Chennai Court January 1952 Judgments
Ramabadra Reddiar Vs. Ramachandra Reddiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-30-1952
Reported in: AIR1954Mad74; (1952)IIMLJ73
Basheer Ahmed Sayeed, J. 1. This is an appeal against the order of the learned Principal Subordinate Judge of Cudda-lore holding that the decree-holder's remedy was not barred by time and construing that the order passed on the execution application, Ex. A. 1, on 8-7-1939 was a final order by which time was saved in favour of the decree-holder. The final decree in this case was passed on 21-12-1936, and on 13-9-1937 the decree-holder filed an execution application. That application was returned unnumbered for filling up certain particulars and for representation within a month's time. The Court also directed that an encumbrance certificate should be filed. This application was not represented within the prescribed time. Actually it was represented oN 3-7-1939 with the endorsement that the decree-holder was not pressing the petition, and that it might be rejected or dismissed. On 5-7-1939 the Court passed the order, 'Not pressed, rejected'. There was no separate application filed along ...
Tag this Judgment!Kanakammal Vs. Muhammad Kathija Beevi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-29-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Mad188; (1952)1MLJ53
1. In execution of the compromise decree passed in the appellate Court in O. S. No. 49 of 1923 on 13th November 1931 certain properties were sold on 6th December 1939. The appellant who is the decree-holder filed another application for execution and in that the judgment-debtor raised the objection that the application was barred by res judicata. In -- 'C.M.S.A. No. 177 of 1944' Bell J. held that the execution application was not barred by limitation. While this appeal was pending, the present respondent filed an application under Section 19 of the Madras Agriculturists Relief Act for scaling down the decree and both the lower courts held that the decree has to be scaled down. When the matter came up to this court in C. H. S. A. No. 243 of 1946 our learned brother Subba Rao J. held that the objection taken by the decree-holder that the judgment-debtor should have applied for sealing down the decree when the earlier application was pending cannot be maintained and therefore held that th...
Tag this Judgment!Rahimansa Rowther and anr. Vs. the Madras Islamia Educational Institut ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-29-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Mad366; (1952)IIMLJ404
Subba Rao, J. 1. This is a second appeal against the decree and judgment of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Tanjore confirming that of the District Munsif of Tanjore in O. Section No. 134 Of 1943, a suit filed by the respondent for redemption of the usufructuary mortgages and for possession of properties pertaining to its 7/10th share. One Natharsa Rowther had four sons and two daughters. They were Kadir Hussain, Kadirasa, Mohideensa, Mohammad Kanni, Miran Bivi and Chinna Pillai Bivi. Natharsa Rowther mortgaged his three shops bearing Nos. 11, 12 and 13 situated in survey number 176/l-A at Vallamvadakku, Sethi village to one Nizam Rowther on 27th, 28th and 29th March 1867 for a sum of Rs. 297. Natharsa's son Mohideensa created a mortgage in regard to the same properties in favour of the said mortgagee for a sum of Rs. 50 on 5-12-1878. After the death of the original mortgagor his four sons became entitled to 2/10th share each and the two daughters 1/10th share each. Noor Bivi dau...
Tag this Judgment!M.M. Muthuwappa Vs. the First Additional Income-tax Officer, TuticorIn ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-29-1952
Reported in: AIR1952Mad861; [1952]21ITR344(Mad); (1952)2MLJ50
ORDERSubba Rao, J.1. This is an application for issuing a Writ of Prohibition against the respondents, prohibiting them from taking proceedings under Section 46 of the Indian Income-tax Act or under the Madras Revenue Recovery Act, against the petitioner for the recovery of arrears of income-tax.2. The petitioner is a merchant carrying on business at No. 79, Keyzer Street, Colombo and is now residing at Madras. On 30-12-1948, for the year of assessment 1948-19, the First Additional Income-tax Officer, Tuticorin made an order assessing him to a tax of Rs. 28,575-10-0. By the said order, his total income was fixed at the sum of Rs. 71484 which included his total foreign income of Rs. 69569. The foreign income was held to have been earned by him in Ceylon. The petitioner paid from time to time sums totalling Rs. 13000 towards the tax and penalty imposed for non-payment of the tax and the balance due from him is Rs. 15,153-5-0 For the assessment year 1949-50, he was again assessed to a lar...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: C. Devanugraham
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-25-1952
Reported in: AIR1952Mad725; (1952)1MLJ550
ORDERRamaswami, J.1. This is a criminal revision petition filed against the order made by the learned Sixth Presidency Magistrate, Egmore, Madras in C. C. No. 8583 of 1950.2. The facts are: The petitioner was employed as a Food Inspector in the service of the Corporation of Madras. He was charged by the Special Branch Police for an offence under Section 161, I. P. C. in that he received a sum of Rs. 50 from K. Sarangapani Naicker, a milkman as illegal gratification. The case was tried before the Fifth Presidency Magistrate in C. C. No. 1137 of 1949. The petitioner was convicted and sentenced to six months rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 300 or in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months. The petitioner preferred an appeal to the High Court in Crl. Ap. No. 728 of 1949 and this was disposed of by Panchapagesa Sastry J.3. The relevant portion of the judgment of Panchapagesa Sastry J. is as follows: 'It is conceded by the State Prosecutor that if the sanction...
Tag this Judgment!Thirumaleshwara Bhatta Being Minor by Next Friend Shanker Bhatta Vs. K ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-24-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Mad132; (1952)1MLJ716
Ramaswami, J.1. S. A. Nos. 1823 and 2212 of 1947: --2. These are two connected appeals preferred against the decree and judgment of the learned District Judge of South Kanara in A.S. No. 216 of 1945 arising from O. S. No. 76 of 1943 on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court, South Kanara.3. The facts of this case can be easily followed if we take on hand the genealogical tree appended below:PUTTAYYA alias SHANKERNARAYANA BHATTA|_________________|___________________| |Thimmanna Bhatta (Sankamma) Shambayya(Deft. 3) || _______|________| | | | Ganapayya Ramappayya| (plff.) (Deft. 2)_______|__________| |Shankernarayana ShyamaBhatta (Laxmi)|____|___________| |Thimmanna Bhatta Shankari4. The information given by this genealogical tree has to be completed by bearing in mind the following facts: Shankernarayana Bhatta died in 1927 and his widow Laxmi died in 1941. Shankernarayana Bhatta's son Thimmanna Bhatta had died unmarried during his father's lifetime and his daughter Shankari who was t...
Tag this Judgment!B.A. Woodman Vs. Mrs. Regina Rajan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-23-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Mad378; (1952)1MLJ628
ORDERBasheer Ahmed Sayeed, J.1. This civil revision petition is against the order of the learned City Civil Judge passed in E. A. No. 1772 of 1951 in E. P. No. 862 of 1951 in L. Dis. No. 4315 H. B. C. 1950.2. The petitioner is the tenant against whom an order for eviction was passed by the Rent Controller on 7-9-1950. The order is in the following terms:'Petitioner by advocate. Respondent hi person. By consent respondent is given time for vacating till 7-3-1951. Eviction is ordered.' It transpires a further extension of time for vacating and delivery of possession was given till 26-5-1951. This extension of time was given on 12-4-1951 by the City Civil Court. It was obviously given when the landlady filed an execution application on 21-3-1951. In between the filing of the execution application and the expiry of the extended time for delivery of possession, a new legislation viz. Act 8, Of 1951 came into force on 1-5-1951. That Act amended the original Act 15 of 1946 as amended by furth...
Tag this Judgment!Rao Saheb Dr. Ananda Baliga Vs. Srimat Ananteswar Temple, Manjeswar by ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-22-1952
Reported in: AIR1952Mad767; (1952)IMLJ678
Satyanarayana Rao, J. 1. The plaintiff whose suit has been dismissed on a preliminary point by the lower court is the appellant in this appeal. The suit was instituted under Order 1. Rule 8 of the Civil Procedure Code, with the leave of the court on behalf of the Gowd Saraswat Brahmin Community in South Kanara; and two reliefs were claimed in the plaint with reference to the suit temple which is at present being managed by an executive officer appointed by the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Board in 1939 as the temple was notified under the Act (Vide Ex. B. l). The reliefs which the plaintiff claimed in 'the plaint were two: (1) a declaration that the first defendant temple belongs to and is of the exclusive right of the members of the Gowd Saraswat Brahmin Community of South Kanara who alone have the exclusive right of management and performing the puja therein; (2) a permanent injunction restraining the second defendant from introducing any form of 'agama' ritual or mode of worshi...
Tag this Judgment!Ammenumma Vs. Chelampiriyarath Beeviamma and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-18-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Mad32; (1952)2MLJ421
ORDER XXII, Rule 9 and Order XXIII, Rule 1 C. P. C.12. Applying these principles to a second suit for sale by a mortgagee, it has first to be seen whether such a suit could be maintained under the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act. The right to obtain a decree for sale of the mortgaged property is conferred by S, 67 of the Transfer of Property Act. That section, so far as it is material for the present purpose, runs as follows:'The mortgagee has at any time after the mortgage money has become due to him and before a decree has been made for the redemption of the mortgaged property, or the mortgage money has been paid or deposited, a right to obtain from the Court a decree that the mortgagor shall be absolutely debarred of his right to redeem the property, or a decree that the property be sold.'The section deals with 'suits both for fore closure and for sale and the provisions contained therein must be read distributively in relation to the two subjects. So read, the section en...
Tag this Judgment!Siddi Subba Rao and anr. Vs. Pukhraj Kocher Ginning and Pressing Facto ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-18-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Mad389; (1952)1MLJ548
Panchapakesa Ayyar, J. 1. There are no merits at all in this civil revision petition as no part of the cause of action in the petitioner's suit for damages arose in this State. The point for consideration is whether both the Courts below went wrong in holding that the District Munsif's Court, Peddapuram, had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit for damages filed against the defendants for supplying them fully bales of inferior cotton, said to differ much from the sample cotton shown to them before the sale. The contract was admittedly, entered into at Chanda, in Madhya Pradesh, on 25-7-1943, and the District Munsif's Court, Peddapuram, would have, of course, no jurisdiction, if no part of the transaction arose within its own limits. Both the Courts below held that the delivery of the cotton was to be at Chanda & that the price also was to bo paid there, judging from the correspondence.2. Mr. P. M. Srinivasa Aiyangar, for the petitioners plaintiffs, urged that both the lower Courts wen...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »