pen...
K.G.S. Venkatanaranayya and anr. Vs. K.G.S.V.R. Lakshmidevamma
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-05-1947
Reported in: (1947)2MLJ520
Frederick William Gentle, C.J.1. The first appellant is the son of the second appellant. They are members of a joint Hindu family. The respondent is the widow of another son of the second appellant. In 1942, the respondent alleged that the first appellant and his mother had taken or had misappropriated her jewellery and she instituted criminal proceedings against them in the Bombay Magistrate's Court. She also had several claims against the members of her late husband's family. Subsequent to the institution of the proceedings in Bombay, the respondent and the two appellants agreed to refer the several claims by the former and also the matters in dispute relating to the jewellery, to arbitration. An agreement, dated April 28, 1943, in that behalf was made between the parties by which they appointed Rao Saheb Donthi Bheemayya Setti as sole arbitrator, and in the event of his not agreeing so to act, then the agreement should be taken as referring the matters in dispute to Mr. Katta Venkat...
P. Abdul Salam Saheb Vs. Provincial Government of Madras Represented b ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-05-1947
Reported in: (1947)2MLJ480
Frederick William Gentle, C.J.1. The appellant is the proprietor of three mango fields in one of which is a brick kiln. This property was requisitioned by the Government during the recent War pursuant to the provisions of the Defence of India Act and the Rules made there under. The appellant, as he was entitled, claimed compensation for the loss occasioned to him by reason of the requisitioning, under Section 19(1) of the Defence of India Act. His claim was for a total sum of Rs. 8,317. The claim came for disposal before the learned District Judge of North Arcot by virtue of his appointment as an arbitrator to decide claims under Section 19 of the Act. In his award, the arbitrator adjudged the appellant to be entitled to a total sum of Rs. 180, being Rs. go each in respect of the fasli years 1352 and 1353. He rejected one claim as fraudulent, another on the ground that already it had been paid, and he awarded a total of Rs. 180 in respect of a claim for Rs. 3,741. This is the appeal, b...
Minor Vaithilinga Naidu Represented by Next Friend Subbammal and anr. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-05-1947
Reported in: (1947)2MLJ566
Govindarajachari, J.1. This is an appeal against the order of the District Judge of South Arcot refusing to restore O.S. No. 2 of 1944 which was dismissed on 9th January, 1945. The plaintiffs were minors represented by their paternal aunt as their next friend. The suit was for a declaration that the Court sale in O.S. No. 16 of 1929 on the file of the District Judge of South Arcot of the house described in the plaint is void and not binding upon the plaintiffs and for other reliefs. The suit was dismissed for default once previously on 24th August, 1944. It was subsequently restored and came on for trial on 23rd November, 1944. The plaintiffs' next friend alleges that she took steps for the hearing on that date. The suit was, however, adjourned from 23rd November, 1944, to 8th December, 1944. The next friend admits that she did not take steps for 8th December, 1944, but adds that her witnesses came for that hearing. . The learned District Judge states in his order that she was not read...
Gopa Somanna (Died) and ors. Vs. Vakina Ramachandra Chowdari and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-05-1947
Reported in: (1947)2MLJ572
Satyanarayana Rao, J.1. The first judgment-debtor is the appellant. He raised the objection to the execution of the decree that the execution petition was barred by limitation. He was adjudicated an insolvent on 2nd October, 1931, in I.P. No. 7 of 1931, Sub-Court, Ellore, which was filed on 23rd January, 1931. The suit in which the present decree was passed was instituted on 24th February, 1931 and decreed on 12th December, 1931. The adjudication was annulled on 15th July, 1940 and the present execution petition was filed on 9th December, 1943. The judgment-debtor says that the decree is a nullity as no leave of the insolvency Court was obtained to institute the suit, as the adjudication in October, 1931, relates back to the date of the petition. Secondly he contends that the period between the date of adjudication and the date of the annulment ought not to be excluded in computing limitation as the decree was obtained after the adjudication.2. In my view there is no substance in eithe...
Sripada Venkata Jagannadharao and ors. Vs. Kannepalli Venkatachalamayy ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-05-1947
Reported in: AIR1948Mad336; (1948)1MLJ4
Horwill, J.1. This is an appeal against the decree of the Subordinate Judge of Chicacole for sale of the hypotheca of the family of the appellants and their father the first defendant.2. The suit mortgage deed, Ex. P-1, was executed on 16th June, 1928, by the first defendant alone. Prior to that, by Ex. D-1, on 23rd August, 1922, the hypotheca was mortgaged in favour of one Vedula Jagannatham Bhukte. On his mortgage he filed O.S. No. 34 of 1934 for sale of the hypotheca. He impleaded not only the first defendant but also his sons, defendants 2 to 5, who also executed the mortgage through their father as guardian. In any case, they had to be impleaded under Order 34, Rule 1 as persons having interest in the secured properties. The present plaintiff was also impleaded, as required by Order 34, Rule 1 as a subsequent mortgagee. He filed a written statement alleging that the mortgage in that suit was not true and that his mortgage was executed for purposes binding on the present defendants...
Minor Vaithilinga Naidu, Represented by Next Friend, Subbammal and anr ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-05-1947
Reported in: AIR1949Mad46
Govindarajachari, J.1. This is an appeal against the order of the District Judge of South Arcut refusing to restore O.S. No. 2 of 1944 which was dismissed on 9th January 1945. The plaintiffs were minors represented by their paternal aunt as their nest friend. The suit was for a declaration that the Court sale in O.S. No. 16 of 1929 on the file of the District Judge of South Arcot of the house described in the plaint is void and not binding upon the plaintiffs and for other reliefs. The suit was dismissed for default once previously on 24th August 1944. It was subsequently restored and earne on for trial on 23rd November 1944. The plaintiffs' next friend alleges that she took steps for the hearing on that date. The suit was, however, adjourned from 23rd November 1944 to 8th December 1944. The next friend admits that she did not take steps for 8th December 1944 but adds that her witnesses came for that hearing, the learned District Judge states in his order that she was not ready for the...
Ramappayya Vs. Subbamma and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-04-1947
Reported in: (1947)2MLJ580
Frederick William Gentle, C.J.1. In this civil miscellaneous appeal the sole point for decision (whether an advocate-or a pleader to whom a vakalatnama is given, has power in the absence of express authorisation to compromise the suit on behalf of the party for whom he appears.2. The appeal came before Yahya Ali, J. who directed it to be placed before the Chief Justice for orders, in light of the conflict in the decided authorities. Hence it comes before this Bench for disposal.3. In the Court of the District Munsiff of Karkal the plaintiffs claimed possession of some immoveable property as the reversioners of one Keshava Bhatta deceased, the last male holder. During her life-time, his widow purported to settle the property upon one Puttappayya who, having died, was survived by the five defendants, some of whom claimed the property and were in possession of it. The suit was laid against all survivors. The third and fifth defendants remained ex parte; the first, second and fourth defend...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »