Chennai Court December 1951 Judgments
Ct. A. Ct. Chidambaram Chettiar Vs. Ct. A. Ct. Subramanian Chettiar an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-14-1951
Reported in: AIR1953Mad492; (1952)2MLJ524
Venkatarama Aiyar, J.1. 'C. M. A. No. 210 of 1946:-- 'This is an appeal by the plaintiff against the judgment and order in I. A. No. 18 of 1945 in O. S. No. 91 of 1941 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Devakottah, setting aside an award. O. S. No. 91 of 1941 is a suit for partition instituted by the appellant against his brother defendant 1 and his sons, defendants 2 to 5. The parties belong to Nattukottai Chettiar community and the family is an affluent one having extensive money lending business in Burma. Chidambaram Chettiar the father of the plaintiff and defendant 1 died on 20-8-1926 and at that time the plaintiff was an infant aged about six years, ho having been born on 26-9-1920. The 1st defendant who was already associated with his father in the conduct of the business became the manager of the joint family and was in charge of its affairs. On 6-9-1941, the plaintiff sent a notice to defendant 1 calling upon him to effect a division and to render accounts. T...
Tag this Judgment!S.P. Shaik Abdul Khader and Co. by Partner Abdul Khader Vs. A.R. Subra ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-14-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Mad840; (1952)1MLJ284
ORDERSubba Rao, J.1. This is an application for issuing a writ of certiorari to quash the order of the Deputy Chief Controller of Exports, Custom House, Madras. The petitioner is a registered partnership firm carrying on business at Tirunelveli Pellai. The petitioner entered into a partnership with the first defendant on terms and conditions set out in the partnership deed dated 1-12-1950. The partnership deed was executed subsequent to the agreement dated 30-9-1960. The scope of the agreement, the partnership deed and the terms thereof are in dispute. During September 1950, two lots of hundred tons of chillies were exported under two contracts with the Co-operative Wholesale Establishment, Ceylon. Subramania Pillai, the respondent had shipped the goods in his own name and realised the sale proceeds through bank.2. The petitioner's case is that two consignments were made pursuant to the aforesaid partnership entered into between the parties.3. The 1st respondent does not deny the expor...
Tag this Judgment!Devaraja Shenoy and ors. Vs. State of Madras, by Secretary, Legal Depa ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-13-1951
Reported in: AIR1953Mad149; (1952)2MLJ418
ORDER1. This application relates to Sri Venkataramana Temple, Mulki, South Kanara district and was filed by five of the trustees for the issue of a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order directing the first respondent, the State of Madras, to forbear from enforcing any of the provisions of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951, against the petitioners, the Shri Venkataramana Temple and its endowments. The application was filed after the new Act came into force. The administration of this temple is governed by a scheme framed by the Sub-Court, South Kanara, in O. S. No. 26 of 1915 known as the Moolki Temple Scheme. There are certain peculiar features regarding this temple which can be gathered from the scheme framed in that suit which for convenient reference is added as an appendix to this judgment as the contentions raised turned mostly upon a correct appreciation of the principles underlying the scheme.Under the scheme the general control and...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Lakshmindra theertha Swamiar of Sri Shirur Mutt and anr. Vs. the C ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-13-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Mad613; (1952)IMLJ557
1. (C. M. P. No. 2591 of 1951):--This and the other connected petitions relating to the Guruvayur temple and the Chidambaram temple were heard together as they all raised the question of the validity of the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1926, Act II of 1927 (hereinafter called the 'earlier Act'). While these petitions were pending, the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951 (Act XIX of 1951) (hereinafter called the new Act) which repealed the earlier Act was brought into force by the Madras Government on 30th September 1951 by a notification in the Fort St. George Gazette- Leave to amend the petitions was granted to the petitioners and they have been permitted to canvass the validity of the new Act as well. Mr. M. K. Nambiyar who appeared for the trustee of the Guruvayur temple argued his petition first and Mr. Alladi Krishnaswami Aiyar and the learned Advocate-General replied to that petition after which the petition relating to Guruvayur temple was allowe...
Tag this Judgment!Bandi Peda Ramireddi Vs. Tagaram Bichalu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-13-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Mad837; (1952)IMLJ475
Chandra Reddi, J. 1. The question referred to the Bench is whether a judgment rendered in an earlier suit filed under Order 21, Rule 63 to which the claimant, the decree-holder, and judgment-debtors were impleaded as parties could operate as res judicata in a subsequent suit between the claimant and a representativein-interest of the judgment-debtor. The facts of the case are fully set out in the order of reference; but for an appreciation of the question involved in this case we may briefly state a few facts.The suit property originally belonged to one Khasim. Subsequent to his death, his widow Yelli sold the same for a stated consideration of Rs. 100 to the plaintiff under Ex. P. 1 dated 28th May 1936. A creditor of Yelli filed O. S. No. 589 of 1936 and obtained a decree. Prior to judgment, the suit property was attached when the plaintiff intervened with a claim based on Ex. P. 1. This claim was allowed which led to the filing of a suit by the creditor, O. S. No. 480 of 1941 for vac...
Tag this Judgment!A.L.V.R. St. Veerappa Chettiar Vs. State of Madras and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-13-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Mad835; (1952)IMLJ456
1. In these applications the validity of Madras Act XXVI (26) of 1048 (The Madras Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act) is challenged. Of the many grounds on which it was challenged, several have become unavailable to the petitioners on account of the Constitution (First Amendment) Act, 1951. and the recent decision of the Supreme Court which held that Act to be valid (vide -- 'Shankari Prasad Singh v. Union of India', 1951 SCJ 775. For instance, it is no longer open to the petitioners to contend that the Act has become void as being inconsistent with, or taking away, or abridging, any of the rights conferred by any of the provisions of Part III of the Constitution.2. But learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the Act is still liable to be challenged on other grounds. The first of such grounds pressed before us was that it contravenes the provisions of Sub-section (2) of Section 299 of the Government of India Act, 1935. To this ground the answer of the State...
Tag this Judgment!Devar and Co. Represented by K. Muthuswami Devar Vs. C. Radhakrishna N ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-11-1951
Reported in: AIR1953Mad16; (1952)IIMLJ308
Basheer Ahmed Sayeed, J. 1. This appeal is against the judgment and decree of the learned Principal City Civil Judge, partially decreeing the suit brought about by the plaintiff claiming arrears of salary, bonus and dearness allowance. 2. The plaintiff was employed as a driver under the defendants. The defendants are a firm of merchants carrying extensive business in timber in several places in the State of Madras. The allegations of the plaintiff are that, while he was serving the defendants from February 1943 to June 1947 he was discharged from service without cause and without notice on the 10th June 1947. He, therefore, filed the suit claiming arrears of salary from 1st June 1947 to 10th June 1947 and three months' salary for wrongful dismissal. He also claimed dearness allowance and bonus for the period during which he served under the defendants. He alleged that in the accounts maintained by the defendants, the plaintiff was credited with certain sums on account of dearness allow...
Tag this Judgment!Karuppa Servai Vs. Kundaru Alias Muniandi thevan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-10-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Mad833; (1952)1MLJ270
ORDERPanchapakesa Ayyar, J.1. This is a petition filed by one of the accused in a murder case (R. C. No. 17 of 1951) for setting aside the order of the Sessions Judge of Madurai directing the release of an approver (P. W. 1), and for his re-arrast and detention in custody pending disposal of R.C. No. 17 of 1951, and the sessions trial therein, if committal ensues.2. I have perused the records and heard Mr. V. Rajagopalachariar for the petitioner, the learned Public Prosecutor for the State, and the learned counsel for the approver. The learned Public Prosecutor does not oppose the petition and, indeed, supports it. He relies upon the mandatory provisions of Section 337(3) Criminal Procedure Code, that an f.p prover, unless he is already on bail at the time he accepts the tender of the pardon, this approver was not on bail then), shall be detained in custody until the termination of the trial. In this case, even the preliminary enquiry is not concluded, let alone any trial begun in the ...
Tag this Judgment!Abdul Kadir Haji Vs. Muhammad and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-10-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Mad859; (1952)1MLJ547
Govinda Menon, J.1. The plaintiff who is the appellant in this second appeal was a mortgagor whose suit was for redemption of the mortgage in favour of the first defendant, and the lower courts in ordering redemption have directed him to pay the value of a large number of cashewnut trees planted on the mortgaged property by the first defendant. The basis of the calculation was on the footing that the cashew-nut trees are fruit-bearing trees as understood according to Section 9 of the Malabar Compensation for Tenants Improvements' Act and not timber trees as contemplated by, Section 10 of the same Act.Mr. M. K. Nambiar for the appellant contends that in view of the fact that under Section 15 (1) (b) (ii) of the Act only cocoanut trees areca-nut trees, jack trees and peppervinos are mentioned for purposes of determining the amount of compensation to be awarded under the Act as fruit-bearing trees, it should be held that cashew-nut trees are not fruit-bearing trees. I am inclined to hold ...
Tag this Judgment!Arunachala Chettiar Vs. Vadla Koundan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-10-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Mad871; (1952)1MLJ400
1. The only question of law which requires consideration in this second appeal by the unsuccessful plaintiff is whether the sale of the properties on the 9th November 1942 in execution of a small cause decree and the confirmation thereof on the 12th December 1942 is valid. The ground on which the confirmation was attacked is that after the date of sale and before confirmation, the judgment-debtor died on the 14th November 1942, and as the confirmation order was passed without impleading the legal representatives of the judgment-debtor the confirmation was not binding and was of no effect. This contention was accepted by the lower courts and the claim of the plaintiff to confirm his possession of the property which he purchased was negatived.There is no direct case on the point in any of the courts except a decision of the Oudh Court in -- 'Kamakshya Dutt Ram v. Shyam Lall', AIR 1929 Oudh 235 which is relied on, on behalf of the appellant and which seems to support his contention. The f...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »