Chennai Court March 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.
Sethuraman thevar Vs. Kameetha Rowther and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-17-1953
Reported in: AIR1954Mad368; (1953)1MLJ742
Chandra Reddi, J.1. The judgment-debtor is the appellant. In execution of a decree obtained on the foot of a mortgage the properties of the judgment-debtor were brought to sale on 1-4-1949 and the sale was confirmed on 3-5-1948. Subsequent to this confirmation, the Madras Legislature passed Act 23 of 1948 amending the Madras Agriculturists' Relief Act in several respects. In view of these amendments, the appellant filed a petition E. A. No. 121 of 1949 in E.P. No. 131 of 1947 on 18-3-1949 to set aside the above-mentioned sale.The basis of this application is Section 23A. That section enacts:'Where in execution of any decree, any im-moveable property, in which any person entitled to the benefits of the Madras Agriculturists' Relief (Amendment) Act, 1948, had an interest, has been sold or foreclosed on or after 30-9-1947, and the sale had not been confirmed before the commencement of the said Act, (or 90 days, have not elapsed from the confirmation of the sale) or from the foreclosure, a...
Simrathmull and anr. Vs. Jugraj and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-17-1953
Reported in: AIR1954Mad334; (1953)2MLJ354
1. The respondents in this appeal instituted in the original side of this court a suit, C. S. No. 400 of 1949, for the recovery of a sura of Rs. 10731-13-0 together with interest due thereon upto date of payment from the appellants. They filed the suit under Order 7 of the Original Side Rules which corresponds to Order 37, Civil P. C. The suit was Instituted on the Judgment of a foreign Court (The District Court of Jodhpur) which the plaintiffs had obtained against the defendants.The appellants took out two applications before the Master, namely, an application for leave to defend and an application for treating the suit as an ordinary suit. We are not concerned in this appeal with the former application as it remains still undisposed of. The Master allowed the latter application holding that a suit based on a foreign judgment did not fall within the class of suits included under Order 7, Rule 1 of the Original Side Rules. The plaintiffs filed an appeal against this order of the Master...
The State of Madras, Represented by the District Collector of Tirunelv ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-17-1953
Reported in: AIR1953Mad905; (1953)2MLJ181
Panchapakesa Ayyar, J.1. I have perused the records and heard the learned counsel on both sides.2. The only point for consideration is whether, in a suit like the one filed in this case, for recovery of Rs. 900, said to have been collected illegally from the plaintiff as sales-tax, by the defendant, the State of Madras, the suit would become barred by limitation in six months under Section 18, Madras General Sales-tax Act, or at least within a year under Article 16, Limitation Act, as contended by the defendant in the Courts below, or whether only Article 62, Limitation Act, giving three years, will apply, in which case, of course, there will be no question of limitation in this suit. The tax in this case was collected from the plaintiff on 27-5-1946, and the suit was filed only on 10-1-1948. So, if Section 18, Sales-tax Act applied, or Article 16, Limitation Act applied, the suit would be barred by limitation. The District Munsif, Tuti-corin, who tried the suit, (O. S. No. 38 of 1948)...
In Re: Ramanath Bholgothra (of Jammu)
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-17-1953
Reported in: AIR1953Mad953; (1953)2MLJ399
ORDERSomasundaram, J.1. The above two petitions relate to the arrest of one Ramanath Bholgothra of the State of Jammu and Kashmir. He was taken into custody by the Madras Police on 6-2-1953 and released on bail by an order of this Court dated 11-2-1953, At the time of the arrest the only information which the Madras Police had was a communication from the Hyderabad Police to the Madras Police that the person was wanted by the Jammu and Kashmir Police. The Madras Police arrest-ed him under Section 54, Cr. P. C. and, as already stated, he was released on bail on order of this Court dated 11-2-1953. After the release he mute an application to the Chief Presidency Magistrate on 26-2-1953 for cancellation of the bonds executed by him and the sureties. As bail was granted by this Court, the Chief Presidency Magistrate declined to cancel the bonds holding that he bad no-power to do so and referred the petitioner to this Court. Against this order the petition Crl. R. C. No. 208 of 1953 is pref...
A. Rakkiyana Gounder Vs. Chinnu Goundan and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-13-1953
Reported in: AIR1954Mad84; (1953)2MLJ450
1. The plaintiff, who was unsuccessful in both the lower courts is the appellant in this second appeal. He sued to recover possession of the properties described in schedule A appended to the plaint for an account of the management by the first defendant of the properties specified in schedule B and of the sums received by him by sale of the properties as per schedule C. The second defendant is the father and the plaintiff is the son and they constitute members of a joint family. The first defendant is the brother-in-law i.e., the sister's husband of the. second defendant. The family of the plaintiff and the second defendant was indebted to several people by 1930. On 12-12-1930, the second defendant and the plaintiff executed in favour of a third party a trust deed for discharging the debts of the family. After the lapse of two years, it was discovered that the trust created was not very useful to achieve the object and it was consequently cancelled on the 27-8-1932. On 29-8-1932 three...
A.S. Subbaraj Vs. M. Muthiah and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-13-1953
Reported in: AIR1954Mad336; (1953)2MLJ577
ORDERVenkatarama Ayyar, J. 1. This is an application for the issue of a Writ of Prohibition directing the Election Tribunal, Tirunelveli, not to proceed with the hearing of the Election Petition No. 71 of 1952.At an election held on 16-1-1952 the petitioner A. S. Subbaraj was returned to the Legislative Assembly, Madras, from the Uttampalayam Constituency. The first respondent Muthiah, who was one of the three unsuccessful candidates for the seat, filed on 27-3-1952 a petition under Section 81 of the Representation of the People Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act, for setting aside the election. The Election Commission to which it was presented appointed under Section 86 of the Act an Election Tribunal for the hearing of this petition. Notice of the same was served on the petitioner on 28-9-1952. On 22-10-1952 when the petition came up for hearing before the Election Tribunal the petitioner raised a preliminary objection to its maintainability on the ground that it was not duly ve...
K.S.M. Guruswami Nadar Vs. N.G. Ranganathan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-13-1953
Reported in: AIR1954Mad402; (1953)1MLJ511
1. The defendant is the appellant in this second appeal. The suit was for recovery of possession of the property together with arrears of rent of Rs. 1541 and also for future rent. The trial court refused the relief for possession but granted a decree for Rs. 163-5-4 being arrears of rent for the period from 15-11-1943 to 23-2-1944. On appeal by the plaintiff, this decision was reversed by the learned District Judge and the suit was decreed for possession and also for arrears as prayed for. Provision was also made for future rent at the rate of Rs. 50 per mensem from 10-8-1946 till date of delivery of possession.2. The suit was based on tenancy and court fee was also paid on that basis. The suit property belonged according to the plaintiff to his joint family. One Govmdaswami and Velappa Naidu were two brothers, wnether they were divided or undivided is a matter in dispute between the parties. By his first wile, Govindaswami had three sons, Venkataswami who died in 1935, Narayanaswami ...
S. Srinivasan and anr. Vs. P. Bhakthavatsulu Naidu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-13-1953
Reported in: AIR1953Mad909; (1953)2MLJ180
ORDERGovinda Menon, J.1. This is a petition to revise the order of the Third Additional City Civil Judge, Madras, refusing leave to the petitioner to defend a suit by excusing the delay in filing the application for leave to defend.2. The respondent plaintiff filed O. S. No. 332 of 1951 in the City Civil Court on a promissory note as a summary suit under Order 37, Rule l(b), Civil P. C. for recovering a sum of Rs. 2013-14-0. The petitioners defendants were served with the summons as provided in form No. 4 of Appendix B to the Civil P. C. which was marked' before the learned Judge as Ex. A. 1. In that summons in addition to the form prescribed there were the further words 'Hearing 22-3-1951 at 11 a.m.' added to it. The summons were Served on 5-3-1951 and therefore ordinarily under Article 159, Limitation Act the application for leave to defend ought to be filed within ten days of the service of summons. But being misled by the additional words 'hearing on 22-3-1951 at 11 a.m.' the petit...
Chalakaran Kuttayi Lakshmi and anr. Vs. Chalakaran Puthia Purayil Muku ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-12-1953
Reported in: AIR1954Mad235; (1953)2MLJ545
Govinda Menon, J. 1. The learned Judge Krishnaswami Nayudu J. in his order of reference to a Bench, has detailed with sufficient particularity the facts of the case which need not again be restated now. As stated by him, the point for consideration is whether the gift contained by Ex. D. 1 dated 3-1-1898 enures for the tavazhi constituted by Tala, her children and their descendants in the female line, or whether it is only for Tala and her two daughters mentioned in the deed. It is now settled law that if a gift is made toan entity which constitutes a tavazhi as such, then the presumption is that the donor intends that the gift should have all the incidents of tarwad property attached to it. On a construction of Ex. D. 1 we are satisfied that the gift was intended to the tavazhi as such and not to any individual donee. Though the document starts by stating that the gift deed is in favour of Tala, in the operative portion there is clear indication that it was to Tala and her 'santanams'...
Kandaswamy and ors. Vs. the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-12-1953
Reported in: AIR1954Mad348; (1953)1MLJ584
ORDERVenkararama Ayyar, J.1. This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution for the issue of a Writ of Certiorari to quash an order dated 2-11-1952 passed by the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Coimbatore, who is the first respondent.The petitioners are members of the Coimbatore Motor Transport Co-operative Society for Ex-servicemen, Ltd, which was a society registered in 1947 under the Madras Co-operative Societies Act, 4 of 1932. The second respondent is the Secretary of the Society. At a General Body Meeting of the Society held on 30-7-1952 the following resolutions were passed:'1. This Meeting of the General Body decides that Members placed under suspension should be paid their basic salary and no members should be dismissed from service without the previous sanction of the General Body.2. This Meeting of the General Body decides to make arrangements to collect the bus earnings daily from the Bus conductors on completion of their duty.3. This Meeting of th...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »