Chennai Court December 1952 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: N.H.M. Pandian
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-12-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Mad787; (1953)IIMLJ42
Basheer Ahmed Sayeed, J.1. The petitioner in this criminal revision case has been convicted and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of the fine to undergo rigorous Imprisonment for six months, under Section 409 I. P. C. by the learned Sessions Judge of Tirunelveli division, who confirmed the conviction and sentence by the learned District Magistrate of Tirunelveli.2. The petitioner the present Zamuidar of Uthumalai estate, is said to be a premier citizen of the District of Tirunelveli, The said zamindar is the trustee of Navaneetha Krishnaswami temple at Veerekeralampudur. Before him, his father was the trustee for a short time. The latter was shot dead on 18-9-1942. Before his death, the grand-father of the present petitioner, one Sub-biah Thevar, was the zamindar. The said grandfather of the present petitioner died on '1-1-1941. The said Subbiah Thevar was the brother of Rani Meenakshisundara Nachiar, who was the z...
G.A. Galia Kotwala and Co. Ltd. Represented by Its Power Agent and Man ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-11-1952
Reported in: AIR1954Mad119; (1953)IIMLJ372
Krishnaswami Nayudu, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for damages for breach of contract. The plaintiffs, who are the appellants are merchants carrying on business at Coimbatore, the defendants being merchants of Salem and manufacturers of tapioca starch. The plaintiffs' case is that in January and February 1946 the defendants entered into three contracts for the supply of 35 tons, 50 tons and 100 tons of tapioca starch to the plaintiffs at Rs. 15-8-0 per cwt. F. O. R. Sankarldrug, Sankaridrug being in Salem district, and as against the said three contracts the defendants received from the plaintiffs a sum of Rs. 10,000 on 21-2-1946. The sale and purchase of tapioca were subject to the Starch Control Order of 1945 and licence was necessary for selling the commodity. Since under the contract the goods were to be despatched outside the district to Ahmedabad, Indore, Bombay and other places in addition to a licence under the Starch Control Order an export permit from, the Collector o...
Avaran Kutti (Minor) by Next Friend, Kalathingal Ithalukki Vs. Cheriya ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-11-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Mad480; (1953)IMLJ340
Subba Rao, J.1. These appeals raise a question of limitation. One Avarankutti by next friend Ithalukki filed three suits, O.S. Nos. 638, 639 and 640 of 1945 on the file of the Court of the District Munsif of Parappanangudi against the defendant-mortgagees for recovery of amounts towards damages for having cut the trees in the mortgage property in their possession and for removing the same. The suits were filed more than two years after the alleged cutting of the trees. The learned District Munsif and on appeal, the learned District Judge held that the suits were barred by limitation under Article 36. Limitation Act. The plaintiff preferred the aforesaid three appeals.2. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the learned Judge was wrong in holding that the suits are governed by Article 36, Limitation Act. He would say that the appropriate article is Article 116 of the Act. Before proceeding to consider the facts of the instant case it may be convenient at this stage to conside...
Seeranga Goundan Vs. Saranga Goundan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-10-1952
Reported in: AIR1954Mad156
1. This second appeal has been placed before a Bench at the instance of Satyanarayana Rao J. who thought that it should be heard by a Bench as the correctness of the statement of law relating to improvements Dy a mortgagee in possession under anomalous mortgage in -- 'Pandiyan Pillai v. Vellayappa Rowther', AIR 1918 Mad 572 (A), was canvassed before him. The facts giving rise to this question may be briefly set out. The plaintiff created a mortgage over the suit properties on 20-11-1930, to secure a sum of Rs. 3400 under Ex. D-1. The mortgagee was put in possession of the property on the understanding that he should enjoy the income of the property in lieu of interest for a period of two years. Under the terms of Ex. D-1, the mortgagor could redeem the mortgage within a period of two years. In default thereof it was stipulated that the mortgagee could hold and enjoy all the properties with powers of alienation such as gifts, sale, etc. The mortgagor failed to pay the principal amount w...
In Re: Muthyala Lakshminarayana
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-10-1952
Reported in: AIR1954Mad412; (1953)IIMLJ160
Ramaswami, J.1. This is a second appeal which is sought to be preferred against the decree and judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge of Vizagapatam in A. S. No. 45 of 1952 confirming the decree and judgment of the learned District Munsif of Vizagapatam in O. S. No. 101 of 1951.2. O. S. No. 101 of 1951 was tried along with two other suits, O. S. Nos. 102 and 103 of 1951 and a common judgment was delivered. The plaintiffs in all these suits were the same and the first defendant in all these suits was different. But the controversies between the plaintiffs and these defendants were the same and were in regard to three parcels of land situated within the municipal limits of Vizagapatam town. The first defendant in O. S. No. 101 of 1951 preferred an appeal in A. S. No. 45 of 1952 and we are not concerned with the first defendant in the other two suits.3. The case for the plaintiffs in regard to these lands situated as just now mentioned inside the Vizegapatam Municipality and which are ...
