Chennai Court April 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: Mukku Venkatrao
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-10-1953
Reported in: AIR1954Mad346; (1953)2MLJ410
ORDERRamaswami, J. 1. This is a civil revision petition filed against the decree of the learned District Mun-sif of Chodavaram in S. C. S. No. 56 of 1952.2. The facts are: The plaintiff filed the suit claiming a share of the emoluments received by the defendants for officiating as 'Puro-hits' at the marriage and other auspicious ceremonies conducted by them in the houses of Vysyas at Kothavalasa Dabalu. The plaintiff as P. W. 1 stated that the right to officiate as 'Purohit' in the houses of Vysyas at Kothavalasu Dabalu exclusively belonged to him and that nobody else can officiate as such and that he had a right to collect a half share of the emoluments collected by the defendants-usurpers and that in fact the defendants have been giving him his share of the emoluments. The defendants contended that the suit was not maintainable as it was only for a share in respect of emoluments paid to 'Purohits' on a voluntary basis and that the agreement set up by the plaintiff was wholly false. T...
V.S.P. Subramanian Chettiar Vs. Commr. of Income-tax, Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-09-1953
Reported in: AIR1954Mad91; [1953]24ITR89(Mad); (1953)2MLJ284
1. This is an application by the assessee under Section 66(3), income-tax Act, questioning the correctness of the Appellate Tribunal's decision, that the application of the assessee under Section 66(1) of the Act for a reference to the High Court was out of time. The application was rejected by the Appellate Tribunal on the ground that it was barred by limitation. The order of the Appellate Tribunal, which was the subject matter of the application under Section 66(1), is dated 4-3-1952. The assessee, at the time the order was pronounced was residing in Colombo, and he gave his Madras address, care of Kalyanarama Aiyar at Madras. Kalyanarama Aiyar received the order on 14-3-1952, and ho, in due course, communicated it to the assessee at Ceylon, which was received by the assessee on 30-3-1952. The period of sixty days expired on 13-5-1952. Meanwhile, the advocate, who appeared for the assessee before the Appellate Tribunal, took steps to communicate with the assessee for making an applic...
Hindu Religious Endowments Board, by Its Secretary Vs. P.N. Nallathamb ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-09-1953
Reported in: (1953)1MLJ145
Mack, J.1. This appeal by the Commissioner of the Hindu Religious Endowments raises an interesting point for determination. The appeal is against an order passed by the learned District Judge of Chingleput on a petition filed under Section 84 (2), Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act by one Nallathambi Ayyaswami Mudaliar, the younger son of Suryaprakasa Mudaliar, who died on 16-3-1942 to set aside an order passed by the Board declaring his elder brother P. N. Swaminatha Mudaliar to be the hereditary trustee on the latter's application. The learned District Judge amended the order of the Board with a direction that the elder brother Swaminatha Mudaliar would be allowed to continue as hereditary trustee managing the affairs of the temple, till a pending question of partition as between the brothers was decided and the right of the younger brother to be the hereditary trustee in rotation was determined by the Board. The Commissioner now questions the jurisdiction of the learned District ...
Chembre Valiya Veettil Kunhu Kutty Amma's son Madhavan Nair Vs. Chembr ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-09-1953
Reported in: AIR1954Mad112
ORDERRamaswami, J. 1. These are two civil revision petitions filed against the orders of the Subordinate Judge of Ottapalam in S. C. Nos. 123 and 122 of 1950.2. The facts are briefly these: The petitioner before us is the creditor and the respondents before us are the debtors on promissory notes. This petitioner seems to have been charging only a low rate of interest at 5 per cent, which is rather an unusual feature in the litigation coming before this Court from this locality. In addition there seems to have been a renewal of the promissory notes by a woman and possibly there were other circumstances which stood in the way of completely realising the amount of principal and interest. In addition it is well known, and, of which judicial notice can be taken of, that if a suit is filed in the Munsiff's Court it takes a pretty long time. But, on the other hand, if it is filed on the small cause side of the Sub-Court there is speedy disposal and several other advantages which need not be c...
Public Prosecutor Vs. K.G. Sivaswamy and anr
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-09-1953
Reported in: AIR1954Mad249; (1953)2MLJ602
1.The workmen employed in the mills in Koilpatti appear to be split into warring factions that have scant regard to law or the public peace. The Blackshirts also seem to have been adding in their own way to the difficulties of local officials. On 31-12-1950 the Assistant Superintendent of Police, Sankarankoil, wrote to the Assistant Collector, Tuticorin, (he is the Executive Sub Divisional Magistrate of the area) giving a resume of the situation from 1948. He remarked :"Now, both in the labour front and in the political front trouble is brewing ...... The situation is full of explosive possibilities and breach of the peace is inherent in it."After this appraisal of the situation he ended his letter in the following manner:"Under the circumstances I consider it necessary to regulate the conduct of meetings and processions by enforcement of Section 30, Police Act. I, therefore, propose to apply Section 30, Police Act, within the limits of Koilpatti town and Koilpatti Panchayat Board, for...
Public Prosecutor Vs. K.G. Sivaswamy and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-09-1953
Reported in: 1954CriLJ290
Balakrishna Aiyar, J.1. The workmen employed in the mills in Koilpatti appear to be split into warring factions that have scant regard to law or the public peace. The Blackshirts also seem to have been adding in their own way to the difficulties of local officials. On 31-12-1950 the Assistant Superintendent of Police, Sankarankoil, wrote to the Assistant Collector, Tuticorin, (he is the Executive Sub Divisional Magistrate of the area) giving a. resume of the situation from 1948, He remarked:Now, both in the labour front and in the political front trouble is brewing .... The situation is full of explosive possibilities and breach of the peace is inherent in it.After this appraisal of the situation he ended his letter in the following manner:Under the circumstances I consider it necessary to regulate the conduct of meetings and processions by enforcement of Section 30, Police Act. I, therefore, propose to apply Section 30, Police Act, within the limits of Koilpatti town and Koilpatti Pan...
Thunoli Kelu Nair Vs. Nambron Chirutheyi Amma and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-08-1953
Reported in: AIR1954Mad76
ORDERRamaswami, J. 1. This is a civil revision petition which has been filed against the order made by the learned Subordinate Judge of Tellicherry in O. P. No. 55 of 1948. 2. The facts are: in regard to certain properties gifted away from the tavazhi a suit was sought to be laid in, the pauper form by the petitioner, who is a member of the tavazhi, in a representative capacity for recovery of those gifted properties. This petitioner did not file the suit in the first instance. On the other hand, one Govindan Nair filed O. S. No. 16 of 1947 for partition. But subsequently when that Govindan Nair found that he had to pay court-fee he did not press that suit. Then this petitioner filed the O. P. with an application under Order 1, Rule 8, Civil P. C. to permit him to file the suit in a representative capacity. The petitioner wanted to have the luxury of agitating this suit as a pauper and the question arose in the lower court whether this petitioner, though he is not possessed of means to...
S.J. Bashyam Achari Vs. G. Parthasarathi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-08-1953
Reported in: AIR1954Mad195; (1953)2MLJ371
Govinda Menon, J.1. This appeal has to be allowed and the 'ex parte' decree set aside. What happened was that the third defendant, who is the appellant before us was said to have been served by substituted service and the learned Judge, therefore, held that that was sufficient service of notice on him. Thereafter the suit was decreed 'ex parte'. An application by the third defendant to set aside the decree was dismissed by the successor of the learned Judge following the decisions of this Court in - 'Shariba Beeby v. Abdul Salam', AIR 1928 Mad 815 (A) to the effect that if substituted service is effected under Rule 20, Order 5 such service is effectual as if it had been made on the defendant personally and therefore such service must be deemed to be effective service within the meaning of the expression in Article 164 of the Limitation Act. In that case, the learned Judge referred to earlier decisions in - 'Doraiswami Ayyar v. Bala-sundaram Ayyar', AIR 1927 Mad 507 (B) and -- 'Narasimh...
Karipineni Rajayya and ors. Vs. Vallurupalli Ramachandra Rao and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-08-1953
Reported in: AIR1954Mad488
Mack, J.1. I am in complete agreement with my learned brother that the definition of an agriculturist in the proviso to Explanation (1) to Section 3 of the Usurious Loans Act, 1918, is quite different from that of an agriculturist as defined in Section 3(2) of, Act IV of 1938. The definition of 'agriculturist' in Act IV of 1938 is an extremely wide one having no relation whatsoever to 'agriculture' as such, which is defined in any dictionary as cultivation of the soil. 'It includes a large category of persons, who have a saleable interest in agricultural or horticultural land -- no matter where they live or whether they are absentee landlords or not--subject to important provisions, one of which is that a person shall not be deemed to be an agriculturist, if within two years prior to 1st October 1937 he has been assessed to property or house tax in a Municipality, having an aggregate rental value of more than Rs. 600.2. The appeal, as it appears to me, in this case must succeed on a ve...
Vali Venkataswami and ors. Vs. Gannabathulla Venkataswami
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-07-1953
Reported in: AIR1954Mad9; (1953)2MLJ396
Satyanarayana Rao, J.1. This is an appeal against the decision of the District Judge, West Godavari, confirming the preliminary decree for dissolution of a partnership between the plaintiff andthe defendants.2. Under a deed of partnership dated 24-1-1948 Ex. B. 4, the plaintiff and defendants entered into a partnership to erect, establish and run a cinema in the site which was obtained on lease. The share of the plaintiff in the partnership was four annas, defendant 1 four annas, defendants 3 and 4 four annas, defendant 2 three annas and defendant 5 one anna. The deed of partnership constituted defendant 1 the Managing partner, who has to look after the erection of the cinema) and also after it was completed to run the business. The present suit for dissolution was instituted by the plaintiff on 10-1-1949 before the construction of the building was completed and the cinema was opened. In fact, the cinema began to work actually from 5-6-1949. The grounds on which the plaintiff seeks dis...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »