Chennai Court July 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.
L. Bappu Ayyar and anr. Vs. Renganayaki and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-22-1954
Reported in: AIR1955Mad394
Govinda Menon, J. 1. This is an appeal against the decree and judgment of the Subordinate Judge of Tiruchirapalli in a suit for partition and separate possession of a half share in the properties comprised in schedules A, A1, B, C, F, F1 and F2 of the plaint and for possession of the properties comprised in Schdules D and E or for Rs. 1,996 being their value and for future mesne profits at Rs. 4,000 per annum and decreed in part. The appellants in this appeal arc defendants 1 and 5, The plaintiff is the widow of one Subbaraya Iyer who was the son of defendant 1, L. Bapu Iyer. Defendant 2 is the daughter of Bapu Iyer while defendants 3 and 4 are the minor sons of defendant 2. Defendant 5 Seethalakshmi Animal is another daughter of defendant 1. At the time of death of Subbaraya Iyer on 24-8-1947, Bapu Iyer and his son Subbaraya Iyer were the sole undivided members of a joint Hindu family, defendant 2 and defendant 5 having been married out of their family sometime prior to that. The plai...
Metha Bros. Vs. Secretary (Commercial Taxes), Board of Revenue, Chepau ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-21-1954
Reported in: AIR1955Mad363
Rajagopala Aiyangar, J.1. This is an application for the issue of a Writ of Certiorari to quash an order of assessment assessing the petitioners to sales tax under the Madras General Safes Tax Act. The facts giving rise to the petition are as follows:2. The petitioners are wholesale consignees as also wholesale dealers in piece goods. As wholesale consignees they obtained goods from mills at Ahmedabad during the year 1949-50 for sale, to dealers according to their allotments. Certain goods indented for by them were sold directly to wholesalers, i.e., wholesalers clearing the goods allotted to them by the Provincial Textile Commissioner; but goods of the value of about 11 lakhs of rupees were not cleared by the wholesalers with the result that the petitioners had to sell them to retailers. The total turnover of the petitioners for the year was a sum of Rs. 33,32,000 odd, and out of this, as stated before, Rs. 11,61,433, represents sales to the retailers. The Deputy. Commercial Tax Offic...
Boologam Naidu Vs. Jagannath and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-20-1954
Reported in: AIR1955Mad202
Govinda Menon, J.1. This is an appeal by the second defendant, the son of the first defendant, against the decree of the lower court directing the sale of his 1/8th share. Mr. S. Thyagaraja Aiyar for the appellant contends that since the second defendant was not made a party to E. P. No. 308 of 1937, the sale of his share is null and void. We find that it was after the filing of E. P. No. 308 of 1937 that the decree in O. S. No. 55 of 1936 was passed on 10-7-1937, by which the order on the claim petition was set aside and the attachment of the second defendant's share was restored. As the first defendant was the kartha of the family, he must be deemed to have represented the second defendant also in E. P. No. 308 of 1937. It cannot be said that even though the second defendant was hot 'eo nomine' a party to this E. P., he was not represented in the petition, because his father, the manager of the Joint family was on record.2. The other argument of the learned counsel is that the decree...
Chennappa Chetty Vs. Official Receiver, Salem and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-19-1954
Reported in: AIR1955Mad51; (1954)IIMLJ755
Rajagopala Aiyangar, J.8. The facts of this case have been fully set out in the order of reference to a Bench and it is unnecessary to set them out afresh.9. The question arising for our consideration is whether when an alienation by a father is set aside under Section 54, Provincial Insolvency Act, the setting aside of this alienation affects merely the interest of the Insolvent, or whether the interest of the sons also is divested from the vendee. In the present case, a father executed the impugned deed of sale on his own behalf and as the guardian of his two minorsons for a consideration of Rs. 3000. The father alone was adjudicated an insolvent and after the adjudication the Official Receiver filed a petition to set aside the sale under Section 54, Provincial Insolvency Act. The learned Subordinate Judge who tried the petition In the first instance found the sale voidable under Section 54, Insolvency Act, and set it aside not merely in respect of the share of the father, but also i...
Dhanapala Chettiar Vs. Minor Krishna Chettiar, Represented by His Next ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-19-1954
Reported in: AIR1955Mad165
Krishnaswami Nayudu, J. 1. This is an appeal against the final decree in a partition suit. The second defendant is the appellant himself and the first defendant are the sons by the first wife of one Muthu Chetti, the plaintiff being the only son of Muthu Chetti by his second wife, who is the third defendant. Defendants 4 and 5 are the daughters of the third defendant and sisters of the plaintiff. Defendants 6 and 7 are the daughters by the first wife Muthu Chetti was doing business in cloth and in money lending and also owned a rice mill. When Muthu Chetti died on 22nd June 1933 the first defendant as the only major member of the family being the eldest took possession of the estate and managed the same. The suit for partition was necessitated by reason of the extravagant and wasteful life led by the first defendant, who has been found to have neglected the business and lived a fast life keeping concubines and spending recklessly. The preliminary decree for partition was passed on 10th...
In Re: Mammed Beary
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-16-1954
Reported in: AIR1955Mad157; 1955CriLJ569
ORDERSomasundaram, J.1. The petitioner in this case has been convicted by the first Class Magistrate, Kasargod for an offence under Section 225-B, I. P. C., andsentenced to three months rigorous imprisonment.In appeal the conviction and sentence were confirmed by the Sessions Judge.2. The facts of the case are not seriously disputed. On 13-2-1953, the complainant a process server of the Court of the District Munsif, Kasar-god went to the house of the first accused to execute a warrant for his arrest. The contents of Ex. P. 1, the warrant, were duly read over and explained to the petitioner and the process server touched him in token of arrest and further told him that he has been arrested. The first accused took up a defiant attitude and he called his brothers accused 2 to 4. All the accused are said to have beaten the process server till P. Ws. 3, 4 and 5 came and got him released. They prevailed upon him to obey the law and sign the warrant and finally the accused signed the warrant....
V.S. Shanmugha Mudaliar Vs. Board of Revenue, Madras and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-16-1954
Reported in: AIR1955Mad304
Rajamannar, C.J.1. This appeal against the judgment of Subba Rao J. arises out of the levy of stamp duty and penalty by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Cheyyar, on a document on the ground that it was a partition deed. There was an appeal filed against the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer to the Board of Revenue who dismissed it on the ground that there was no reason to interfere. To quash the said order of the Board of Revenue, there was an application for a writ of certiorari to this Court, but this Court dismissed the application on the ground that the order of the Board of Revenue was not contrary to the principles of natural justice. Thereafter, the appellant approached the Revenue Board for a revision of its previous order, but the Board rejected the petition. Thereupon, the appellant filed another application to this Court for a writ of prohibition or for such other appropriate order to restrain the Board of Revenue from enforcing the stamp duty and penalty. That applicat...
Jagannath Vs. Perumal Naidu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-15-1954
Reported in: AIR1955Mad233
Govinda Menon, J.1. The plaintiff who is a purchaser in court-auction of certain rights in zamin and private properties situated in Chingleput district, and alleged to belong to some members of a joint Hindu family, la the appellant in this appeal. His suit for ascertainment of the share of the judgment-debtors and for recovery of such share by separate allotment has been decreed by the lower court only to the extent of the 1/4th share belonging to the first and second defendants and aggrieved by the dismissal of the suit with regard to the rest, he has preferred this appeal.2. Defendants 1, 3, 6 and the father of the 7th defendant were members of a joint Hindu family governed by the Mitakshara law. The second defendant is the son of the first defendant. Defendants 4 and 5 are the sons of the third defendant. In execution of the decree in O. S. No. 132 of 1930 on the file of the District Munsif's Court of Chingleput, the share of some of the defendants had been brought to sale. The que...
H. Bhujanga Ballal Vs. Antony Juje Louis
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-15-1954
Reported in: AIR1955Mad560
Rajagopala Aiyangar, J.1. The plaintiff a mulgani lessor isthe appellant in this second appeal and the onlypoint that is raised here is whether he is entitledto a charge for the rent accruing from the propertyas against the lessee the defendant. The trial courtgranted him a charge that he prayed for and itwas reversed in the appellate court. Hence thissecond appeal.2. The document of lease is not before the court, nor is it stated that this document contains any covenant or recital creating a charge in favour of the lessor for the rent due. The ground however upon which the trial court upheld the plaintiff's claim for a charge was that there was a previous suit, that in the plaint in that suit the plaintiff had alleged that he was entitled to a charge and that the present defendant (respondent here) who was a party to that suit did not put forward any contention denying that the lessor was entitled to a charge for arrears of rent.The trial court held on these facts that the defendant w...
P. Krishna Bhatta and ors. Vs. Mundila Ganapathi Bhatta (Died) and ors ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-15-1954
Reported in: AIR1955Mad648
Ramaswami, J.1. These are two connected-appeals arising from the decrees and judgment of the learned Subordinate judge of South Kanara in O.S. Nos. 115 of 1947 and 127 of 1948.2. The dispute in this case relates to threeitems of properties, viz., two parcels of land used forraising paddy and arecanut in Kedila village and acoffee estate in Coorg, ten miles from Mercara.* * * * *3-14. (After discussing the facts of the case His Lordship proceeded.)The points which fall for consideration are twofold, viz., whether in regard to these items of properties Ganapathi Bhatta was benamidar and apparent owner and whether Section 66, C.P.C. applies to the transactions relating to the two items or Kedila properties, in regard to which two sale certificates have been issued in favour of Ganapathi Bhatta.15. On a careful consideration of the entire circumstances of the case we have come to the same conclusion as the learned Subordinate Judge in regard to the two items of Kedila properties and in reg...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »