Chennai Court April 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.
Puvvada Venkata Subbayya Vs. Attar Sheik Mastan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-07-1948
Reported in: (1948)2MLJ198
Happell, J.1. The appellant filed the suit, from which this Letters Patent Appeal arises, for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 2,196-10-0 from the defendants. The first defendant has, however, throughout been the only contesting defendant. The learned Principal District Munsif of Ongole who tried the suit gave the appellant a decree for Rs. 1,227 and an appeal by the first defendant was dismissed by the Subordinate Judge of Bapatla. The first defendant then filed an appeal in this Court which was allowed by Shahabuddin, J., on the ground that the agreement on which the respondent's claim was based was unlawful and so void ab initio. Shahabuddin, J., however, gave leave to the plaintiff in this suit, the present appellant, to appeal from his decision.2. It appears from a perusal of the plaint that the foundation of the suit ciaim is that three toddy shops bought in the name of the first defendant and four shops in the name of the second defendant in the Ongole Taluk for the year 1st October...
In Re: Chelamcherla Venkateswara Rao
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-07-1948
Reported in: (1948)2MLJ201
P.V. Rajamannar, Officiating C.J.1. This is an appeal against the order of Govinda Menon, J., granting to the appellant leave to appeal in forma pauperis against the decree and judgment in O.S. No. 24 of 1946 on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court of Bapatla as regards items 4 and 5 of the plaint Schedule and dismissing the application as regards the other items. It is contended that the fact that the learned Judge was satisfied that the decision of the lower Court was contrary to law or otherwise erroneous or unjust as regards some of the items necessarily implies that the decree as such is contrary to law, or otherwise erroneous or unjust. Even if there is an error as regards a part of the subject-matter, the decree as passed must be deemed to be erroneous. The ruling of the Full Bench of this Court in Eswariah v. Rameswarayya : AIR1940Mad483 was relied on as supplying an apposite analogy. It was held in that case that under the terms of Order 41, Rules 11 and 12 of the Code of...
In Re: Krishnaswami Alias Kittan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-06-1948
Reported in: 1949CriLJ115; (1948)2MLJ115
ORDERHorwill, J.1. The appellant has been convict, ed by the learned Sessions Judge of Coimbatore of the murder of his brother and has been - sentenced to transportation for life.2. Nobody actually saw the murder committed; but p.ws. 2 to 4 came on the scene upon hearing cries of 'Ayyo' from the deceased and found that he had a penetrating wound in the abdomen, through which the intestines were pro-trading. He said that the appellant had stabbed him. The evidence shows that the appellant had been much taking to heart the tendency of has brother to commit petty thefts; and when taxed with the offence after his brother had been stabbed, he admitted that he had committed it be cause he was ashamed of his brother's conduct, The deceased made a statement to those gather, ed there immediately after the offence and said that his brother had stabbed him. He repeated this statement when he was formally examined at the hospital, where he said:My elder brother came near me and stabbed me in my ab...
Subramanian and ors. Vs. Seetarama Aiyar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-05-1948
Reported in: (1948)2MLJ188
P.V. Rajamannar, C.J.1. These are appeals under the Letters Patent against the judgment of Horwill, J., dismissing two civil miscellaneous appeals, Nos. 602 and 603 of 1947. The two civil miscellaneous appeals were filed against two orders of the learned District Judge of Madura dismissing two applications for the issue of an interim injunction restraining the respondent from executing the decree for possession obtained by him in O.S. No. 15 of 1944 on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court of Madura pending two appeals before him. That suit, namely, O.S. No. 15 of 1944 was a suit for partition to which the husband of the appellant in L.P.A. No. 14 who was the managing member of the joint family at the time and the father of the minor appellants in L.P.A. No. 13, a coparcener of the family, were parties. The suit ended in a compromise decree.2. The applications were made under Order 39 of the Civil Procedure Code. Obviously, Order 39, Rule 1 has no application to the facts of this c...
Kunjammal and anr. Vs. P.S. Rajagopala Iyer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-05-1948
Reported in: (1948)2MLJ291
Rajamannar, Officiating C.J.1. The only question in this Letters Patent Appeal is whether the learned Judge, Chandrasekhara Aiyar, J., was right in holding that the appellants could not attack the decree passed by the learned City Civil Judge. The learned Judge on a consideration of what happened before the City Civil Judge who tried the suit held that the appellants could not be heard to dispute in appeal the rate of maintenance fixed by the learned Judge. The suit was filed by the appellants, the first appellant being the wife and the second appellant being the minor daughter of the respondent. They claimed maintenance for both and marriage expenses for the second appellant. The respondent filed a written statement denying his liability to pay any maintenance. When the suit came on for trial what happened before the learned Judge is best set out in his own words in paragraph (4) of his judgment,Though the allegations of abandonment and ill-treatment made in the plaint were denied by ...
In Re: Kotta Veeraiah and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-02-1948
Reported in: 1949CriLJ93; (1948)2MLJ107
ORDERGovinda Menon, J.1. I am not satisfied that the case against the different accused has received separate and sufficient attention at the hands of the learned Judge. The evidence of the prosecution witnesses in certain respects does not make any distinction between the acts attributed to accused 1 who has now been acquitted and to those attributed to the petitioner here. In a case where a number of people have been jointly tried for an offence under Section 147 along with an offence resulting from specific acts, the lower Court should have considered the evidence against each of the accused separately and given definite findings as regards the presence and part taken by each. Moreover, there are inconsistencies and discrepancies even as regards the evidence relating to the part attributed to some. For example, as against accused 6, 7, 9 and 11 the witnesses are not quite uniform in their depositions. In these circumstances, I get aside the order of the lower appellate Court only as...
Honna Reddy, Minor by Guardian and Mother, Subbamma Vs. the Official R ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-02-1948
Reported in: (1948)2MLJ108
Mack, J.1. The appellant is a minor son of an undischarged insolvent born to him after his adjudication. On his behalf a novel claim was made before the District Judge, Anantapur, to his half share in the property of his father contending that the Official Receiver had no power to sell it. It is really a remarkable position, born of legalistic ingenuity, from the impact of insolvency on Hindu joint family law. The argument in support of this position by Mr. Ramalinga Reddy is that the Official Receiver is in the position of a trustee for the insolvent. He is far more a trustee for the creditors, in that all the property of the insolvent is vested in him for sale and distribution of the proceeds in the first instance to them. To consider seriously the position of a son born to a Hindu insolvent after the adjudication and before the insolvency is terminated, would be tantamount to encouraging his marrying more than one wife after his adjudication in the hope of getting as many sons as he...
In Re: Chelliah Servai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-02-1948
Reported in: 1949CriLJ227; (1948)2MLJ267
ORDERGovinda Menon, J.1. In Muppana Appana v. Emperor 1947 M.W.N. (Crl.) 101, Horwill and Shahabuddin, JJ., nave held that when a person is charged and tried for an offence under Section 396, Indian Penal Code, he can be validly and legally convicted of a minor offence under Sections 395 and 397, Indian Penal Code, even though the offence under Section 396,. Indian Penal Code, was triable with the aid of assessors and that under Section 395, Indian Penal Code or 397, Indian Penal Code, only with a jury. In my opinion an offence under Section 395 or 397, Indian Penal Code, is a minor offence within the meaning of Section 238, of the Criminal Procedure Code, when considered in relation to an offence under Section 396, Indian Penal Code. Such being the case, the accused who already had the benefit of acquittal for an offence under Section 396, Indian Penal Code, on the same set of facts cannot now be tried and convicted for an offence under Section 395 or 397, Indian Penal Code. Section 4...
ippagunta Lakshminarasinga Rao Vs. Ippagunta Balasubramanyam and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-02-1948
Reported in: (1948)2MLJ249
Mack, J.1. The appellants are two brothers who were judgment-debtors in a partition decree. The preliminary decree was passed on 3rd March, 1932. It contained provisions for giving the plaintiff who was a nephew some immediate executable reliefs : (1) costs of Rs. 93-6-0; (2) partition and separate possession of specified immoveable properties; and (3) Rs. 750 for past and subsequent mesne profits. This preliminary decrees in due course fructified into a final decree on 8th September, 1932. The point this appeal raises for determination is whether E.P. No. 94 of 1944, which was filed on 8th September, 1944, for these money reliefs is in time. It is admittedly more than 12 years after the preliminary decree was passed, but within this period dating from the final decree. At the time when this execution petition was filed there was another execution petition E.P. No. 85 of 1942 in fact pending. It was filed by the decree-holder against these same judgment-debtors for the recovery of thes...
A.S. Mohammad Ibrahim Ummal Alias Shahul Hameed Ummal of Unsound Mind ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-02-1948
Reported in: (1948)2MLJ277
Satyanarayana Rao, J.1. This petition is to revise the orders passed, by the learned Subordinate Judge of Tuticorin in I.A. No. 241 of 1947, in O.S. No. 70 of 1946. The plaintiff is the petitioner before me.2. The suit, O.S. No. 70 of 1946 was instituted on the 15th November, 1946 on behalf of one Mohamad Ibrahim Ummal alias Shahul Hameed Urnraal who was described as a person of unsound mind by her mother as next friend. Ibrahim Ummal succeeded to a portion of her father's estate after his death on the 17th November, 1929. She was married to the second defendant in the suit on 3rd March, 1938. The first defendant is her step-brother. During the minority of the said Ibrahim Ummal her mother managed her property and during the course of her management she became liable to pay to this said Ibrahim Ummal a large amount. A suit, O.S. No. 4 of 1940, on the file of the Sub-Court was instituted for an account of the moneys which came into the hands of the mother and for recovery of the amount ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »