Chennai Court January 1955 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.
A.P.P. Amina Umma and ors. Vs. A.P.P. Mammad and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-19-1955
Reported in: AIR1955Mad594; (1955)2MLJ161
Rajamannar, C.J.1. The substantial question in these two appeals relates to the construction of a will dated 12-12-1922 executed by one Pottichi Kolanthan. On the date of the will, his wife, Ayeessa, and the seven children born of her were alive. The material clause of the will for the purpose of these appeals is Clause 3 which runs as follows :'Subsequent to my death (1) Abupaker, (2) Ameena, (3) Mammad, (4) Pathumma, (5) Ummar, (6) Alikkunhi and (7) Assan, children born to me in Ayikkarekath Pudiya Purayil Ayeessa of Taliparamba nagaram and the male and female children now bom and may be bom in future to the females among them should hold the properties mentioned in the schedule in their possession as tavazhi property with joint rights and enjoy the same as I am enjoying, with right, liberty and authority to effect alienation or transfer, but, each of them should not individually saddle the properties with debts or alienate the same.'2. The appellants contend that under this clause, ...
Doraiswami Chetti and ors. Vs. Vachani Mudaliar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-19-1955
Reported in: AIR1955Mad601
Mack, J.1. This is an appeal by the decree-holders in O. S. No. 343 of 1936, who obtained a money decree against Muthukumaraswami Mudali with a charge on Certain items of property some of which had been previously mortgaged to defendant 3 in that suit. This second appeal arises out of a claim petition made by the respondent Muthukumaraswami Mudali's son minor Vachani Mudali represented by his mother as next friend in 1949 claiming the charged items as in his possession on the ground that in a partition deed with his father in 1939 he was allotted them and furthermore that he discharged the usufructuary mortgage Ex. A.9 to defendant 3 on 15-7-1943. In support of this discharge he filed a receipt Ex. A.1(a) which was unregistered.The subordinate Judge held that Ex. A.1(a) was inadmissible in evidence as it was compulsorily registrable under Section 17, Clause (1), Registration Act and did not come within the exception contained in Clause (2)(xi) of Section 17. He accordingly dismissed th...
V.N. Annamalai Reddiar Vs. Gulsum Bibi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-19-1955
Reported in: AIR1955Mad600
Mack, J.1. This is an appeal by an assignee-decree-holder who sought to attach in execution a house in Tiruchirapalli which was claimed by the respondent, Gulsum Bibi, as having been gifted to her by her husband, Yusuf, who appears to have been a Telephone Inspector employed in Burma.2. The learned District Judge of Tiruchirapalli confirmed the finding of the District Munsif that the house belonged to Gulsum Bibi by virtue of a valid and completed gift. This second appeal has been pending since 1949 because, it is explained notice could not be served on Gulsum Bibi despite four attempts made to serve her in Rangoon. Ultimately substituted service was effected and her present whereabouts appear to be unknown. Unfortunatley therefore this appeal has to be heard and deposed of without hearing her or anyone on her behalf.3. The relevant facts are these. The assignee-decree-holder look an assignment of a decree obtained by Yusuf's first wife in respect of her Mahr for about Rs. 816. Gulsum ...
Choorampulikkal Assan Kutty and ors. Vs. Ramanalukkal Kunhi Moiden Kut ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-19-1955
Reported in: (1956)1MLJ496
Mack, J.1. This is an appeal by defendants 3, 4 and 5 against an order by the District Judge of South Malabar dismissing an application, I.A. No. 143 of 1950, to set aside an ex parte decree he passed in A.S. No. 281 of 1949 to restore the appeal to file and re-hear it.2. The suit was one by the plaintiff who was an assignee from the 11th defendant of her rights in a Panaimkaichit, dated 15th February, 1929. He filed the suit for redemption and for recovery of possession. The District Munsif upheld the contention of the defendants that this document was essentially a lease and not a mortgage and that they were entitled to fixity of tenure, in other words, to occupancy rights. In the appeal the defendants had engaged Sri S. Nataraja Iyer who however reported no instructions on 15th March, 1950, the learned District Judge then disposed of the appeal ex parte reversing the finding of the District Munsif and holding that the suit document was a mortgage. He granted the plaintiff a decree f...
S. Rangaraju Naidu and ors. Vs. Collector of Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-18-1955
Reported in: AIR1955Mad425
ORDERRamaswami, J.1. Application No. 5409 of 1954 is by the plaintiffs to give time for the defendant to pay the deficit stamp duty called for by the Collector of Madras, and, on failure to pay the deficit within the extended time, to strike off the defence; and the writ of certiorari is by the defendant for quashing the order of the Collector of Madras in B-2-14451/54 dated 8-10-1954.2. The facts are: Sri S. Kamesam was the owner of a patent right for manufacturing a wood preservative by name 'ASCU'. This Kamesam Pantulu conveyed this patent right to the defendant Rangaraju Naidu, Agent, Burma Shell, Salem, This conveyance dated 9-4-1945 was executed in Bangalore where S. Kamesam Pantulu was residing; and, the entire stamp duty payable on that document as per the Mysore Stamp Act, viz., Rs. 4687-8-0 was paid by the grantee Rangaraju Naidu.It is common ground that a counter-part has been executed and is in the possession of Kamesam Pantulu. The original stamped instrument as per the My...
K. Sethumadhava Rao Vs. Collector of South Arcot Dt. Cuddalore
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-18-1955
Reported in: AIR1955Mad468; (1955)IILLJ473Mad
ORDERRajagopalan, J.1. The petitioner was a Taluk Head Accountant in the Revenue Subordinate Service in South Arcot District. He was also the President of the Non-gazetted Officers' Association, Tindivanam. The petitioner was charged with contravention of Rule 6 of the Government Servants Conduct Rules framed by the Government of Madras. The petitioner admitted the truth of the charge, that, while he was employed as a Taluk Head Accountant at Tindivanam, he sold tickets for a dramatic performance held on 5-6-1952 and helped to collect funds for his association, without obtaining the permission required by Rule 6 of the Government Servants Conduct Rules. The Collector punished the petitioner by ordering a temporary reduction in rank for a period of three months. It was the validity of that order that the petitioner challenged in his application under Article 226 of the Constitution for the issue of a writ of certiorari.2. The contention of the petitioner, that the procedure adopted by t...
Navaneetheeswaraswami Devasthanam, Sikkil, Represented by Its Executiv ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-12-1955
Reported in: AIR1955Mad473
Rajagopala Ayyangar, J.1. The Executive Officer of Sri Navaneetheeswaraswami Devasthanam, Sikkil, East Tanjore, is the appellant in these appeals and the short point that arises for consideration in them as regards the proper construction of Section 8(5), Madras Estates Land Act, 1 of 1908. The village of Sellur belongs to the appellant Devastanam who is the Ekabosam Mirasdar or the sole proprietor of the village. The question is whether the respondent is entitled to occupancy rights under Madras Act 1 of 1908. The learned District Judge from whose judgment and decree these appeals are preferred has held that the respondent who is a tenant has such rights and that the civil Courts have no jurisdiction to entertain the suit for eviction.2. Certain facts are beyond controversy. The suit inam village was not an 'estate' within the meaning of Act 1 of 1908 as it stood originally but became an 'estate' by virtue of the amending Act 18 of 1936 and the lands in dispute are not 'private lands'...
Director of Public Instruction Vs. N. Mohandas
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-12-1955
Reported in: AIR1955Mad639; (1955)1MLJ480
1. This is an appeal against an order of Panchapakesa Aiyar J. on an application made by the respondent under Section 45, Specific Relief Act, for the issue of a mandate to the Director of Public Instruction, Madras, to carry out a correction of the entry in toe S. S. L. C. book of his date of birth, so as to make it read as 26-10-1931 instead of 8-3-1930. The allegations made by the respondent in the affidavit filed by him in support of his application were that he passed his S. S. L. C. examination in March 1948 and subsequently became a graduate of the Madras University, that he recently noticed that his date of birth had been wrongly entered in his S. S. L. C. book as 8-3-1930, that this was due to a pure slip and mistake, that he was filling a certificate copy of his date of birth and that the Tahsildar had made the necessary correction in his records. He stated that in reply to a communication to the Director of Public Instruction to make the correction he received a reply direct...
Muthialpet Benefit Fund Ltd. Vs. V. Devarajulu Chetty and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-04-1955
Reported in: AIR1955Mad455
ORDERRamaswami, J.1. This is an application for appointing public auctioneers as commissioners to sell the mortgaged property after due advertisement and wide publicity with a note in bold lines in sale notices that the property would be sold free from all claims of all parties to the suit and free from all encumbrances and that vacant possession would be given on payment of the full purchase price and that the sale will be subject to confirmation by the High Court.2. The facts are: The applicant is the Honorary Secretary of the Muthialpet Benefit Fund Ltd., which is a reliable and well known Nidhi in the city of Madras doing useful work. Defendant 1 V.K. Govindarajulu Chetty for himself and on behalf of his three minor sons who are now the plaintiffs in the pauper suit C. S. 7 of 1953 as manager of a joint Hindu trading family executed in favour of defendant 2, the Muthialpet Benefit Fund Ltd., two simple mortgages' dated 1-4-1948 and 7-5-1949 for Rs. 15,000/- and Rs. 4000/- respectiv...
In Re: Palani Moopan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-01-1955
Reported in: AIR1955Mad495; 1955CriLJ1197; (1953)2MLJ199
Basheer Ahmed Sayeed, J.1. Palani Moopan, aged about 24, has been found guilty of murder of his wife, Karuppayee, aged about 20, on 26-1-19.54 at Kuppandampalayam, by inflicting injuries with a tapper's knife and has been sentenced to death subject to confirmation by this court by the learned Additional Sessions Judge of Coimbatore Division.2. The prosecution case is this. In January 1953, the appellant and the deceased were married. They lived together happily for three months. Thereafter misunderstandings arose between them by reason of misconduct of the appellant exhibited in beating and abusing his wife. Constantly the appellant quarrelled with his wife. Consequent upon such beating and ill-treatment, his wife, the deceased, used to go to her parent's house. Sometime thereafter, a panchayat was held and the deceased returned to the appellant's house. Even after such return, there were frequent quarrels between them. After some days subsequent to the return of the deceased to the ap...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›