Chennai Court January 1949 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: Madda Peda Brahmayya Alias Satyanandam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-18-1949
Reported in: 1950CriLJ8; (1949)1MLJ386
Subba Rao, J.1. The accused was convicted Under Section 302, Penal Code, and has been sentenced to transportation for life. The accused and P.W. 7 are husband and wife, P.W. 7 being his third wife. The husband and wife lived together happily and had a numbar of children. One Narayanamurthi (the deceased) wag a neighbour of the accused, and it is in evidence that he led a wayward life. Somehow he was able to seduce P.W. 7 and there is evidence that there was illicit intimacy between P.W. 7 and the deceased Narayanamurthi. The husband discovered her in a compromising position twice, and on the second occasion as the accused threatened to put an end to their lives, the wife left the husband for her parent's house. On the morning of 80th March 1948, Narayanamurthi was found dead in his house, and the prosecution case is that he was murdered by the accused. That there was sufficient motive for the accused to commit the murdec admita of no doubt. P.W. 7, See. tama, the wife of the aocu3ed, a...
Amina Alias Beepathumma and anr. Vs. B. Ahmed BIn Chayabba
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-18-1949
Reported in: (1949)1MLJ465
Satyanarayana Rao, J.1. The defendants are the appellants. The suit out of which this second appeal arises was instituted for recovery of possession of the suit property with building standing thereon together with profits, past and future.. The suit was decreed by the trial Court and was confirmed on appeal by the lower appellate Court. Hence this second appeal.2. The plaintiff's predecessor-in-title let the suit property on 6th May, 1903, to one Hamed Beary, the predecessor of the defendant. The lessee died and the property came into the possession of his sister Kunhi Pathumma. The plaintiff's predecessor-in-title instituted a suit, O.S. No. 155 of 191 7 against Kunhi Pathumma and another for recovery of possession on the strength of the lease in favour of Hamed Beary. That suit was dismissed on the ground that there was no apportionment of rent. After the death of Kunhi Pathumma, the defendants who are her daughters continued in possession of the property. In 1930, the plaintiff's p...
In Re: Muruga Goundan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-10-1949
Reported in: 1949CriLJ887
Subba Rao, J.1. The accused has been charged under Section 302, Penal Code and has been sentenced to death.2. The case of the prosecution is that the accused, along with two others (accused 2 and a), who have been acquitted, killed Unnamalai Ammal and removed the saradu that was worn by her. P. W. 3 is the sister of the accused, and V. W. 4 U the wife of the accused. They gave evidence before the Magistrate implicating the accused, but in the Sessions court they gave a different version altogether. The two witnesses were treated as hostile, and the learned Suasions Judge marked their depositions in the Magistrate's Court as substantive evidence under Section 288, Criminal P. 0. Exhisit p-4 is the deposition of P. W. 8 in the committing Magistrate's Court. She said that, four months ago, on a Monday, her younger brother, i. e., the accused, Came to her and took from her a kaiaruval saying that he wanted it for cutting pandal post. On Wednesday he returned it at lamp, lighting time. On T...
Palani Ammal Vs. L. Sethurama Aiyangar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-10-1949
Reported in: (1949)1MLJ290
Satyanarayana Rao, J.1. The defendant is the appellant. The suit out of which this second appeal arises was instituted by the landholder to recover possession of some Gramanatham land, which was occupied by the defendant sometime in 1936. The main defence to the suit was that the plaintiff who was one of the co-owners of the inam village in which the land was situated was not entitled to institute the suit in ejectment; secondly, that the plaintiff was not the owner of the land and that it is communal property and he had, therefore, no title to eject; thirdly, that the plaintiff had no possession within 12 years prior to the date of institution of the suit. On all the questions both the Courts found in favour of the plaintiff negativing the contention of the defendant, and decreed the suit.2. In this second appeal, again the same contentions were repeated. On the first question apart from the fact that the plaintiff was recognised as the landholder under the Estates Land Act, he is ent...
Kayambu Servai Vs. Karuppiah Servai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-10-1949
Reported in: (1949)1MLJ297
Panchapagesa Sastri, J.1. The plaintiff is the appellant before me. He filed a suit for an injunction against defendants 2 to 6 restraining them from taking water from Panikkananthal tank to their lands situated in the village of Kulanthapuri. He also wanted an injunction directing the defendants to restore a part of a channel which they were alleged to have destroyed and also an injunction restraining them from interfering with the plaintiff's taking water to his wet lands in Panikkananthal village through the channel A, A-1 to A-8. He claimed another relief about the defendants having put up a pipe at a point 'S' in the tank but both the Courts have found against the plaintiff in connection with that matter and the second appeal does not deal with this point. The learned District Munsiff found all the other points in favour of the plaintiff and decreed the suit. On appeal by defendants 2 to 6 the Subordinate Judge reversed the rinding of the trial Court and dismissed the suit. The pl...
Sowcar Chinna Basamma Vs. Veeradhi Veerappa and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-10-1949
Reported in: (1949)1MLJ398
Horwill, J.1. One Veerabhadrappa was a mortgagee; and he filed a suit for sale on his mortgage deed and obtained a decree. In execution of the decree he brought the hypotheca to sale on the 9th March, 1896; and according to the finding of fact which cannot be canvassed here in second appeal, it was purchased by him benami in the name of his father-in-law, Lingappa. Prior to the present Code of Civil Procedure, Section 317 of the Code of 1882 prevented any person from maintaining a suit against a certified purchaser on the ground that the purchase was made benami. The first defendant in this suit is not the certified purchaser herself, but a person who claims through him; and the question that arises in this appeal is whether the plaintiffs can put forward the benami nature of the transaction In the suit, in view of the wording of Section 66 of the present Code, which is wider than that of Section 317 of the old Code and runs:No suit shall be maintained against any person claiming title...
Krishnamurthi Naidu Vs. Ramakrishna Naidu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-10-1949
Reported in: (1949)1MLJ459
Satyanarayana Rao, J.1. The plaintiff is the appellant in the second appeal and his suit for recovery of possession of 1 acre 58 cents in S. No. 160/1 in the village of Melur described by boundaries in the plaint schedule was dismissed by the Courts below. Hence this appeal.2. One Muthukrishna had two sons, Srinivasalu and Ramakrishna. Ramakrishna is the first defendant in the present suit. His son Pothurajalu is the.second defendant. Srinivasalu had two sons Venkatakrishna and Krishnamurthi. Krishnamurthi is the present plaintiff. Venkatakrishna died in 1935. In 1917, Srinivasalu instituted a suit for partition, O.S. No. 190 of 1917, on the file of the District Munsiff's Court of Srirangam, and impleaded in that suit Muthukrishna also as a party. In that suit 2 acres 39 cents in S. No. 160/1 of which the present suit property forms a part was not included, presumably because the property was purchased by Muthukrishna in his own name. The suit was decreed. Later, Pothuraju, the present...
In Re: Chelliah Alias Mariappa Kudumban
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-07-1949
Reported in: 1949CriLJ896
Panchapakesa Ayyar, J.1. The accused, a be y past 16, has been convicted under Section 302, Penal Code, by the Sessions Judge of Ramnad, and sentenced to transportation for life with the recommendation for action under B. 10-A, be cstal Schools Act.2. The facts are simple. The accused and the deceased a neighbouring be y of 12, were friends, though, like boys of that age, they were also now and then quarrelling. On 26th March 1948, the accused called the deceased to go with him to collect some babul beans which he bad taken on lease for a rupee. The two boys went together, the accused taking with him athorothi stick (a stick with a small iron bill hook at the end) for plucking the beans. They were seen together gaily chatting and laughing and proceeding to--warjjs the babul tree by P. v. 7, the accused's Stepmother. That night, the deceased did not return home, so his relatives went about enquiring for him. Finally, the accused was questioned. At first he said that the deceased had gon...
K. Muhammad Sukri Sahib Vs. thelapurath Madhava Kurup and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-07-1949
Reported in: 79Ind.Cas.1011; (1924)46MLJ560; (1949)1MLJ376
Horwill, J.1. The respondent is the owner of a shop in Calicut town and the appellant is his tenant, holding the shop on a month-to-month tenancy. The respondent filed O.S. No. 405 of 1943 for the eviction of the appellant; but before he could obtain a decree, the Non-Residential Building Rent Control Order, 1942, had been amended on nth July, 1944. Apparently unaware of the amendment, a, decree was passed in the respondent's favour on the 8th September, 1944. Almost immediately, the respondent applied for possession, obtained an ex parte order in his favour, and was actually put in possession on the 15th September, 1944. On the 28ih October, 1944, the appellant drew the attention of the executing Court to the amendment on the nth July, 1944, and pointed out that the Court had acted ultra vires, in that its order delivering possession to the respondent was void. The Court then took action under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure and set aside its previous order on the ground th...
G. Rengaraja Rao Vs. A. Tulasibai Ammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-07-1949
Reported in: (1949)1MLJ650
Panchapagesa Sastri, J.1. This is an appeal against the order of the Subordinate Judge of Cuddalore directing the issue of a succession certificate to the respondent Tulasi Bai. She is the daughter of one Venkobai Ammal who is said to have executed a will dated 9th March, 1944, bequeathing all her properties to her daughter. The appellant who is the step-son of Venkobai opposed the application to the grant of succession certificate. His objections were firstly that succession certificate could not be issued by reason of Section 370 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (XXXIX of 1925); secondly that the Subordinate Court had no jurisdiction as the deceased was residing at the time of her death within the district of Chittoor where she is said to have executed the will and where she died; and thirdly that the will was not true and valid. All his contentions were overruled. Hence the appeal by him to this Court.2. A preliminary objection is taken by the responden's advocate that the appeal ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »