Chennai Court September 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.
Yalamanchilli Venkataramiah Vs. Garikipati Janapaiyya and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-02-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Mad831
Raghava Rao, J.1. The defendant in a suit for damages for malicious prosecution is the appellant before me in this second appeal. The malicious prosecution alleged pertains to certain proceedings under Section 144, Criminal P. C., initiated by the defendant against one Ramabrahmam and certain others with reference to an obstruction which he alleged had been caused to him in the matter of his possession of the property that had been contracted to be sold to him by Ramabrahmam. It would appear that on 31st May 1943 the appellant obtained the ex parte order that he sought in the proceeding under Section 144 which he had initiated by then. On 4th June 1943, four days after the date of the ex parte order, a settlement took place between the appellant and Ramabrahmam by which he was enabled to sell the properties to one Sobhanadri for a higher price than had been agreed to be paid by the defendant and had been in fact paid by him, Certain of the other persons against whom the proceedings had...
Velavala Subbayya Vs. Gazula Bapayya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-01-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Mad294
Govinda Menon, J.1. We are of opinion that the order of the lower Court is, on the face of it, unjustifiable and could not be supported. This appeal arises out of an application to sat aside an ex parte decree passed on 13th July 1948 by the Subordinate Judge, Tenali, in O. S. No. 69 of 1917 on his file. The appellant here was defendant 1 before the lower Court in which the suit was filed on 9th October 1917. It is unnecessary for us to consider the stages or the progress of the litigation between that date and 11th July 1918. On the 11th respondent-plaintiff asked for an adjournment of the suit by means of a written application. The appellant-defendant not only did not demur to the adjournment, but consented to have the adjournment as prayed for by the plaintiff. When that application came up on 12th July 1948, the learned Subordinate Judge found no sufficient reason for granting the postponements asked for and the same was rejected. In the meanwhile on 12th July 1948, the appellant w...
S. Soora Reddi Vs. S. Chenna Reddi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-01-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Mad306
Govinda Menon, J. 1. This is an appeal under Section 19 and 47, Guardians and Wards Act against the order' of the learned District Judge of Cuddappah by which the learned District Judge dismissed an application by the appellant herein under Section 10 of the same statute for a declaration that he is the guardian of his minor son who was born on 15th April 1944.2. The two grounds on which the learned District Judge dismissed the application are firstly, that since the death of the minor's mother immediately after the birth of the minor, the father, the appellant, had married a second wife and is now living in the house of the second wife's father. The second reason which impelled the learned Judge to reject the application is that the petition to the lower Court was made 19-. months after and therefore there was undue delay in the making of it. In our opinion, the learned Judge's view that the application was made 19 months later is based upon a misconception.3. A few facts have to be s...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›