Chennai Court February 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.
Kammala Seshagiri Rao Alias Prof. Giri Rao Vs. Kammala Somasundaramma ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-11-1948
Reported in: (1948)1MLJ315
ORDERRajamannar, O.C.J.1. This petition has been posted before a Bench of two Judges because Govinda Menon, J., before whom it came up in the first instance considered that there was a conflict between rulings of this Court.2. The first respondent to this petition filed a suit against the petitioner and another originally in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Bezwada for the recovery of certain moveables or their price. The suit was transferred by the District Judge of Kistna to the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Masulipatam where it was re-numbered as O.S. No. 65 of 1943. The suit was dismissed by the Subordinate Judge of Masulipatam, but on appeal this Court set aside the order of dismissal and remanded the suit for disposal according to law to the lower Court. As the appeal to this Court was from the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Masulipatam, the decree ran that the suit was remanded to the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Masulipatam. When the suit was pending before tha...
P.N.S. Aiyar Vs. K.J. Nathan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-10-1948
Reported in: (1948)1MLJ295
Govinda Menon, J.1. The complainant in C.C. No. 1292 of 1947 on the file of the Court of the Chief Presidency Magistrate is the petitioner in this criminal revision case, which is to revise the order of the learned Magistrate dated 9th June, 1947, dismissing the complaint under Section 203, Criminal Procedure Code, on the ground that there were no sufficient reasons to proceed with it, any further. The lower Court took the complaint on file and forwarded the same to the Commissioner of Police for investigation under Section 202 and for the submission of a report by 16th of May, 1947. Accordingly, the police enquired into the matter and submitted their report to the lower Court. After considering this report, the learned Magistrate found that there was no justification for proceeding with the complaint and dismissed the same.2. It may be stated at the outset that the complaint was not an oral one, but had been reduced to writing before presentation to the Court and its contents were rea...
Kuppammal and ors. Vs. Seetharama Aiyar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-09-1948
Reported in: AIR1948Mad528; (1948)1MLJ355
Horwill, J.1. One of the properties concerned in the suit by the appellant was a house in which he had been residing. Under a compromise decree, this house was awarded to the respondent. It was argued that this compromise was not binding on the appellant. That contention was upheld; but the trial Court came to the conclusion that the family agreement, upon which the compromise decree was based, was binding on the minor appellant. Even if the correctness of the decision of the lower Court with regard to the binding nature of this agreement is open to question, the plaintiffs failed to prove to the satisfaction of the trial Court that the house in question was joint family property. The suit was dismissed. During the pendency of an appeal to the District Court of Madura, the appellant prayed for an interim injunction, restraining the respondent from executing his decree by dispossessing him of the house. That prayer was refused; and against that order this appeal has been filed.2. It is ...
In Re: Andi thevan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-07-1948
Reported in: (1949)1MLJ182
Subba Rao, J.1. This is a reference under Section 307 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Madura. The four accused in the ease were charged with an offence under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code. The Jury by a majority of four to one found that the accused 1 to 3 were not guilty and unanimously found that the fourth accused was not guilty. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge agreed with the verdict of the jury so far as accused 2 to 4 were concerned, but in regard to accused No. 1 he differed from the verdict of the Jury and referred this case to the High Court. The evidence against the first accused mainly consists of the oral evidence of P. Ws. 3 to 5. The same evidence also was relied upon by the prosecution in regard to accused 2 to 4. The charge to the Jury was very fair and in accordance with the directions given by the Judge, the Jury appreciated the evidence and refused to believe the witnesses called by the prosecution. The law on the point ...
In Re: Kista Pillai and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-06-1948
Reported in: 1949CriLJ106; (1948)2MLJ83
ORDER1. The petitioners in these two revision cases were respectively the 2nd and the 3rd accused in C.C. No. 42 of 1946 on the file of the Additional First Class Magistrate, Chingleput. It is unnecessary for the purpose of these cases to refer at any length to the details of the convictions and the sentences. I have listened to a long argument on behalf of the petitioners but the only point that need be dealt with is the one as to jurisdiction.2. It has been found by both the lower Courts that the two petitioners were members of an unlawful assembly which pelted stones at the Indo-Ceylon Express on the 26th of February, 1946, and that the assembly continued from about 8 a.m. till about 10 a.m. As to what happened at about 8 a.m., there is no dispute that the occurrence was on the Saidapet side and therefore within the local limits of the jurisdiction of the Additional First Class Magistrate, Chingleput. The case for the prosecution was that about 10 a.m., stones were thrown from the C...
Chivatapu Lakshminarayana Vs. Maddirala Subbayya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-06-1948
Reported in: AIR1948Mad514; (1948)1MLJ459
Horwill, J.1. The suit out of which this second appeal arises was one by certain Archakas who had been dismissed from service by the appellant, who was then the interim trustee appointed by the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Board. The District Munsiff of Tanuku held that there was nothing illegal in the manner in which the enquiry had been conducted and the order passed and he further held that the suit was barred by Section 43 of the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act. He therefore dismissed the suit. In appeal to the District Judge of West Godavari, it was held that the appointment of the appellant as an interim trustee, ignoring inter alia the rights of the hereditary trustee, was ultra vires, and that therefore the suit lay. He held that Section 43 of the Act did not apply; because the competence of the appellant to act under that section had been rightly challenged. He accordingly allowed the appeal and decreed the suit with costs.2. A preliminary objection has been taken t...
V. Vr. Bank by Managing Partner Valliappa Chettiar Vs. L.M. Bank, Cusb ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-04-1948
Reported in: (1948)1MLJ458
Horwill, J.1. The appellant purchased from the Official Receiver the insol-vent's right in two mortgages, one of which was a simple mortgage and the other a usufructuary mortgage. About two years after the sale, the appellant entered into an agreement (Ex. P-10) with the predecessors-in-title of the respondent, who were simple creditors of the insolvent, whereby the appellant was to have a share and the respondent's predecessors-in-title a 1/4 share in the rights to the amounts of the said deeds and to the property. Relying on this agreement, the respondent filed the present suit for partition and separate possession of the property which was the subject-matter of the agreement and for an account of the mesne profits. Faced with the difficulty arising out of the circumstance that Ex. P-10 was not registered, he put forward an oral agreement prior to Ex. P-10, of which Ex. P-10 was said to be merely a record. The trial Court found that there was no evidence of any prior agreement; and s...
Battepati Parthasarathy Gupta Vs. the Calcutta Glass and Silicate Work ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-03-1948
Reported in: (1948)2MLJ101
P.V. Rajamannar, Officiating C.J.1. This is an appeal from the judgment and order of Kunhi Raman, j., made in the exercise of Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction revoking the leave which he had granted to the appellant to institute a suit against the respondents on the Original Side of this Court for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 7,923-4-8 with interest thereon as damages for the breach of two contracts for the supply of glassware. On the 6th December, 1945, that learned Judge made an ex parte order granting leave to the appellant to institute the suit. The ground on which the application was made by the appellant for leave was that the breach, viz., the failure of the respondents to supply the goods in accordance with the contracts, took place at Madras. The respondents' application for revocation of the leave was made on the ground that no part of the cause of action arose within the limits of the original jurisdiction of this Court. The learned Judge agreed with the respondents' con...
V. Gurulinga Mudaliar Vs. Thayyanayaki Ammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-03-1948
Reported in: AIR1948Mad522; (1948)1MLJ343
P.V. Rajamannar, Officiating C.J.1. This is an appeal against the order of Chandra-sekhara Aiyar, J., granting Succession Certificate to the respondent in respect of certain debts due to her deceased husband without furnishing any security. The appellant is the presumptive reversioner, the son of a divided brother of the deceased. The complaint of the appellant is that the respondent should have been directed to furnish security under Section 375(1) of the Indian Succession Act. The learned Judge referred to the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Ligamma v. Venkayya (1944) 1 M.L.J. 288, in which Mockett and Bell, JJ., held that when a widow applied for the issue of a Succession Certificate in respect of a sum of money due to her deceased husband's estate the widow would be entitled to a certificate without security in the absence of special circumstances. The appellant complains that there were special circumstances which would justify an order for security but the learned J...
A. Mohammad Hassan Sahib and ors. Vs. the Podanur Sunnath Jamath by Pr ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-03-1948
Reported in: AIR1948Mad516; (1948)1MLJ379
Govinda Menon, J.1. The petitioners, five in number, purporting to represent the Muslim members of the Sunnath Jamath of Podanur, applied to the lower Court for leave under Order 1, Rule 8 of the Civil Procedure Code to file a suit against the defendants who are said to be the representatives of a society styled ' the Podanur Sunnath Jamath ' registered under the Societies' Registration Act (Act XXI of 1860). The allegations are that the defendants have no legal status and that the rules and the agreement of the said society are therefore invalid and without any legal effect. On this application, the defendants filed a counter, stating among other matters that the petitioners did not represent the general body of the Muslims of Podanur and that the fifth petitioner who was an important individual in the locality was engineering the whole business. During the course of the hearing of this application, the petitioners filed 134 affidavits, each one of the deponents of those affidavits st...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›