Chennai Court November 1948 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: S.M. Nathaniel
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-12-1948
Reported in: 1949CriLJ684
Rajamannar, C.J.1. The appellants in the above appeals were accused 1 to 4 in case No. 10 of 1948 at the first criminal sessions of this Court in the year 1948. All the four appellants were found guilty by a majority of the jury of the offence of conspiracy to murder the late Dr. Habibulla, The appellants in criminal Appeal No. 183 of 1948 were found also guilty of murdering him, while the appellants in criminal Appeal Nos. 188 and 182 of 1948 were found guilty abetting the murder. The majority verdicts of the jury were accepted by Bell J. who tried the case, and they were sentenced to death. The appeals were pro-ferred under Section 411A, Criminal P. 0., which bad been added to the Code by Act xxvi [26] of 1948, with the leave of the appellate Court on matters of law and fact. The appeals came up for hearing before Horwill and Govinda Menon JJ. The learned Public Prosecutor raised a preliminary objection that the appeals were not maintainable, because Act xxvi [26] of 1913 was invalid...
The Province of Madras Represented by the Collector of Nellore Vs. Kal ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-12-1948
Reported in: (1949)1MLJ179
Horwill, J.1. The petitioner in Court below purchased certain items of property in a Court auction on 26th September, 1941, and affixed the proper stamp on the sale certificate. That sale was subsequently set aside on 3rd February, 1945, because of some material irregularity in the conduct of the sale. The petitioner (auction-purchaser) then filed an application on 20th December, 1945, for a refund of the value of the stamp. The Government Pleader apparently opposed the application; but the Court passed the following Order:In the circumstances the Court has inherent power to order refund of the sale certificate stamp which has to be deposited along with the purchase money under the rules. Refund. The Government has filed this Civil Revision Petition against the order, though the amount ordered to be refunded is small; because the order involves a question of principle. The party has not appeared either in person or by advocate to oppose the Revision Petition; but she was fortunate enou...
In Re: S.M. Nathaniel and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-12-1948
Reported in: (1949)1MLJ258
P.V. Rajamannar, C.J.1. The appellants in the above appeals were accused 1 to 4 in Case 10 of 1948 at the first Criminal Sessions of this Court in the year 1948. All the four appellants were found guilty by a majority of the jury of the offence of conspiracy to murder the late Dr. Habibulla. The appellants in Criminal Appeal No. 183 of 1948 were found also guilty of murdering him, while the appellants in Criminal Appeals Nos. 169 and 182 of 1948 were found guilty of abetting the murder. The majority verdicts of the jury were accepted by Bell, J., who tried the case, and they were sentenced to death. The appeals were preferred under Section 411-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure which had been added to the Code by Act XXVI of 1943, with the leave of the appellate Court on matters of law and fact. The appeals came up for hearing before Horwill and Govinda Menon, JJ. The learned Public Prosecutor raised a preliminary objection that the appeals' were not maintainable because Act XXVI of 1...
Krishna Bhatta Vs. Narayana Achary and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-12-1948
Reported in: (1949)1MLJ191
P.V. Rajamannar, J.1. The petitioner sued to recover arrears of rent due under a mulgeni chit, enhanced assessment and half cess with interest thereon due for two years 1943-44 and 1944-45 from the two respondents. The District Munsiff of Karikal who tried the suit passed a decree in his favour though not for the entire amount claimed. The decree was against the two defendants severally and against each in respect of a moiety of the total amount found due.2. Three points were taken by Mr. Krishna Rao, the learned Advocate for the petitioner, in revision. The first is that the two defendants should have been made jointly and severally liable for the decree amount. To appreciate this point it is necessary to state a few facts. On 1st June, 1900, one Sankarayachari executed the mulgeni chit on which the suit is based in favour of the plaintiff's father. The tenant sold his leasehold interest to one Appu Bhandari in 1917, Ex. D-1. On 28th May, 1926, Appu Bhandari in his turn transferred th...
Pulavarthi Ammanna and ors. Vs. Bommireddipalli Ramakrishna Rao and or ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-12-1948
Reported in: (1949)1MLJ249
P.V. Rajamannar, C.J.1. This is an appeal against the decree and judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge of Ellore in O.S. No. 42 of 1944. The plaintiffs are the appellants. The suit was for a declaration that the plaintiffs were entitled to a three-fifths share of the properties in the plaint schedule representing the interests of defendants 4 to 6 and to such specific items as may be allotted to defendants 4 to 6 in the final decree in O.S. No. 52 of 1931 and to the net income pertaining to the said share in deposit or to be deposited in the said O.S. No. 52 of 1931 on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Ellore, or in the alternative, for a declaration that the plaintiffs were entitled to redeem the mortgage, dated 25th October, 1931, executed by defendants 4 to 7 and others in favour of the Imperial Bank of India and to pass a decree in favour of the plaintiffs permitting the plaintiffs to redeem defendants 1 to 3 and their successors in interest on payment of such amount a...
Parankusam Rangacharyulu and ors. Vs. Pernamitta Venkatanarasimhayya, ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-11-1948
Reported in: (1949)1MLJ200
Satyanarayana Rao, J.1. These Civil Revision Petitions were preferred against the orders of the learned District Judge of Guntur (except C R.P. No. 1676 of 1947, in which the order was passed by the District Judge of Kistna) passed under Section 78 of the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act of 1926 (Act II of 1327) as amended by the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments (Amendment) Act of 1946 (Act X of 1946). As these revision petitions raised important questions of law regarding the interpretation of Section 78 of the Act as amended in 1946, my learned brother, Panchapagesa Sastri, J., referred them to a Bench, and they are now before us.2. Nine applications were filed in the lower Court under Section 78 by the trustees appointed either by the Board or by the Assistant Commissioner having jurisdiction for delivery of possession of immoveable properties in the possession of the archakas who were the respondents in the petitions in the Court below and are the petitioners before us. The p...
Polammal Vs. K. Rathna Mudaliar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-09-1948
Reported in: (1948)2MLJ645
ORDERMack, J.1. This petition raises a simple question of Court-fee. A suit was filed for specific performance of a contract of sale valued at Rs. 800 with an alternative prayer for a decree for a refund of Rs. 75 paid as advance and for damages of Rs. 725. For rather curious reasons, the Court-fee Examiner made the objection that a double Court-fee was payable on these reliefs. The ground he gave was that the relief of specific performance or for refund of advance arose out of the same cause of action, the contract of sale, but that the claim for Rs. 725 damages arose not out of the contract but out of the breach of contract.2. The learned District Munsiff was, apparently, satisfied with this curious reasoning and directed payment of the deficit Court-fee of Rs. 82-1-0. In this case of alternative reliefs arising out of the same contract only one Court-fee is payable on the relief which is more highly valued. This is, in accordance with existing practice and the representative for the...
In Re: Ramaswami Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-05-1948
Reported in: (1949)2MLJ335
ORDERRajagopalan, J.1. There need be no dispute about the facts of the case at this stage. The accused-petitioner was a resident of Nochipalayam and on 6th March, 1947, he had in his possession 171/2 bags of paddy. P.W. 1 the Firka Supply Officer, reached the house of the accused at about 8-30 p.m., or possibly a little later. P.W. 1. had come to that village that day to procure the paddy, apparently, the surplus paddy within the meaning of G.O. Mis. No. 467, dated 15th June, 1946, published at page 526 in the Fort St. George Gazette, dated 25th June, 1946, (part II). P.W. 1 had a list with him, the ' D ' list apparently containing the names of the persons from whom P.W. 1 had to obtain that surplus paddy. It was a common ground that the name of the accused was not in that ' D ' list. When P.W. 1 entered the house of the accused and found 171/2 bags of paddy, he asked the accused if the latter had a permit for the possession of those bags. When the accused stated that he had no such pe...
In Re : Ramaswami Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-05-1948
Reported in: 1952CriLJ1023
ORDERRajagopalan, J.1. There need be no dispute about the facts of the case at this stage. The accused-petitioner was a resident of Nochipalayam and on 6.3.1947 he had in his possession 17 bags of paddy. P.W. 1 the Firka Supply Officer, reached the house of the accused at about 8-30 p.m., or possibly a little later. P. W. 1 had come to that village that day to procure the paddy, apparently, the surplus paddy within the meaning of G.O. Mis. 467 dated 15th June 1946 published at page 526 in the Fort St. George Gazette, dated 25th June 1946 (Part II). P.W. 1 had a list with him, the 'D' list apparently containing the names of the persons from whom P.W. 1 had to obtain that surplus paddy. It was a common ground that the name of the accused was not in that 'D' list. When, P.W. 1 entered the house of the accused and found 17 bags of paddy, he asked the accused if the latter had a permit for the possession of those bags. When the accused stated that he had no such permit P. W. 1 asked the acc...
Alagirisami Naidu Vs. Chinna Veerammal and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-04-1948
Reported in: 1949CriLJ659; (1948)2MLJ642
ORDERRajagopalan, J.1. The petitioner and the second counter petitioner,--counter petitioner 1 is the mother of the counter petitioner 2,--each claimed exclusive possession of the land in dispute. The learned Magistrate before whom proceedings under Section 145, Criminal Procedure Code were initiated reached the conclusion that neither side was in exclusive possession on the date of the preliminary order (18th January, 1947), and that the evidence on record did not establish conclusively that either side had been dispossessed within two months before the order. The learned Magistrate ordered the attachment of the property under Section 146(1), Criminal Procedure Code. The petitioner seeks to have that order set aside in revision.2. The learned Magistrate was certainly entitled to rely upon the oral evidence of the village Headman C.W. 6.He (C.W. 6) says that each cultivated half, petitioner and counter-petitioner 2. I do not for a moment disbelieve the evidence of this witness who is v...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »