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.
R. Ramachandra Rao Vs. T.G. Narayana Rao
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-01-1948
Reported in: (1948)2MLJ109
ORDERP.V. Rajamannar, Officiating C.J.1. This is an application under Section 109(c) and section no of the Civil Procedure Code for leave to appeal to the Federal Court of India against the judgment and decree of this Court in Appeal No. 439 of 1946 which confirmed the judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge of Trichinooply in O.S. No. 149 of 1945. The ground on which the petitioner seeks leave to appeal is that though the judgment of this Court affirmed the judgment of the lower Court, it raises a substantial question of law which is also a question of considerable general importance. The latter ground, however, was not pressed before us. It is therefore only necessary to find out if the appeal does involve a substantial question of law. That question, according to the petitioner, arises in respect of the admissibility of the statement of one Ranga Ayyar made in a Criminal case, C.C. No. 30 of 1883 on the file of the Special Second Class Magistrate of Trichinopoly. Ex. P. 2 purpo...
P. Venugopala Pillai Vs. V. Thirunavukkarasu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-01-1948
Reported in: (1948)2MLJ155
P.V. Rajamannar, Officiating C.J.1. This appeal relates to two coconut gardens situated in Lloyds Road and Sullavan's Garden Road, Mylapore, in the City, which admittedly belong to plaintiffs 1 to 3 who are respondents 1 to 3 here. The first plaintiff is the son of one Kandaswami Gramani, and plaintiffs 2 and 3 are the grandsons of Kandaswami by the first plaintiff's brother. The first item originally belonged to Jagadambal, wife of Kandaswami Gramani. The fourth plaintiff who is the fourth respondent claims to have obtained from plaintiffs 1 to 3 the right of tapping the coconut trees in these two gardens from 1st October, 1947, for a period of one year. The defendant has been enjoying the right of tapping the coconut trees in these two gardens for toddy continuously from 1st October, 1934. So far as item 1 is concerned, the defendant obtained a right to tap the trees for a period of three years from Kandaswami Gramani by a registered agreement, Ex. P. 1, dated 1st March, 1935. This c...
Nadimpalli Chandrakantam and anr. Vs. Velavartipati Chandramowliprasad ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-01-1948
Reported in: (1948)2MLJ206
Govindarajachari, J.1. This is an appeal by defendants 1 and 3 in O.S. No. 731 of 1933 on the file of the Court of the District Munsif of Guntur against an order of remand passed by the Subordinate Judge of Guntur in A.S. No. 73 of 1946. In O.S. No. 731 of 1933 which was a suit for partition, a preliminary decree was passed on 23rd December, 1937. The preliminary decree directed inter alia.that the mesne profits due to the plaintiff on his share mentioned above be determined on a separate petition by the plaintiff in execution. 2. The plaintiff filed C.M.P. No. 697 of 1945 out of which the present civil miscellaneous appeal arises on 22nd February, 1945. The application was filed under Order 20, Rule 12 of the Civil Procedure Code. Defendants 1 and 2 contended that the petition was barred by limitation. They also raised objections as to the period for which mesne profits could be allowed and as to the amount claimed. The District Munsif dismissed the petition as barred by limitation an...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›