Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1954Mad516; (1954)IMLJ179
ORDER1. This is a petition to revise the order of the Subordinate Judge, Madurai, dismissing an application preferred by the petitioners under Order 21, Rule 100, C.P.C. as incompetent. The properties which are the subject matter of these proceedings are lands which were purchased by the second respondent Ramaswami Naicker, at a sale held by the Madurai-Ramnad Central Co-operative Society. The first respondent Soundaravalu Ammal filed O.S. No. 109 of 1947, Subordinate Judge's Court, Madurai for recovery of these and other properties on the ground that they formed part of the Valayapatti zamin and that she became entitled to them as reversioner. Ramaswami Naicker was impleaded as the 76th defendant in that suit and though he filed a written statement raising several pleas, he eventually abandoned the contest and an ex parte decree was passed against him.In execution of that decree, the first respondent obtained possession of the lands. The petitioners thereupon filed E.A. No. 443 of 194...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1954Mad898; (1954)IIMLJ249
Rajamannar, C.J.1. One Lina Dalrimple Hay, a British National, died in England on 30-12-1950. She left behind her her last Will and Testament dated 24-6-1944. In and by the said Will the testatrix appointed her two nieces, Miss E. J. E. Butcher and Miss B. Butcher, both residents of London, to be the executrices thereof. Probate of the said Will was duly obtained by the said executrices from the Probate Division of the High Court of Justice in England on 3-5-1951. On 23-8-1952 the said twoexecutrices appointed Lloyds Bank Ltd., Calcutta, as their attorneys for them, on their behalf and in their names to apply for and obtain from the High Court of Judicature, Madras, or from any other competent Court in India Letters of Administration with a copy of the said Will annexed of the estate of the deceased and effects in India. By a power of substitution, dated 17-12-1952 the said Lloyds Bank Ltd., Calcutta appointed Laurence Claude Levack (the petitioner herein), an Officer of the said Bank,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1954Mad262; (1953)2MLJ548
1. This revision petition raises a question of court-fee. The petitioner filed a suit in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Sivaganga for (a) a declaration that the villages mentioned in the schedule were not estates under the Madras Estates Land Act, that the lands, nanjas and punjas in the villages were pannai lands and not ryoti lands under the said Act and that Madras Act 30 of 1947 was not applicable to the said villages, and (b) for an injunction restraining the defendant, that is, the State of Madras, from collecting rents or taking any action under Madras Act 30 of 1947 and preventing the State from the collection of income, profits, rents, cesses etc. from the tenants by the plaintiff.He valued the reliefs thus: the relief of declaration at Rs. 9500 and he paid a court-fee thereon of Rs. 100 under Article 17-A (1) of Schedule II, Court-fees Act; the relief of injunction at Rs. 252-3-0 and he paid a court-fee of Rs. 29-5-0 under Section 7(4), Court-fees Act.2. Objection was ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1954Mad284; (1953)2MLJ524
1. This civil revision petition involves a question of court-fee. The petitioners filed a suit in a representative capacity on behalf of the citizens and rate payers of the Masulipatam Municipality for a declaration that a resolution passed by the Municipal Council and alt that was done in pursuance thereof were illegal, 'ultra vires' and void. There was also a prayer for an Injunction restraining the Municipal Council from acting any further in pursuance of the said resolution.2. I am of opinion that the suit clearly falls under Article 17-B of Schedule II, Court-fees Act. The learned Subordinate Judge, however, was of opinion that as the declaration asked for was In respect of a resolution which related to the market the subject-matter in dispute should be deemed to be the market whose valuation was about Rs. 7 lakhs. In his view, therefore, the proper Article applicable was Article 17-A (1) of Schedule II, Court-fees Act, and as the value of the market was over Rs. 10,000, the prope...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1954Mad415; (1953)IIMLJ748
1. Letters Patent Appeal No. 61 of 1949 is against the judgment of Panchapagesa Sastri J. in C.M.A. No. 648 of 1946 and Letters Patent Appeal No. 62 of 1949 is against the judgment of the same Judge in C.M.A. No. 649 of 1946. C.R.P. No. 66 of 1946 is against the order of the Subordinate Judge of Masulipatam in S.C.S. No. 62 of 1943 on his file. The two civil miscellaneous appeals and the revision petition were heard together by the learned Judge who pronounced judgment in the civil miscellaneous appeals which is reported in --'Suryanarayana v. Venkatadu', AIR 1949 Mad 770(A). The common judgment shows that the civil miscellaneous appeals were dismissed with costs, whereas the revision petition was adjourned for final orders to a later date. Before final orders were passed in the revision petition, the Letters Patent Appeals were filed against the judgment in those civil miscellaneous appeals and all the three have been heard together.By an order dated 31st October 1952, the learned Chi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1954Mad535; (1954)IMLJ83
Chandra Reddy, J. 1. This revision petition is directed against the order of the Subordinate Judge of Mayuram dismissing an appeal filed by the petitioner against the order dated 4-4-1950 passed by the District Munsif of Mayuram in I. A. 230 of 1949 in O. S. No. 93 of 1948 as being incompetent. 2. I. A. No. 230 of 1949 giving rise to this revision petition was filed in O. S. No. 95 of 1948 which was a suit for a declaration that the plaintiff and defendants 7 to 12 were the next heirs to the estate of one Mathurathammal and for partition and allotment of a l/7th share to each of the plaintiff and defendants 7 to 12 and for future mesne profits etc. The suit ended in a compromise under which division and allotments were to be effected in a particular way and that the first defendant should be appointed Receiver of the suit property till the end of the sambha harvest or the final decree proceedings whichever was later and that he should maintain and render proper accounts for the managem...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1954Mad657
Satyanarayana Rao, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for partition by the first plaintiff for Himself and on behalf of his two minor sons, plaintiffs 2 & 3 by the 3rd defendant. The first defendant is the widow of Alagu Chetti, son of the first plaintiff, by his first wife, Nachi Ammai. Alagu Chetti died on 15-4-1942. The second defendant is the minor son of Alagu Chetti by the first defendant. The first plaintiff, after the death of Nachi Animal, married Valliammai as his second wife. She however died leaving no issue early in 1934. On 14-7-1934, there was a marriage function between the first plaintiff and the third defendant according to what is described as the 'Suyamariyathai' cult or the self-respecter's cult under the auspices of the Purohit Maruppu Baugham or Anti Purohit Association. The third defendant was a widow of Reddi caste at that time, while the plaintiff is a Nattukottai Chettiar by caste.Soon after the marriage function, they lived for sometime in Kottaiyur in th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1954Mad318
Rajamannar, C.J.1. The respondent in this case is an advocate of this Court practising at Anantapur. He was appearing in C.C. No. 46 of 1952 on the file of the Stationary Sub-Magistrate's Court of Kalyndrug, the complainant in this case. The case was heard on 8-4-1952. Apparently, there was considerable and heated controversy between the advocate and the Magistrate in the matter of recording depositions and also in regard to the Magistrate's attitude to the advocate when he was cross-examining. The case was next posted to 12-4-1952. It Is on this day that the incident occurred which has given rise to this case. The charge against the advocate was that on that day heaa'hampered and embarrassed the administration of justice in that court while the presiding officer was engaged with cases of other advocates and parties that were present in the court at the time, by Indulging in language and expressions derogatory to the dignity of a court of justice, and that he thereby was guilty of (pro...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1954Mad482; (1953)2MLJ688
Venkatarama Aiyar, J.1. This is an appeal against the order of Krishna-swami Nayudu J. in O. P. No. 203 of 1949. The point for decision is whether the Sri Veda Vinayakar alias Sarvasidhi Vinayakar temple at No. 187 China Bazar Road, Madras, is a temple as defined in Section 9 (12) of the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act. The Hindu Religipus Endowments Board held an enquiry under Section 84 (1) (a) of the Act and passed an order on 27th December 1948 holding that the temple in question was a public temple falling within the scope of Section 9 (12) of the Act. Thereupon the respondent filed O. P. No. 203 of 1949 on the file of the Original Side of the Court for setting aside that order on the ground that the temple was a private one. Krishna-swami Nayudu J. agreed with the contention and set aside the order of the Board. It is against that order that the present appeal has been preferred by the Board.2. Mr. Ramaswami Reddi, the learned advocate for the appellant, has taken us throug...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1954Mad514; (1953)IIMLJ625
ORDERRamaswami, J.1. This is a civil revision petition filed against the order of the Rent Controller, Madras, in H. R. C. No..2365 of 1951 and confirmed by the Judge of the Court of Small Causes, Madras, in H. R. A. No. 541 of 1951.2. The facts of this case can be easily followed if we take on hand the blue-print annexed to this judgment for reference.3. The premises No. 6, Samudra Mudali Street, P. T. Madras, belongs to the Tawker Charities. The petitioner before us Bhogilal M. Davey has been occupying a major portion of the premises while the respondent S. R. Subramania Aiyar has been occupying a room in the back portion of the premises. The Managing Trustee of the charities applied to the High Court for sanction to grant a lease to the petitioner of the entire premises for a period of thirty years. The High Court by its order permitted the grant of the lease to the petitioner for a period of 25 years on his investing a sum of Rs. 8756 for effecting improvements to the premises unde...
Tag this Judgment!