Thirugnanasambandham Pillai, Managing Trustee of Nangur Sri Narayanasw ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-10-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Mad744; (1952)1MLJ486
Subba Rao, J. 1. This second appeal arises out of O. S. No. 297 of 1946, a suit instituted by the appellant for rendition of accounts for the period from 13-4-1945 to 13-4-1946 by the first defendant of the plaint Kattalai and to direct the first defendant to hand over to the plaintiff the amount due to the Kattalai and also the moveables, documents, vessels and accounts belonging to the Kattalai and possession of the Kattaiai building and for costs of suit. 2. The Vellalars of Nangur have been conducting a Dwadasi Kattalai for a number of years. On 19-5-1922, an arrangement was arrived at for the due management of the Kattalai and it was embodied in an agreement, Ex. P. 1. Under that agreement five persons, Ayyaru Pillai, Swami-natha Pillai, Kanakasabai Pillai, Selvanaya-gam Pillai and Thyagaraja Pillai, were constituted as Vicharanakartas of the said Kattalai. One of the material terms of the agreement was that 'all transactions relating to the said charity, receipts and expenditure ...
Sure Subba Rao and anr. Vs. Sure Venkata Satyanarayana and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-10-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Mad755; (1953)IIMLJ97
Subba Rao, J.1. This appeal raises the question of the factum and validity of the adoption of the first defendant by the second defendant. The parties are Valsyas by caste. In or about 1912 Venkayya, the last maleholder died possessed of a large estate more particularly described in schedules A, B and C appended to the plaint. As he had no issue, his wife Ademma, the second defendant inherited his properties. On 10-2-1947 she is said to have taken the first defendant in adoption to her deceased husband. The plaintiff who is the nearest 'reversioner along with the third defendant, being Venkayya's brother's son, filed O.S. No. 90 of 1947 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Guntur, for a declaration that the adoption of the first defendant by the second defendant was not true, valid and binding on the reversioners to the estate of Venkayya. He questioned the factum of adoption and pleaded that even if it had taken place, it was invalid on the ground that the consent of the...
In Re: Ayya Nadar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-09-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Mad933; (1953)1MLJ462
ORDER1. This is a Civil Revision Petition which is sought to be filed against the finding given by the learned District Munsif, Koilpatti, on a preliminary issue regarding 'res Judicata' raised in O. S. No. 42 of 1952.2. The facts necessary for understanding this finding are: The plaintiff Subbiah Nadar and the defendant Ayyah Nadar are brothers. This plaintiff had purchased from his mother Shenpa-gathammal the eastern portion of a land 2-98 acres in extent and for which the sale deed stood in the name of that Shenbagathammal. The vendee was obstructed from taking possession of the property and therefore he filed O. S. No. 98 of 1949. In that suit the defendant-brother raised the plea that though the sale deed stood in the name of the mother, in reality the property had been purchased with the funds of the Joint family and that the sale deed had been taken 'benami' in the name of the mother and that the plaintiff was not entitled to the eastern half of the property claimed by him as ve...
Kombi Achan and ors. Vs. K.C. Velayudhan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-05-1952
Reported in: AIR1954Mad144; (1953)IIMLJ17
Venkatarama Ayyar, J.1. This is an appeal by defendants 1, 26 and 27 against the Judgment and decree in O. S. No. 9 of 1947 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Palghat. The properties, which are the subject-matter of this litigation, consist of 63 items of land. Items 1 to 41 belong in jenmi to Thiruvara Devaswom & they are subject to a kanom for Rs. 2600 in favour of Vedakke Meledom, of which defendants 1 to 25 are the members. Items 42 to 63 belong in jenm to Kavalappara Estate and they are subject to a kanom for Rs. 395 in favour of the same Edam. Defendant 1, who was originally the karnavan of this Edam, was removed from management by a decree passed in O. S. No. 35 of 1917 on the file of the Court of the District Munsif of Alathur. That decree also provided that defendant 1 should get annually 300 paras of paddy for his maintenance. Defendant 2, who succeeded to the management, was also removed by a decree passed in O. S. No. 14 of 1925 on the file of the Court of t...
Mundlamudi Penchalamma Vs. Kopparthi Subbaramiah and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-05-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Mad559; (1953)IMLJ321
Mack, J.1. The petitioner is defendant I who bought some lands from the plaintiff in 1947 for a sum of Rs. 2,000. The plaintiff's case was that Rs. 100 still remained unpaid by defendant 1 and he sued to recover the balance alleged to be due. This was not a straight forward claim for the money due. There was an agreement that defendant 1 should discharge alt the plaintiff's debts which, included a decree in a Munsif's Court suit. Though defendant 1 paid up the debts of the plaintiff this decree was not satisfied but was transferred in the name of defendant 2. The learned Small Cause Judge rejected the plea taken that he had no jurisdiction to try this suit, went into the merits and gave the plaintiff a decree against defendant 1 only. The decision in - 'Veerasalingam v. Sathapally Sathirasu', 19 Mad LJ 220 (A) was placed before him but he did not think that in point. That was a suit for recovery of a sum of money due to the plaintiff under a contract for the transfer of some pattahs fo...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »