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.
Puthiya Veettil Chandanathil Mukkayi and ors. Vs. Thottathi Parambil P ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-03-1954
Reported in: AIR1955Mad173
Krishnaswami Nayudu, J.1. The plaintiffs are the appellants. The appeal arises in a suit instituted by them for redemption and for recovery of possession in the following circumstances. The suit property be-longed to one Koyamu, who was the brother of the plaintiffs and father of defendants 5 and 6. Kayamu mortgaged the property to the second defendant. The second defendant instituted O. S. No. 513 of 1950 on the file of the District Munsif's Court of Ponnani for enforcement of the mortgage, obtained a decree for sale, purchased the property in execution of that decree and got possession of the same on 16-1-1938. The Madras Agriculturists Relief Act (Act 4 of 1938), came to be passed soon thereafter and the plaintiffs 2 to 4 and defendants 5 and 6 applied under Section 23 of the said Act for setting aside the sale. The sale was set aside by order dated 27-7-1938. A petition was filed under Section 20 of the Act. Then further proceedings were taken under the Act for scaling down the dec...
In Re: Srinivasalu Naicker
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-03-1954
Reported in: AIR1955Mad179
ORDERRamaswami, J.1. This is a Civil Revision Petition which is sought to be filed against the order made by the learned Subordinate Judge of Coimbatore in I. A. 174 of 1954 in O. S. 167 of 1952.2. The facts are: In O. S. 167 of 1952 the 1st defendant contended that the material document on which the suit was based has been sent privately to the Handwriting Expert and that he has given his opinion that the endorsement on the material document is a forgery and that therefore as his evidence would be unavailable to the Court unless he is subjected to cross-examination and re-examination, a commission may be issued to examine him at Nagpur. The learned Subordinate Judge rejected this application and hence this Revision Petition.3. The point for consideration is whether- this order can be interfered with in revision?4. First of all, the learned Subordinate Judge has held that it would be convenient and better to examine the witness in Court so that the Court may have an opportunity of hear...
Malick Chemical Works Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Owning the Northern Rly ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-03-1954
Reported in: AIR1955Mad274
Panchapakesa Ayyar, J.1. This is a suit filed by Malick Chemical Works for recovering from the Union of India owning the Northern Railway, the Central Railway and the Southern Railway, Rs. 15,120/- with subsequent interest and costs, for causing damage by fire due to their servants' negligence and misconduct, to 480 drums of turpentine, each containing five gallons, while In transit from Pathankot on the Northern Rail-way, to Salt Ootaurs, Madras, in the Southern Railway at Ramakundam Station in the Central Railway, in the Hyderabad State. The defendants strenuously contested the suit. The nature of the contentions will be clear from the issues framed in the case.2. The issues were :1. Is the firm of the plaintiffs registered under the Indian Partnership Act?2. Were the goods in question consigned at railway risk or at owner's risk?3. Was the consignment in question destroyedby fire on the 5th May 1949, as alleged by thethird defendant?4. Was the fire, and the consequent damage to the ...
D.K. Raja Vs. P.S. Kumaraswami Raja and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-03-1954
Reported in: AIR1955Mad360
1. I.A. No. 275 of 1953 was an application in O. S. No. 41 of 1953 in the court of the Subordinate Judge of Ramanathapuram at Madurai in which the plaintiffs prayed for an inunction under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 and S. 151, C. P. C., restraining the fifth defendant from doing any thing interfering with the 'status quo' of the Trust Committee and its constitution described in the plaint, pending 'disposal of the suit subject to his right to become trustee-manager for three years by devolution. The learned Subordinate Judge held that for the purpose of preserving the 'status quo' & for maintaining the balance of convenience, defendant 5 should be restrained by means of an interim injunction pending disposal of the suit from interfering with the 'status quo' of the trust committee and its constitution without prejudice to his rights to become the trustee manager for a period of three years, consequent on the death of his father and hence this appeal.2. Defendant 1 in the suit who is since d...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›