Chennai Court February 1953 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: K.A. Meera Sahib Tharaganar and Brothers
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-06-1953
Reported in: AIR1953Mad716; [1953]23ITR451(Mad); (1953)1MLJ674
Rajamannar, C.J. 1. These are appeals under the Letters Patent against the judgment of Chandra Reddi J. dismissing a batch of applications under Article 226 of the Constitution. The points raised in all these petitions were the same and the petitions were all disposed of by a common judgment. The relief sought by the petitioner was the same in all the petitions and was in respect of proceedings taken for the enforcement of orders of assessment of excess profits tax and income-tax. The petitioners were assessed to income-tax and excess profits tax for several years and against the orders of assessment they have preferred appeals to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax and it is represented to us that the appeals are pending. Meanwhile, the petitioners have filed these applications to get rid of the same orders evidently provoked by the proceedings taken by the Income-tax authorities to collect the tax imposed on them. 2. The only ground on which our jurisdiction under Art...
Ponnuswami Gounder Vs. Rengaswamy and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-06-1953
Reported in: AIR1953Mad766; (1953)IILLJ222Mad; (1953)1MLJ410
Mack, J.1. The appellant is a P. W. D. contractor who appeals against an order by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation directing him to pay a sum of Rs. 550 as compensation to the father of a road employee who was killed by a stone roller while working on road laying. The accident was reported by the Superintending Engineer of the PWD to the Commissioner and an enquiry was held by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Tindivanam, under Rule 23(1), Workmen's Compensation Rules. The enquiry disclosed that the deceased had a father, mother and a minor brother aged 11 and a minor sister aged 2 alive. There is on record a statement by the lather recorded by the village Magistrate and statements recorded from the contractor and one of his witnesses by the Revenue Divisional Officer.According to the father's statement, the son was 25 years old, but according to the contractor he was 16. According to one of the contractor's witnesses, the deceased was an emaciated boy who was prior to his emp...
Pottimurthi Sadasivayya Vs. Tadepalli Venkata Narayana and Co.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-06-1953
Reported in: AIR1953Mad845; (1953)1MLJ811
Rajamannar, C.J1. There is no substance whatever in this second appeal. There was a forward contract for the sale and purchase of 301 tins of groundnut oil entered into on 6-10-1944 on which date the Vegetable Oil and Oilcakes (Forward Contracts Prohibition) Order 1944, was in force, which prohibited all forward contracts in groundnuts and groundnut oil. The plaintiff who was the purchaser) evidently to evade the provisions of this order, prevailed upon the defendant to agree to pay Rs. 504-6-6 towards compensation and this arrangement was embodied in another contract, dated 13-12-1944, under which the plaintiff was described as the seller and the defendant as the buyer. The price was fixed at a higher rate than the price fixed by the original contract. On the back of this document, there was the following endorsement : 'The contract whereby the seller herein bought from the buyer herein 301 tins at the rate of Rs. 6 is settled hereby without any need for delivery of the commodity rela...
E.S. Raghavendra Rao and ors. Vs. Venkammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-06-1953
Reported in: AIR1953Mad855; (1953)1MLJ801
Krishnaswami Nayudu, J.1. The question that arises for determination in this appeal is as to whether an application by a transferee-decree-holder for execution which was dismissed for want of production of a succession certificate is an application filed in accordance with law to the proper Court for execution. 2. In O. S. No. 64 of 1936 on the file of the District Munsif of Erode a money decree was passed against the defendants on 25-7-1936. The decree-holder died sometime after the passing of the decree leaving behind him, as his heirs, three grandsons by his daughter who were minors. The father of these minors acting as their guardian assigned the decree to one Rama Rao. Rama Rao, the assignee decree-holder filed E. P. No. 1172 of 1939 on 18-7-1939 and asked for recognition of himself as the assignee-plaintiff under Order 21, Rule 16, Civil P. C.; for a declaration that as the original plaintiff was dead, his minor grandsons may be impleaded as his heirs under Order 21, Rule 3, Civi...
Kallubandi Nanjamma Vs. KeThe Rangappa and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-05-1953
Reported in: AIR1954Mad173; (1953)2MLJ737
Venkatarama Ayyar, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff against the judgment and decree inA. S. No. 26 of 1948 on the file of the District Court, Anantapur, which confirmed the decree of the District Munsif, Penukonda, in O. S. No. 238 of 1946. Defendants 6 and 7 are brothers and they owned items 1 and 2 and a half share in item 3 as co-sharers, each being entitled to a moiety thereof. On 5-8-1932 they executed a deed of gift Ex. A, 1 settling the said properties along with others on the plaintiff who is the daughter of defendant 7. At that time defendant 6 was indebted to defendant 4 under pro-notes dated 15-3-1932 and 25-7-1932. On 20-7-1935 defendant 6 agreed to sell item 3 to defendant 4 in discharge of the promissory note dated 25-7-1932; and he having defaulted in executing a sale deed in pursuance of the agreement, defendant 4 filed O. S. No. 78 of 1937 on the file of the District Munsif's Court, Penukonda for specific performance of the agreement and that was decreed with co...
Chellammal and anr. Vs. K.T.A. Abdul Rahiman Rowther and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-05-1953
Reported in: AIR1953Mad856; (1953)2MLJ827
ORDERRaghava Rao, J.1. The question in this case is one of court-fee and jurisdiction. The Court of first instance returned the plaint for presentation to the proper Court finding that it exceeded its pecuniary jurisdiction. The Court of appeal having affirmed the order of return of plaint the plaintiff in the case comes up here in revision.2. The petitioner is interested in a 2/13th share of 'Dharmasanam' village. Items 1 to 5 are the 'Dharmasanam' items and items 6 to 8 are certain 'porombokes'. He sought partition and delivery of 2/13th share in respect of items 1 to 5, because they were partible in character and sought a declaration of a joint right in respect of the impartible items 6 to 8. A Commissioner appointed in this suit valued items 6 to 8 with reference to the trees that stood thereon as at Rs. 2700. It is on the basis of this valuation and on the basis of the supposition that the plaintiff's right in respect of the items in suit was in respect of the whole in each one of...
Rangaswami Naicker Vs. Janakiammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-05-1953
Reported in: AIR1953Mad876; (1953)2MLJ110
Mack, J.1. The appellant is the first judgment-debtor in execution proceedings taken out by the plaintiff in execution of a maintenance decree she obtained. The decree was against the deceased husband's joint family, represented by defendant 1, his brother, defendant 2 and other family members including the legal representatives of another brother Rudrappa, who died prior to suit. 2. The decree charged two lots of property, one for maintenance subsequent to suit and the second, B schedule items, for arrears of maintenance and. provision for pilgrimage etc. The plaintiff sought in execution to attach some uncharged property in the possession of the first judgment debtor. The learned Subordinate Judge rejected one of the contentions that the widow should exhaust the charged property first, before reserving to further execution. The view taken by the learned Subordinate Judge is quite correct. It is settled law that a widow cannot be confined to property charged with her maintenance and t...
Ananthoth Gopalan Vs. Eram Veettil Kanaran and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-05-1953
Reported in: AIR1953Mad925; (1953)IMLJ812
Balakrishna Ayyar, J.1. The jenmam right in the suit properties belongs to defendant 2. In May 1943 he put defendant 1 in possession of the properties under an oral lease. The lease was apparently for a period of one year. On 30-6-1944, defendant 2 executed a kanom kuzhikanam in favour of deft. 1. See Ex. D. 1. The document refers to the oral demise of 9-5-1943, admits receipt of the kanom amount of Re. 1 and demise fee of Rs. 125 and proceeds to confer kanom kuzhikanom right for a period of 12 years. But this document was not registered. On 24-7-1944, defendant 2 executed a registered kanom kuzhikanom deed in favour of the plaintiff (Ex. P. 1). On the strength of Ex. P. 1 the plaintiff sued to recover possession of the suit property. The District Munsif of Nada-puram dismissed the suit. His appeal to the Subordinate Judge of Tellicherry having failed, he has come up to this Court.2. One of the defences, which defendant 1 set up, was that he is entitled to the protection conferred by S...
Tirukoilur Sri Viratteswarar Devasthanam by Its Trustees K.M. Velayudh ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-04-1953
Reported in: (1952)IIMLJ430
Basheer Ahmed Sayeed, J.1. Defendants are the petitioners and being aggrieved by the order of the learned District Judge of South Arcot on the preliminary issues tried by him, they have preferred this civil revision petition.2. The preliminary issues on which the order in question has been passed are to the following effect : (1) Whether under Section 57 of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act (Act XIX of 1951), the District Court had jurisdiction to try a suit without the matter being first enquired into by the Deputy Commissioner. The second issue was whether Section 57 of the Act was itself ultra vires of the powers of the legislature. On both the issues the learned District Judge found that the District Court had jurisdiction to try the suit that it was maintainable in his Court and also held that there was no need for referring to-the High Court the question as to the validity of Section 57 of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act (Act XIX of 1951)....
The Masulipatam Municipal Council Represented by the Commissioner, Hav ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-04-1953
Reported in: AIR1953Mad864; (1953)1MLJ536
Satyanarayana Rao, J.1. The second appeal raises an interesting question of law under the Madras District Municipalities Act. The appeal is by the Masulipatam Municipal Council represented by the Commissioner. The respondent, the Brundavan Talkies Ltd., instituted the suit, out of which this second apoeal arises, in the District Munsif's Court for a declaration that it was entitled to the supply of water to its building bearing municipal No. 325/ 12 in ward No. 12 of the appellant Municipality from its water system on the basis of supply for a domestic use and for refund of an amount of Rs. 1093-7-8 with interest thereon which, it was claimed was unauthorisedly collected in excess by the appellant of the basis that the supply of water was for a non-domestic purpose. The respondent succeeded in both the Courts and it was held that he was liable to pay the tax only on the basis of supply for a domestic purpose and not on the basis of a non-domestic purpose.2. There is no oral evidence ad...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »