Chennai Court September 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: D. Lakshminarayana Chettiar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-14-1953
Reported in: AIR1954Mad594; (1954)IMLJ403
ORDERSubba Rao, J. 39. This Court-fee matter is placed before us again after the Full Bench answered the reference made to it. The Full Bench held that 'distinct subjects' in Section 17, Court-fees Act meant 'distinct causes of action in respect of which separate suits should be filed but for the enabling provisions allowing them to be clubbed up in one suit.'40. The question is whether in the present case distinct causes of action are united in the same action. What does 'cause of action' mean? Learned counsel appearing for the appellants and for the Government put forward two conflicting views, Learned counsel for the appellants would argue that cause of action means unity of title, whereas the Government Pleader would contend that the cause of action means any fact which, if traversed, would bs necessary for the plaintiff to prove, in order to support his right to the judgment of the Court. We shall now proceed to test the validity of the respective arguments.41. There is no definit...
Pakamaraja Naicker and ors. Vs. Chidambara Nadar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-11-1953
Reported in: AIR1955Mad229; 1955CriLJ700
ORDERBalakrishna Aiyar, J.1. These are two petitions to revise a consolidated order made by the Additional First Class Magistrate, Virudhunagar, in M. C. Nos. 36 and 38 of 1951 on his file, finding the respondents to be in possession of the property in dispute and under Section 145(6) placing them in possession thereof.2. Mr. Narayanaswami Aiyar, the learned advocate for the petitioners, took the preliminary objection that the entire proceedings before the Magistrate are void for the reason that no preliminary order as required by Section 145(1), Cr. P. C., was issued. Mr. Vaidyanatha Iyer, on the other side, replied that as a matter of actual fact orders under Section 145(1), Cr. P. C., must have been issued because in a letter dated 22-9-1951, addressed by the Joint Magistrate, Bivakasi, to the District Magistrate, Ramanathapuram, suggesting that the case be transferred to the Additional First Class Magistrate, Virudhunagar, it is stated, 'as it is anticipated a dispute likely to cau...
Kidangazhi Manakkal Narayanan Nambudiripad and ors. Vs. State of Madra ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-11-1953
Reported in: AIR1954Mad385; (1953)IIMLJ699
Venkatarama Aiyar, J. 1. These are applications filed under Article 226of the Constitution and they raise the question as to the validity of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act XIX of 1951 hereinafter referred to as the Act. The petitioners in W. P. No. 71 of 1952 are the hereditary Uralans or trustees of the Karikkat temple in Malabar. On 2-2-1945 the Board of Hindu Religious Endowments framed a scheme for the management of the temple under Section 62 of Madras Act II of 1927 and the same was modified by the District Court, South Malabar by its decree dated 6-1-1950 passed in O. S. No. 5 of 1945. The scheme provides 'inter alia' that there should be a paid manager for the temple to be appointed by the Board from among three persons whose names are to be sent up by the trustees. Troubles arose when the Board rejected all the three names recommended by them. The Uralans felt that the action of the Board was an unwarranted interference with their rights as hereditary...
Balasundara Mudaliar Vs. Muthuvenkatachala Mudaliar (Died) and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-10-1953
Reported in: AIR1954Mad799; (1954)IIMLJ141
1. The plaintiff appeals against the dismissal of his suit O. S. No. 87 of 1947 by the Subordinate Judge of Cuddalore. This was a suit for partition and for specific performance, as an alternative relief. The plaintiff and the second defendant are the sons of the first defendant. The first defendant, his brother Ratnavelu Mudaliar, and three others were the sons of one Arumugha Mudaliar. Defendants 3 to 6 are the daughters of Ratnavelu Mudaliar. The family was possessed of some landed properties and there was a partition in the family as between the brothers. The three other brothers separated leaving the first defendant and Ratnavelu Mudalair as joint, they being entitled in the family properties to a 2/5th share.On 15-2-1920 Ratnavelu Mudaliar being then the elder of the two brothers mortgaged the properties described in schedule B, part I of the plaint to the father of the 9th and 10th defendants under Ex. B.14 for Rs. 2500. Subsequent to it the first defendant instituted a partitio...
Public Prosecutor Vs. Pachiripilli Satyanarayanarao
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-09-1953
Reported in: AIR1955Mad214; 1955CriLJ691
Balakrishna Ayyar, J.1. Between March 1947 and December 1949 the accused was the head establishment clerk in the office of the D.T.O., Waltair. He joined that post in 1938 on a pay of Rs. 100. In December 1S49 he was getting a salary of Rs. 160 besides a dearness allowance of Rs. 33, After making various deductions his net pay amounted to Rs. 121-1-0. 2. Various allegations against the accused having reached the officers above him, the matter was referred to the Special Police Establishment Puri brunch. On 4-12-1949 P. W. 44, an Inspector attached to that Establishment, obtained a search warrant Ex. P. 87, from the Additional District Magistrate, Waltair, and on 5-12-1949 he searched the house of the accused in the presence of the Stationary Sub-Magistrate and some others. At the search silver articles weighing in all 31023 tolas and gold jewellery weighing 121 tolas were found. Besides, there were numerous documents securing mon,ey or money's worth standing some in the name of the acc...
S. Ahmed Ibrahim Vs. D. Ramadas
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-04-1953
Reported in: AIR1954Mad532
ORDERVenkatarama Aiyar, J.1. This revision arises out of a suit instituted by the petitioner, S.C. No. 2527 of 1950, on the file of the Small Cause Court, Madurai, for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 488-5-1 on foot of a promissory note dated 23-6-1949. The defendant admitted execution of the pronote and the receipt of consideration therefor, but contested the suit on the ground that there was no transaction between him and the plaintiff, that it was one Ismail, the brother of the plaintiff who had advanced the loan, that the promissory note was executed in his account book leaving the name of the payee blank, that it was delivered not to the plaintiif but to Ismail, that subsequently the amount due under the note was repaid to Ismail on 8-2-1950 and a receipt also taken, that the debt had thus become discharged, that owing to misunderstandings which had arisen subsequently, Ismail had in collusion with the plaintiff entered his name as payee in the instrument and that the plaintiff was n...
D. Ramakrishna Chetti Vs. D. Govindammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-04-1953
Reported in: AIR1954Mad537
Venkatarama Aiyar, J. 1. This revision is preferred against the order of the learned City Civil Judge, declining to grant permission to the petitioner to institute a suit in forma pauperis. The petitioner is a member of a joint family and the proposedsuit is one for partition. There is no dispute that excluding the properties which are the subject-matter of the suit, he is not possessed of sufficient means to enable him to pay the requisite court-fee. The ground on which his petition was dismissed is that there is a provident fund, standing in his name with the Port Trust, Madras, where he is employed and this was not disclosed in his application to sue in forma, pauperis. This decision is based upon the decision of this Court in -- 'Chellammal v. Muthulakshmi Ammal', AIR 1945 Mad 296 (A), which in turn approves of the decision in -- 'Kuppusami Naidu v. Varadappa Naidu', AIR 1943 Mad 11 (B). In -- 'AIR 1943 Mad 11 (B)' the petitioner owned certain properties which were subject to a mor...
A.R.V. Achar Vs. Madras State Represented by the Secretary, Local Admi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-04-1953
Reported in: AIR1954Mad563; (1954)IMLJ102
1. The Letters Patent Appeal and the two writ petitions were heard together and can toe disposed of by a common judgment. The Letters Patent Appeal is against the judgment of Subba Rao J. in W. P. No. 568 of 1952. The appellant filed that application for the issue of appropriate write, orders and directions in the circumstances of the case and in particular for the issue of a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents, namely, the Madras State represented by the Secretary Local Administration Department, Madras, and the Commissioner the Corporation of Madras, to forbear from holding the elections to the Council of the Corporation of Madras.2. Under Section 55-A, Madras City Municipal Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) vacancies arising by efflux of time in the office of Divisional Councillors shall be filled at ordinary elections which shall be fixed by the Commissioner to take place on such days in the months of August and September immediately preceding the vacancies as he thin...
N. Perianna Pillai Vs. Koppa Goundan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-04-1953
Reported in: AIR1954Mad804; (1954)ILLJ468Mad; (1954)IMLJ190
Krishnaswami Nayudu, J. 1. This is an appeal against the order of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation awarding a sum of Rs. 720 payable to the respondent.2. The respondent's sort one Devi died as a result of an accident caused by a lorry belonging to the appellant dashing against the deceased. There is no dispute as to the death of the respondent's son in the circumstances alleged in the petition before the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation and there is also no dispute as regards the minimum amount of Rs. 22-12-0 per mensem which has been fixed by the Commissioner as the wage which the deceased was earning at the time of his death, What is urged before me is that the father having filed this petition for compensation has not established that he is a 'dependent' within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d), Workmen's Compensation Act. It is no doubt true that the mere fact that he happens to be the father of the deceased would not entitle him to receive any compensation as a 'dep...
Athar Jamath Majith by Its President, Mohamed Jamesha Rowther and by I ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-03-1953
Reported in: AIR1955Mad591; (1954)IMLJ451
Mack, J.1. Appellant is the plaintiff, a Muslim Religious Society of Coimbatore represented by its President and Secretary. The suit, which the learned Subordinate Judge of Coimbatore dismissed with costs, was laid for the specific performance of a contract, Ex. A-1, dated 15-12-1946 against the first defendant by which he agreed to convey to the plaintiff the suit property for Rs. 7300. It is common ground that the Society paid the first defendant a sum of Rs. 1000 that day. The suit was filed on 16-10-1947. It was dismissed mainly on a finding that the suit agreement had been materially altered by the top and bottom portion of it, which contained a material recital on the reverse, being scissored off. This is said to have contained a recital which made time given for completion, which was 30 days, the essence of the contract.2. The suit property, 49 cents in extent on which there was a rice mill and a residential house originally belonged to one Hussain Sahib, the late husband of Fat...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »