Chennai Court August 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.
In Re: M.S. Ganesan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-13-1954
Reported in: 1956CriLJ536
ORDERBalakrishna Aiyar, J.1. Between 10-2-1950 and 25-10-1950 the petitioner was the executive officer of Smt Valeeswaraswami temple, Arlyalur. The case against him was that between these two dates he committed criminal breach of trust in respect of sums amounting to Rs. 1072-2-0 belonging to the temple. The learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Musiri, convicted the petitioner under Section 409, I, P.C. and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Us. 1,000. However in the charge which he framed the Sub-Divisional Magistrate did not, set out the total amount of the money which the petitioner is said to have misappropriated.It was argued in appeal before the learned Sessions Judge of Tiruchirapalli that the petitioner was prejudiced by reason of this omission; of the Magistrate and that the conviction must therefore be set aside. The learned Sessions Judge found that the omission had not in any manner prejudiced the petitioner and in that view he co...
Kaveri and ors. Vs. Ganga Ratna and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-12-1954
Reported in: (1956)1MLJ98
Govinda Menon, J.1. Defendants 1; 5, 6 and 7 are the appellants in this appeal which is directed against the preliminary decree of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of South Kanara in O.S. No. 152 of 1950, by which partition of the plaint schedule properties into 75, 74, 112 shares and the allotment of the number of shares mentioned in paragraph 12 of the judgment to the various groups therein, were directed. Defendants 1 and 5 to 7 are entitled thereunder to get 471, 172 shares out of the total number of shares aforesaid whereas the plaintiffs get 7,24,880 shares out of the aforesaid shares.2. At the very outset one has to marvel at the phenomenally large number of shares into which the properties are to be divided and the allotment of the various shares to the respective sharers. It is stated that this state of things is the necessary result of the working of the Madras Aliyasantana Act, 1949 (Madras Act IX of 1949) by which the division of the properties is to be in a very complica...
Kana Navanna Navanna Narayanappa Naidu Vs. Revenue Divisional Officer, ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-11-1954
Reported in: AIR1955Mad23
ORDERRajagopalan, J.1. This appeal arises out of proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, in the course of which 10 cents of land in T. S. 53/B-1 in Virudhunagar belonging to the appellant were acquired by the Government for building purposes. In his award dated 30-9-1947, the 'Collector' awarded compensation at Rs. 25/- for each cent of land. Notice of that award was served on the appellant on 10-10-19.47. The appellant applied under Section 18 of the Act by his letter dated 8-12-1947, it however reached the Collector only on 10-12-1947 -- for a reference to the Court, disputing the quantum of compensation. The Col-lector thereupon made his reference to the Sub Court, Ramanadhapuram under Section 19 of the Act.2. The learned Subordinate Judge held that the market-value of the land acquired on the relevant date 'was Rs. 100/- per cent. of land. But he held that, as the application under Section 18 of the Act was filed by the appellant beyond the period of six weeks prescribed by the...
Chinnaswami Chettiar Vs. P. Sundarammal and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-06-1954
Reported in: AIR1955Mad68
Somasundaram, J.1. The defendant is the appellant. The suit is by the respondents for the recovery of Rs. 3328 towards principal and Interest in respect of damages caused to the plaintiffs' house and articles by fire, which is alleged to have been caused by the negligence of the defendant in his premises.2. The plaintiffs' case is as follows:The plaintiffs' house is south of the plot, where the defendant has installed his oil mill. On 27-6-1947 at about 6 a.m. the plaintiffs, who were temporarily staying at another house near their own, received intimation that a fire had broken out at No. 6, Geil's Street (the defendant's premises) and that huge smoke was spreading towards their premises. The plaintiffs rushed to the spot, and when they opened the rooms in the house they found that the fire had already burnt down the window in the northern wall of the western room in the back portion of their premises as also the wooden rafters, beams and reapers beneath the tiled roof of that room.Be...
T.A. Thangavelu Chettiar and Co. and anr. Vs. Govt. of Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-06-1954
Reported in: AIR1955Mad230
Rajagopalan, J.1. These are petitions under Article 133 of the Constitution for leave to appeal to the SupremeCourt against the decision of this Court in T. R.C. Nos. 61 and 52 of 1953. 2. The petitioners are manufacturers of groundnut oil, registered as such under Rule 18(1) of the Madras General Sales-tax (Turnover and Assessment) Rule;. As dealers liable to pay sales-tex under Madras General Sales-tax Act IX of 1939, the petitioners elected to be assessed under Rule 13, Madras General Sales-tax (Turnover and Assessment) Rules.These rules provided for a provisional assessment month by month on the basis of the returns submitted by the assessee (see rules 15 (2) and. 15(3) ) or for provisional assessment on the best judgment basis (see rule 15(4) ). The rules also provided for a final assessment after the close of the year (see rule 13(5) and (6) ).The petitioners submitted then returns month by month for the first nine months of 1950-51, but the assessing authority, Instead of dealin...
George Swamidoss Joseph Vs. Miss Harriett Sundari Edward
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-06-1954
Reported in: AIR1955Mad341
Govinda Menon, J.1. I have had the advantage of reading the judgment which my learned brother Mack J. is about to deliver and since it has my entire concurrence, I do not propose to discuss matters dealt with by him in detail. My learned brother has dealt with a topic which occurred to us during the course of the arguments before us as not having been the subject of consideration in any of the previous decisions, namely, the practical difficulty that might arise, in a case a decree absolute is passed in the first instance, in a suit for nullity of marriage and one of the parties immediately contracts a second marriage' which might become illegal if the decree absolute is set aside in appeal.2. I am in entire agreement with the view expressed by my learned brother; it has to be considered whether Section 7, Indian Divorce Act, having been preserved by the Adaptation of Laws Order, 1950, it cannot be followed by the Indian Courts after the declaration of the country as a Republic, for th...
Arunachala Mudali and anr. Vs. Maragathammal and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-06-1954
Reported in: AIR1955Mad527
Rajagopala Ayyangar, J.1. This is an appeal against an order of remand passed by the learned Subordinate Judge of Vellore. The facts necessary to understand the points raised for consideration in this Court are these: The plaintiffs who are the respondents in this appeal brought a 'suit O. S. No. 253 of 1938 in the District Munsif's Court of Tirupattur which was transferred finally to the District Munsif's Court of Vellore and numbered there as p. S. No. 241 of 1945 for the recovery of possession of three items of immoveable properly set out in Seh. B to the plaint. The suit was filed on 28-3-1938. The plaint as filed prayed for the relief of possession of the suit property but contained no prayer for past or future mesne profits. The trial Court granted a decree for the relief of possession and this was affirmed in appeal filed by the defendants to the Subordinate Judge of Vellore and finally to this Court in second appeal. The second appeal to this Court was dismissed on 14-2-1950. W...
K. Sankaran Nair and ors. Vs. Nallacheri Govindan Nambiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-05-1954
Reported in: AIR1955Mad120
ORDERBalakrishna Ayyar, J.1. Prior to 1934, the Tricharamanna temple in Kottayam taluk, North Malabar, was being managed by certain hereditary trustees. In the year 1934, the H. R. E. Board framed a scheme for the administration of the temple and its properties. With certain modifications effected in 1945, the scheme was in operation till 1949, when the scheme was further modified by the District Court. The present petition has been filed to issue a writ prohibiting the Commissioner of the H. R. E. and two other respondents from enforcing against the petitioners the provisions of the scheme framed by the District Court, on the ground that they offend against Article 19(1)(f) of the Constitution. The complaint is that the scheme infringes the fundamental rights to property of the petitioners.2. An examination of the provisions of the scheme shows that this complaint is well founded. Paragraph 4 of the scheme requires the administration of the affairs of the temple to be conducted by a p...
S. Lakshmi Ammal Vs. Commr. of Income-tax, Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-05-1954
Reported in: AIR1955Mad200; [1955]27ITR584(Mad)
Rajamannar, C.J.1. The assessee is the proprietrix of a business called Swami and Co., Madras. The business consisted in the export of goat and sheep skins. She employed her husband, one V. Narayanaswami Iyer, as her agent and manager first under an agreement entered into on 16-10-1948. His remuneration was fixed under that agreement at Rs. 750 per mensem or an amount calculated at the rate of five per cent, on the entire turnover whichever was higher. Subsequently on and from 1-7-1949 his remuneration was Increased. It was fixed at a minimum rate of Rs. 750 per mensem or 3/4 per cent. on the turnover if is ranged between 18 to 24 lakhs and 1 per cent. if the turnover exceeded 24 lakhs.According to the agreement, in the assessment year 1951-52, a total sum. of Rs. 33146 was paid to the said Narayanaswami Iyer. This amount was claimed as allowable deduction in computing the total income. The Income-tax Officer, however, held that only a sum of Rs. 15000 is allowable. He disallowed the b...
K.S. Gopalachariar and anr. Vs. D. Krishnamachariar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-05-1954
Reported in: AIR1955Mad559
Krishnaswami Nayudu, J.1. The suit out of which this appeal arises related to the properties of one Krishnaswami Iyengar, who died leaving a daughter Kanaga-thammal. Kanagathammal married Doraiswami lycngar. There was no issue of the marriage and the first defendant claimed to be her adopted son, he having been adopted by her husband Doraiswami Iyengar in 1920. The plaintiff claiming to be the reversioner of Krishnaswami lyengar, sought to recover the properties and contested the factum and validity of the adoption of the first defendant. That the adoption did take place both the Courts have found to be true and the validity of the adoption alone is sought to be attacked in this appeal. The invalidity is based on the rule of prohibition that no one can be adopted whose mother in her maiden state the adopter could not have legally married,the contention being that the first defendant's natural mother Rukmani Animal was within the prohibited degrees of marriage, as Rukmani Animal was Dor...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »