Chennai Court July 1948 Judgments
In Re: Parasa Mangadu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-23-1948
Reported in: 1949CriLJ324; (1948)2MLJ375
Govinda Menon, J.1. Appellants 1 to 5 have been convicted by the learned Sessions Judge of Kistna of an offence under Section 201, Indian Penal Code, read with Section 149, Indian Penal Code and each of them sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for five years. The sixth appellant has been convicted of an offence under Section 323, Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to a term of one year's rigorous imprisonment. I shall first of all deal with the case of the sixth appellant. The evidence against him is that of a solitary witness P. W. 11, who says that she saw the sixth appellant hit the deceased above the left eye-brow with a stick. She has not been corroborated by any other evidence or by any other witness in the case Her statement that the fifth accused (fifth appellant) was then going ahead of the sixth appellant has not been accepted by the learned Sessions Judge. The learned Sessions Judge has also declined to rely on other circumstances against the sixth appellant. Such being the cas...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Valluri Kamanna and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-23-1948
Reported in: (1948)2MLJ515
ORDERGovindarajachari, J.1. This reference under Section 5 of the Court-Fees Act arises in the following circumstances. The plaintiff who is a woman filed the suit for recovery of two sets of properties, lands which are described in Schedule A and jewels which are described in Schedule B. There are two sets of defendants, defendants 1 to 8 forming one group and defendants 9 to 13 another. The 9th defendant is the father of the plaintiff and the first defendant was her maternal grandfather. Defendants 2 to 8 are his sons and grandsons. It is alleged that throughout the relevant period defendants 1 to 8 were members of a joint Hindu family. The plaintiff's case shortly is that the properties described in Schedules A and B belonged to her mother who died on 28th May, 1928, in the house of the first defendant where she had gone for confinement; that the first defendant took possession of the jewels and the lands; that he subsequently agreed with her paternal relations that he would look af...
Tag this Judgment!Govinda Nair Vs. Srinivasa Pattar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-22-1948
Reported in: (1948)2MLJ463
Govindarajachari, J.1. The facts necessary for the disposal of this case may be shortly stated. The appellant had a kanom over certain properties which belonged in jenm to the Kuthiravattath tarwad.2. On 6th September, 1923, the appellant borrowed Rs. 600 from and executed a promissory note in favour of one Appu Pattar who was the manager of a joint Hindu family. On 9th August, 1924, the appellant executed a deed of simple mortgage, Ex. P-1, hypothecating 18 items of property to Appu Pattar to cover the amount due under the promissory note of 1923 and a further cash advance. Ex. P-1 was for Rs. 1,000.3. There was a partition in Appu Pattar's family in 1930. It is common ground that this was evidenced by a registered deed of partition. It is also common ground that at that partition the mortgage evidenced by Ex. P-1 fell to the share of the Appu Pattar's brother, Srinivasa Pattar, who is the respondent in the present appeal.4. On 9th August, 1935, a fresh document of mortgage, Ex. P-2 w...
Tag this Judgment!Paturu Viswanatham and anr. Vs. Gunupati Balarami Reddi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-22-1948
Reported in: (1948)2MLJ542
Satyanarayana Rao, J.1. These three second appeals are between the same parties and relate to the recovery of an amount from the respondent in all the second appeals either as rent or as damages for use and occupation. The appellants along with others were co-sharers in certain Khandriga known as Patuvari Khandriga of an extent of about 25 acres. This land was in the possession of one Gunupati Balarami Reddi for a considerable length of time. In 1931 the Patuvari people who were the owners of this Khandriga instituted a suit for partition amongst themselves and impleaded in that suit as the sixth defendant Balarami Reddi also. Balarami Reddi pleaded in that suit that he had acquired permanent rights of occupancy in the land. So far as the documentary evidence goes this land was granted on lease to one Veeraraghava Reddi, the maternal uncle of Balarami Reddi, on the 28th of August, 1896, for a period of nine years under a registered lease. After the expiry of that lease Balarami Reddi's...
Tag this Judgment!The Public Prosecutor Vs. K.M. Ibrahim Sahib
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-21-1948
Reported in: 1949CriLJ213; (1948)2MLJ273
Govinda Menon, J.1. The Public Prosecutor, Madras, appeals against the acquittal of the respondent by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge of Sivaganga of an offence under Sections 6 and 19(c) as well as under Section 20 of the Indian Arms Act (XI of 1878). There cannot be much dispute about facts. The respondent who held a licence for possessing arms in the then Indian State of Pudukottah was found, on return from Ceylon at the Dhanushkodi pier to be in the possession of 25 live cartridges. He tried to hide them but the Customs Authorities were able to detect his act. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge has held that since he is entitled to possess ammunition in the State of Pudukottah for which he held a valid licence, he has not imported in contravention of the provisions of Section 6 and therefore no offence under Section 19(c) was committed. The learned Judge also holds that since it cannot be said that an offence under Section 19(c) has been committed, no offence under Section 2...
Tag this Judgment!R. Muthiah thevar Vs. P. Lakshmanan Pandithar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-21-1948
Reported in: (1948)2MLJ500
Govindarajachari, J.1. The respondent executed on the 9th of November, 1938, in favour of one Subbamma a promissory note for Rs. 240 agreeing to pay interest at the rate of 12 per cent. per annum. There were two payments made to Subbamma, one of Rs. 100 on 4th November, 1941, and the other of Rs. 150 on 22nd July, 1943. The promissory note was transferred by Subbamma to the petitioner on 22nd July, 1945. In his plaint the petitioner gave credit to both the payments but he calculated interest at the contract rate and adjusting the payments made on that basis he claimed Rs. 160 as due to him on 7th March, 1946. The suit was filed four days later on nth March, 1946.2. The defendant-respondent alleged other payments but these were not made out and nothing was said about these payments at the hearing of the civil revision petition. The lower Court dismissed the petitioner's suit on the ground that the two payments were open payments and that they should therefore be adjusted towards the pri...
Tag this Judgment!Chaturvedula Venkata Lakshminarasimham and anr. Vs. Sha Ven Vaktaji Go ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-20-1948
Reported in: (1948)2MLJ488
Govindarajachari, J.1. These civil miscellaneous second appeals arise out of proceedings in execution of two decrees. The decree-holders are different but the material judgment-debtors are the same. The facts in the two cases are so identical and the execution of the two decrees proceeded on lines so closely parallel that it is sufficient for the disposal of both the appeals to state the facts in one of them.2. C.M.S.A. No. 15 of 1947 arises out of proceedings in execution of the decree in O.S. No. 12 of 1933 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Bezwada. The first of the petitions to execute this decree was E.P. No. 67 of 1934 which was dismissed on 24th July, 1934. On 8th September, 1934, the decree-holder applied in E.P. No. 127 of 1934 for rateable distribution of the proceeds of a sale to be held in E.P. No. 29 of 1933 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Bezwada and in case no such sale was held for attachment and sale of the immoveable property men...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Kandaswami Goundan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-16-1948
Reported in: 1949CriLJ457
ORDERGovinda Menon, J.1. These two cases can be disposed of by a common judgment, as the point arising in be to of them is identical. I shall first of all deal with Ori. R. C, no. 12b7 of 1947 which arises out of 0. 0. No. 410 of 1917 on the file of the Additional First Class Magistrate, Pollachi. The sole accused in that case was convicted by the trial Court of an offence under Section 7(l) of the Central Act, XXIV [24] of 1946 for selling paddy to a person other than the Collector or his agent, This conviction was upheld by the learned Sessions Judge of Coimbatore, and the aggrieved party cornea up in revision. In Cri. B. 0. No. 1307 of 1947 the three petitioners were the accused in 0, 0. No. 499 of 1947 in the Court of the same Additional First Class Magistrate, Pollachi. They were the purchasers of the quantity of paddy from the accused in the previous case and were convicted of an offence under the same section of the same Act. for transporting paddy without a permit.2. Though in ...
Tag this Judgment!Girjaram Singh Vs. Moopu Samban and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-16-1948
Reported in: (1949)2MLJ305
Govindarajachari, J.1. This is a creditor's appeal and the main point that arises is under Madras Act IV of 1938.2. Most of the material facts are not in dispute. In 1930 the first defendant executed in favour of the plaintiff (appellant) three deeds of mortgage, Exhibits A, B and C for Rs. 1,500, Rs. 1,500 and Rs. 900 respectively. Admittedly, no payments were made towards any of the mortgages till August, 1935, when an arrangement was arrived at between the plaintiff and several persons who had purchased portions of the hypotheca from the first defendant. This arrangement was embodied in Exhibit E, dated 19th August, 1935. After reciting the mortgages it is stated in Exhibit E that the balance in respect of those debts on 19th August, 1935, stood at the figure of Rs. 6,130. It is then provided thata sum of Rs. 5,344 should be credited therefor in the mortgage deeds .... and towards that the properties mentioned hereunder in accordance with the particulars mentioned in paragraph a...,...
Tag this Judgment!Chava Lakshmidevamma Vs. Chava Nagayya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-16-1948
Reported in: (1948)2MLJ362
Rajagopalan, J.1. The plaintiff-petitioner seeks to set aside in revision the order of the learned District Munsiff of Guntur directing under Order 1, Rule 10 that the fourth defendant, who had applied there for, be impleaded as a party defendant to the suit.2. The plaintiff laid the suit in the first instance against the three defendants, her deceased husband's brothers. It was common ground that defendants 1 to 3 were divided in status from the plaintiff's husband. The plaintiff claimed that on the death of her husband she succeeded to her husband's properties. After averring in paragraph (5) of the plaint that the defendants threatened to interfere with her possession, and that ittherefore became necessary to institute the suit for a declaration of the rights of the plaintiff in the suit property and for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiff, the plaintiff prayed for a decree(a) declaring that the plaintiff has got rights of a Hindu wi...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »