Chennai Court October 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.
The Pathinen Grama Ariya Vaisya Bank, Ltd. by Its Managing Director, S ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-14-1955
Reported in: AIR1956Mad257; (1956)1MLJ380
Panchapakesa Ayyar, J.1. This Civil Revision Petition raises an interesting question of law, namely, whether after the amendment of Section 9(1)(c) of the Provincial Insolvency Act, by Act III of 1950, by adding a proviso as follows:Provides that where the said period of three months referred to in Clause (c) expires on a day when the Court is closed, the insolvency petition may be presented on the day on which the Court reopens,an alleged act of insolvency committed before the coming into operation of the amendment, on 21st February, 1950, but with reference to which a petition was not filed within three months, as the last day of the three months' period happened to be a holiday and so the petition was presented on the next working day, will be an ' act of insolvency ' for the purpose of that petition, which is pending after 21st February, 1950, and can be relied on for adjudicating a person an insolvent. Here, the acts relied on, namely, the alienations were committed on 17th Januar...
E.A. Balakrishna Iyer Vs. Singa Vanniar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-14-1955
Reported in: (1956)1MLJ373
P.V. Rajamannar, C.J.1. These appeals from the judgments of Rajagopala Ayyangar, J., involve a substantial question of law whose decision depends on the construction of the provisions of the Tanjore Tenants and Pannaiyal Protection (No. 2) Ordinance (Madras Ordinance No. VI of 1952) and the Tanjore Tenants and Pannaiyal Protection Act (XIV of 1952) which replaced that Ordinance. They arise out of applications made by certain tenants for restoration of possession of lands which they were in possession of on 1st December, 1951, under Section 6(1) of the Ordinance. The applications were first disposed of by the Conciliation Officer and there were appeals to the Revenue Court which allowed all the applications and directed the tenants to be restored to possession. Against the orders of the Revenue Court the landowners concerned filed petitions to this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution to have the said orders quashed. The petitions were dismissed by Rajagopala Ayyangar, J. Hence t...
Gopinath Shetty (Minor) by Next Friend Father, K. Subbayya Shetty Vs. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-14-1955
Reported in: (1956)2MLJ38
Krishnaswami Nayudu, J.1. This appeal raises an interesting question as to the legal effect of an adoption by a female member of an Aliyasanthana family.2. The plaintiff is the appellant. Himself and the defendants are members of an undivided Aliyasanthana family known as Yenmoor Katta. The plaintiff's maternal grandmother Kalamma was adopted by one Peruvaje Bainki Banta. The plaintiff's case is that, notwithstanding her adoption to another family, she continued to be a member of the Yenmoor Katta family, visiting the family house occasionally and participating in the income of the family. The 1st defendant is at present the eldest member and the adalthedar of the family. Defendants 2 and 3 are in possession of portions of the family property. The plaintiff's case is that he is entitled to maintenance from this family, that the adoption of his maternal grandmother did not have the effect of severing her from the family, as adoption was purely a secular affair and had no religious effic...
Mutha Mudali (Died) and anr. Vs. Kuppanna Goundan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-14-1955
Reported in: (1956)2MLJ168
Basheer Ahmed Sayeed, J.1. This second appeal has been referred to this Bench by Krishnaswami Nayudu, J., for determination of the question whether the fhst defendant could be considered to be an heir, legal representative or assign of the debtor under Explanation IV to Section 8 of Act IV of 1938.2. The facts of the case briefly are these. The plaintiff brought the suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 614-7-9 due under a mortgage executed by the first defendant on 8th June, 1927, under which he undertook to pay the amount with interest at 11 per cent, every month and in default at 15 per cent, and also to repay the principal sum within a period of three years. It is common ground that there existed an earlier mortgage for Rs. 1,000 dated nth July, 1917, executed by the first defendant and his brothers in favour of the plaintiff, that on an oral partition between the first defendant and his brothers the debt was apportioned among the erstwhile members of the joint family, and that the fir...
Percy Edward Warne Vs. the Ouchterlony Valley Estate (1938) Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-11-1955
Reported in: AIR1956Mad505; (1956)1MLJ556
ORDER28. The matter has come up for mention today. It is admitted now that Rs. 3,400, the balance of the car advance has been paid in 1951 though the matter was not known to the advocates when they argued the appeal. In view of this, the decree granted in favour of the plaintiff in this appeal will be altered to one for Rs. 9,020 instead of Rs. 5,620. No other alteration is necessary....
Ramanatha Rao Vs. State of Madras, Represented by the Collector of Tan ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-11-1955
Reported in: (1956)1MLJ579
Ramaswami Goundar, J.1. The plaintiff, who is the appellant, brought the suit out of which this appeal arises for a declaration of his title to the suit properties and for possession of the same from the first defendant, the State of Madras. The second defendant is the plaintiff's brother. The plaintiff and the second defendant are the sons of one Kasinatha Rao and his wife Rama Bai. The properties in dispute in this suit admittedly belonged to one Singaravelu Pillai who died issueless in February, 1943. He was keeping one Dhanabhagyam as his permanent concubine, and by him she gave birth to two ions, Jagannathan and Saminathan. Dhanabhagyam and Saminathan left the village about the year 1930 and have not since been heard of. There is no controversy about that fact. After the death of Singaravelu, there were disputes in regard to these properties between his illegitimate son Jagannathan on the one hand, and the deceased's brother Krishnaswami Pillai on the other. That led to the filing...
T. Velu Servai Vs. Srinivasa Iyengar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-11-1955
Reported in: (1956)2MLJ60
Ramaswami Gounder, J.1. The plaintiff, who is the present appellant, filed the suit to recover possession of a house-property in Madurai Town. The site on which the house is constructed together with adjacent sites, which formed a block of vacant site., originally belonged to Vyasarayamatam of Mysore. One Sundararajachar was the agent or Karwar under the Matathipathis from 1872 till his death in 1904. He was able to induce the then Matathipathi to grant him in perpetuity a lease of the said property at a nominial rent of Rs. 20 per annum on 14th February, 1885. Thereafter he sold the site to various persons, the suit site to one Srinivasa Ayyangar for a sum of Rs. 88 under a registered sale-deed, dated 6th August, 1897. Some time later, Srinivasa Ayyangar died issueless, leaving only his widow, Lakshmi Ammal. She is said to have put up the present house on the suit site and was in. enjoyment thereof till her death in 1937. Treating this house as her absolute property, she executed a wi...
In Re: Thothan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-10-1955
Reported in: 1956CriLJ1004; (1956)IMLJ206
Somasundaram, J.1. The appellant in this case has been convicted by the learned Sessions Judge of Ramanathapuram division for the murder of his wife, Manmkki at about 7 a.m. on 7-3-1955 in the cart track north of Selliamman Koil oorani in Kallangudi village and sentenced to death.2. The occurrence is stated to have taken place on the cart track while the said Mannikki was coming, taking water from Selliamman Koiloorani. The appellant married this Mannlkki in or about June 1954. There was great disparity in age between the appellant and his wife, the deceased. The appellant was aged about 40 years while the deceased was only about 16.The mother of the deceased was unwilling to give her daughter in marriage to this appellant but P.W. 8 the paternal uncle of the deceased and two other persons, P, Ws. 9 and 10 who were stated to be the friends of the family were responsible for the marriage of the deceased with the appellant. The mother did not even attend the marriage showing thereby her ...
The Premier Life and General Insurance Co., Ltd., by Its Secretary Vs. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-10-1955
Reported in: (1956)1MLJ408
ORDERBasheer Ahmed Sayeed, J.1. On the facts of this case, I am satisfied that the ends of justice require that leave should be granted to the applicant, to file an appeal against the decision of the learned Subordinate Judge of South Kanara, at Mangalore.2. The suit was brought by the first respondent to recover a sum of Rs. 10,000 from three defendants (respondents 2 to 4) by way of damages for injuries caused to the first respondent in a motor accident, which occurred on the 27th April, 1953, at about 8-30 P.M. The plaintiff-respondent was proceeding on a motor bicycle from Kadri side towards Shedigudde, when the motor car driven by the first defendant, and owned by the second defendant, dashed against him and caused him serious injuries. The third defendant is said to be the licensed permanent driver of the motor car. The first respondent is said to have suffered among other injuries a bone fracture of his right leg, which, besides causing physical pain, necessitated very prolonged...
S. Janabai Ammal Vs. Narasimhalu Naidu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-10-1955
Reported in: (1956)1MLJ519
Krishnaswami Nayudu, J.1. This appeal arises in a suit for partition instituted by the plaintiff-appellant for a one-eighth share in the suit properties. We are now concerned in this second appeal with only items 11 to 14 of the plaint schedule and not with the other properties concerned in the suit. The first defendant is the undivided lather, and defendants 2 to 7 are the undivided brothers, of the plaintiff. The first defendant was adjudicated an insolvent in I.P. No. 22 of 1929. The properties in dispute were sold by the first defendant under Exhibit B-12, dated 9th May, 1929, prior to his adjudication to Gopala Mudaliar, the father of the tenth defendant. But this sale was set aside at the instance of the Official Receiver as offending the provisions of the Provincial Insolvency Act. The properties were taken possession of by the Official Receiver and leased back to Gopala Mudaliar, the father of the tenth defendant. They were also put up for sale along with the other properties o...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »