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.
R. Krishnamurthy Vs. S. Parthasarathy and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-06-1949
Reported in: (1949)1MLJ412
Horwill, J.1. The respondent is the occupier of the house No. 403, Mint Street, Madras, and the appellant is the owner of that house, who had leased it to the respondent on a month to month tenancy. The respondent failed to pay rent for July, 1947, before the end of August of that year; and so the appellant, without giving notice under Section 111(h) of the Transfer of Property Act, filed an application before the Rent Controller, Madras, under Section 7 of Madras Act XV of 1946 for the eviction of the respondent. The Rent Controller, after giving notice to the respondent, came to the conclusion that the respondent had not paid his rent within the time allowed by Section 7(2) and so ordered his eviction. The question of the non-issue of notice under Section 111(A) of the Transfer of Property Act was not raised. The respondent exercised his statutory right of appeal under Section 12 of the Act and filed an appeal in the Court of Small Causes, Madras. Again no reference was made to the f...
A.M.A. Murugappa Chettiar and ors. Vs. Arunachala Goundan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-05-1949
Reported in: (1949)1MLJ449
Satyanarayana Rao, J.1. Defendants 2 to 5 are the appellants in this second appeal. The first respondent instituted the suit to recover various sums of money from the different defendants. In execution of the decree in O.S. No. 1614 of 1933 of the District Munsiff's Court, Coimbatore, the plaintiff purchased a four-fifth share in two lots of property. That decree was obtained by defendants 1 to 5 against one Sinnia Goundan and his four sons. Sinnia Goundan was adjudicated an insolvent in I.P. No. 180 of 1933, Sub-Court, Coimbatore, prior to the institution of the suit; and the suit was instituted against him with the leave of the insolvency Court, and his four sons were also impleaded as parties to the suit. A decree for money was passed in that suit on the 21st March, 1934. Two lots of property were brought to sale on the 19th March, 1935, and the two lots were purchased in the auction sale held on that date by the plaintiff, lot I for a sum of Rs. 1,030 and lot II for Rs. 376, i.e., ...
D. Jayalakshmi Alias D. Jayam Vs. R. Soundararajan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-05-1949
Reported in: (1949)1MLJ511
Bell, J.1. This suit is one for nullity under the Special Marriage Act III of 1872 as amended. The petitioner was born on the 28th of January 1929, and is therefore today under 20 years of age. Her father died in 1938 and since then she has lived with her mother and latterly with her mother in her maternal uncle's house. In 1947-48 she was attending school in Coimbatore and through one of her school mates met the respondent, a young man now aged about 22. On the 24th of March, 1948, the parties appeared before the Registrar and went through a form of marriage purporting to be in accordance with this Act. At that time the petitioner was just over 19 years of age and the respondent about 21.2. The question is whether the form of marriage was correct under the provisions of the Act. It is necessary to refer to one or two sections. The first is Section 2 which lays down the conditions upon which marriages under the Act may be celebrated. The parties are Hindus and at the time of the marria...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›