Chennai Court May 1954 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.
T. Muthaya Pillayan Vs. Commr., Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-04-1954
Reported in: AIR1955Mad70
Govinda Menon, J. 1. This is an appeal against an order refusing to set aside the dismissal of a suit for default. The suit which had been filed in the District Court of Tirunelveli had been transferred to the Sub Court and numbered as O. S. No. 131 of 1951 on 5-10-1951. Naturally, the first hearing could be not far off. Therefore it was posted for trial to 10-1-1952. On that date, the plaintiff filed the documents, Exs. A-1 and A-2 and the case was still further adjourned for hearing to 24-1-1952. On that date the plaintiff did not appear and his counsel reported no instructions. The learned Judge dismissed the suit for default. An application was filed by the plaintiff to set aside the dismissal for default, under Order 9, Rule 9, Civil P. C., and that application which had been dismissed on the ground that it is not maintainable, has given rise to this appeal. 2. The learned Judge after quoting from the decisions in -- 'Pichamma v. Sriramulu', AIR 1918 Mad 143 (A); -- 'Arunachallam ...
In Re: V. Tirupuliswamy Naidu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-04-1954
Reported in: AIR1955Mad287
Satyanarayana Rao, J. This matter was placed before us for orders asto whether the appeal lies against the order ofthe learned Chief Justice in C. B. P. No. 473 of1954. The civil revision petition was filed bothunder Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Codeand also under Art. 227 of the Constitution. Inthe revision petition, the learned Chief Justicedisposed of the matter on merits and agreed withthe learned District. Judge that the respondentceased to hold office because of the superveningdisqualification that he had become a leper. Inthat view the learned Chief Justice thought itunnecessary to deal with the preliminary objection raised on behalf of the respondent that thecivil revision petition was Itself. Incompetent,because the District Judge acting under Section 51 ofthe District Municipalities Act was only a 'persona designata' and not a court. The Jurisdictionthat was Invoked whether it rightly falls underSection 115, Civil P. C., or under Article 227 of the Constitution in our o...
Ganapathy Raja Valia Raja of Edapally, Sivaroopam Vs. the Commr. for H ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-04-1954
Reported in: AIR1955Mad378
Chandra Reddy, J.1. The question involved in all these cases is whe-ther the District Court or the Sub Court has jurisdiction to hear and dispose of suits or applications commenced under Madras Act II of 1927 and pending before it after the passing of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951 (Act No. 19 of 1951} and they can therefore be disposed of in a common judgment.2. C. M. A. No. 486 of 1952: This is an appeal against the order of the District Judge of South Malabar returning the plaint for presentation to the proper Court or Tribunal. The appellant filed O. S. No. 3 of 1949 in the District Court of South Malabar for setting aside an order modifying a scheme settled under Section 57 of Act II of 1927 (hereinafter referred to as the old Act) Subsection 7 of Section 57 of the old Act conferred the right of suit on the trustee or any person having interest to institute a suit to set aside or modify a scheme within six months of the date of publication,Pending t...
The Management of Odeon Cinema, Madras 14, represented by R. Chetty, m ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-04-1954
Reported in: AIR1954Mad1045; (1954)IILLJ314Mad
ORDERRajagopala Ayyangar, J.1. This is a petition for the issue of a writ of certiorari to call for the records in Industrial dispute No. 23 of 1952, before the Industrial Tribunal, Madras, and the Labour Appellate Tribunal, on appeal therefrom and to quash the proceedings thereof.2. The petition arises out of a dispute between a cinema concern by name the Odeon Cinema and certain workmen of the Sagar Talkies, represented by the South Indian Cinema Employees' Association. The facts giving rise to this dispute are as follows:3. In premises No. 8-A in woods Road, Roya-pettah, the owners of the building thereon were carrying on a cinema business under the name of Sagar Talkies having fitted it up with the furniture, talkies equipment, electrical machinery etc. They had on their rolls a number of workmen, who are collectively the first respondents in this writ petition. While so a firm by name Ishwaradas Sahni and Brothers, who are carrying on the business of running cinemas in several pla...
Kunhi Kalanthan and ors. Vs. P. Madhavi Amma and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-03-1954
Reported in: AIR1955Mad260
Panchapakesa Ayyar, J.1. This is an appeal against the Judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge of Tellicherry in O. S. No. 86 of 1944 granting the plaintiffs, the 'melkanomdars', a decree for redeeming all the fourteen Items of 'kanom' properties involved in the suit and granting them possession, together with arrears of rent as claimed in the plaint, conditional on payment of the value of the defendants' improvements, as found, along with the 'kanom' amount. The facts are briefly these. The 30th defendant, Chirakkal Kovilakath Rama Varma Valiya Raja Avergal, is the 'Jenmi' in respect of items 1, 4, 5, 9, 10 and 13 to 14. Of the remaining items, Nos. 2, 3, 6, 8 and 11 belong in 'jerim' to the Kalarivathukkal Devaswom under the management of the 30th defendant as the sole 'ooralan' or trustee. Item 7 belongs in 'jenm' to the Nani-yur Devaswom, likewise under the sole management of the 30th defendant as the sole 'ooralan' or trustee. The consolidated 'kanom' for all these fourteen I...
P.V.S. Vencatachellum Vs. P.V.S. Kabalamurthy Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-03-1954
Reported in: AIR1955Mad350
Ramaswami, J.1. Suit is for a declaration that the plaintiff has not been and is not a bare tenant as from month to month under the defendant of the buildings and premises described in the plaint schedule and that by reason of the arrangements and conditions and covenants referred to in the plaint, the plaintiff is entitled to continue in possession, use and enjoyment of the said items of property so long as the plaintiff is carrying on the condiments business of P. Vencatachellum and that the defendant is entitled only to such reasonable rents payable to him or such reasonable rents as may be agreed to or determined from time to time; that the defendant be restrained by a permanent injunction from executing or otherwise enforcing against the plaintiff the order of eviction obtained by him against the plaintiff and from otherwise interfering with the peaceful enjoyment of the premises by the plaintiff; and for costs.2. The facts are--In the city of Madras Sri P. Venkatachalam belonging...
M.A. Ramaswami thevar Vs. Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Board and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-03-1954
Reported in: AIR1954Mad1110; (1954)IIMLJ759
Govinda Menon J. 1. This appeal under Section 84 (3) of the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act (II of 1927)arises under the following circumstances. The appellant before us, M. A. Ramaswami Thevar, claiming to be a legatee under a will executed by one Paragnana Desika Swamiar applied to the lower court under Section 84 (2) of the said Act to declare that he is the hereditary trustee of two temples and a mutt in Thennangudi village, Tanjore district. The learned District Judge of West Tanjore, after elaborate discussion of the evidence let in, came to the conclusion that the appellant has no such right and dismissed his application. Hence this appeal.2. One Paragnana Desika Swamiar, an ascettc belonging to the saivite sect, founded two temples, one for Sri Baladandayuthapani and another for Vinayaka. There was also a mutt in which he was living and looking after the worship in the temples. For the purpose of defraying the expenses for 'neivedyam, deeparadhara' and other ceremonies no...
Shanmugavelu Pillai Vs. Karupannaswami Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-02-1954
Reported in: AIR1954Mad1070
Umamaheshwaran, J.1. This appeal is brought by the 53rd defendant in O. S. No. 86 of 1921, Sub Court, Madurai, as against the judgment and order of Chandra Reddy J. in C. M. A. No. 124 of 1947 confirming the Judgment and order of the Subordinate Judge Of Madurai, in E. A. No. 393 of 1946 in E. P. No. 101 of 1945 in O. S. No. 86 of 1921. In E. P. No. 291 of 1943 in O. S. No. 288 of 1933 on the file of the District Munsif's Court, Madurai Town, the decree tor costs in O. S. No. 83 of 1921 was brought to sale, and the respondent herein who became the court auction-purchaser applied for execution of the decree for costs in E. P. No. 101 of 1045 and the appellant herein who was the only contesting respondent filed his objections on 11-9-1945. The right of the respondent to execute the decree was recognised on 8-10-1945. When the immoveable properties belonging to the appellant were attached on 15-10-1945, a claim petition was filed by the appellant's wife setting up her title to the propert...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›