Chennai Court December 1955 Judgments
Bagyalakshmi Ammal and ors. Vs. Srinivasa Reddiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-16-1955
Reported in: AIR1960Mad510
ORDER(1) This civil revision petition arises out of the order of the learned Second Additional Subordinate Judge of Mathurai in an application made by the plaintiff, under O. 11, Rule 18(2) and S. 151 C.P.C. and also Rules 63 and 64 of the Civil Rules of Practice.(2) The petition was filed by the plaintiff for inspection of the documents and accounts filed by the respondent in court before the trial of the suit began. The suit in respect of which this application by the plaintiff was made was one for setting aside the order of the Deputy Commissioner of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Board, and to declare that the plaint temple was a public temple. The suit was opposed by the fourth defendant, among others, on the ground that the temple in question was a private temple. After the written statement was filed by the defendants, including the 4th defendant, who is the petitioner in this revision, a reply statement was also filed by the plaintiff.In the written statement of ...
Tag this Judgment!Guruswami Mudaliar (K.) Vs. Executive Engineer, Mettur Canals Division
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-16-1955
Reported in: (1956)IILLJ44Mad
Ramaswami, J.1. This is an appeal preferred against the order made by the Additional Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Madras, in W.C. Case No. 749 of 1952.2. The facts are : Public Works Department (General), Madras, excavated a channel from Mettur Reservoir to irrigate lands in Coimbatore and Salem districts. One of the contractors engaged for excavating the channel was the appellant Guruswami Mudaliar. He had been given a contract for Rs. 5,000. On the canal which was being excavated, a palmyra tree was standing. Earth had been removed from the bottom on the eastern side to allow the tree to fall in the eastern direction. But unfortunately a strong sudden wind blew. The tree fell southwards. One Chinna Pappal who was working as a cooly in that excavation work under this contract got crushed by the fall of the tree and died. This took place on 11 June 1951. Her husband G. Ramaswami filed a claim for compensation on behalf of himself, his minor son, and his two married minor da...
Tag this Judgment!V.T.S. Chandrasekhara Mudaliar and ors. Vs. Kulandaivelu Mudaliar and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-16-1955
Reported in: (1956)1MLJ430
P.V. Rajamannar, C.J.1. In this appeal against the decree and judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge of Madurai dismissing O.S. No. 156 of 1951 on his file, the only question involved is the validity of an adoption which was made by the first defendant Guruvammal Anni to her deceased husband. Kulandaivelu Mudaliar, the husband of the first defendant died on 29th January, 1912, issueless leaving him surviving his widow as his only heir and extensive properties of considerable value. Kulandaivelu who was originally a member of a joint family became divided from his coparceners long before his death. On 25th May, 1951, the first defendant adopted the second defendant, son of the third defendant, to her husband. An adoption deed (Exhibit B-1) was executed on 30th May, 1951 and it was registered on 12th June, 1951. The plaintiffs and defendants 4 to 22 are the agnatic relations of deceased Kulandaivelu. Their relationship will be evident from the following genealogical tree: Late Chockal...
Tag this Judgment!Akkammal Vs. Kullampattiyan Alias Velappa Naicken and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-16-1955
Reported in: AIR1956Mad593; (1956)2MLJ104
Ramaswami, J.1. This is an appeal preferred against the Decree and Judgment of the learned Additional Subordinate Judge, Salem, in A.S. No. 140 of 1953, reversing the Decree and Judgment of the learned District Munsif of Salem in O.S. No. 362 of 1951.2. The facts are: The plaintiff Akkammal, widow of one Venkiti Naickan who died in Mardh 1946, sued her parents-in-law, defendants one and two, and her brother-in-law, the third defendant, for partition in regard to non-agricultural lands and properties, and maintenance on the basis of the agricultural lands. The defendants contested the suit on the ground that the first item of the plaint A Schedule is the separate property of the second defendant and is not partible and similarly the second item of the A Schedule is a promissory note debt due by Kuppa Naicker to the second defendant, that items 1 to 6 of the plaint B Schedule are the stridhana properties of the second defendant and that the second defendant had already sold items 2 and 3...
Tag this Judgment!Biliga Laxminarayana Rao and anr. Vs. A.P. Fernandes and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-15-1955
Reported in: AIR1957Mad90
Ramaswami Gounder, J.1. A. S. No. 444 of 1951 arises out of a suit O. S. No. 48 of 1950, filed in the Additional Sub Court, South Kanara, and the other appeal, A. S. No. 144 of 1932, arises out of another suit, O. S. No. 172 of 1947, filed in the same Court. Both the appeals are preferred by the plaintiffs. The first three of the sis plaintiffs in O. S. No. 172 of 1947 were the plaintiffs in O. S. No. 48 of 1950.Both the suits were filed to recover possession of the plaint-schedule properties together with mesne profits. The suit properties and other properties originally belonged to the family of one Somayya Karnika who had two wives. By the first wife, he had four sous, of whom the youngest was one Bha-vani Rao, and who died, leaving a son by name Somayya. That son Somayya also died in January 1892, leaving a widow, by name Lakshmi Aroma.By the second wife, the said Somayya Karnika had three sons, one of whom was Ranga Rao. He died, leaving a son, by name Subba Rao, and the latter di...
Tag this Judgment!Palanichami Chettiar and ors. Vs. the Reliance Bank of India, Ltd., Th ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-15-1955
Reported in: (1956)1MLJ1.
Rajagopala Ayyangar, J.1. These two revisions arise out of a common order passed in two applications for rateable distribution E.A. No. 164 of 1954 and E.A. No. 180 of 1954.2. The decree-holder in O.S. No. 5 of 1953 attached certain properties belonging to the judgment-debtor, brought them to sale in E.P. No. 5 of 1954 and the sale having been effected is pending confirmation. Meanwhile the respondents in the revisions before me who held decrees in O.S. No. 9 of 1952 on the file of the Ramnad District Court and in O.S. No. 88 of 1953, District Munsif's Court, Paramakudi, for the payment of money by the same judgment-debtor applied for rateable distribution of these assets to them also along with the decree-holders in O.S. No. 5 of 1953. The judgment-debtor is an agriculturist within the meaning of the Madras Indebted Agriculturists' (Temporary Relief) Act, 1954. The question raised for decision is whether these applications for rateable distribution are barred by reason of Section 3 of...
Tag this Judgment!K.V.V. Ardhanari Chettiar and Co., by Managing Partner K.V.V. Ardhanar ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-15-1955
Reported in: AIR1956Mad483; (1956)1MLJ6
Krishnaswami Nayudu, J.1.This Appeal raises the question as to what is the true meaning of the words 'loss, destruction or deterioration of the parcel or package' in Section 75(1) of the Indian Railways Act.2. The plaintiff is the appellant. He purchased five bundles of raw silk from Messrs. Vishandoss Amarnath of Bombay. The vendors sent the goods by railway parcel on 8th December, 1947, delivering the same at Bombay Victoria Terminus to be booked by raliway to Salem Town station for delivery to the plaintiff at Salem Town. Ex. B-2 the parcel way bill given to the consignor by the railway company, was forwarded to the plaintiff who presented the same at the Salem railway station and he was given delivery of only four bundles on 19th December, 1947. He did not receive one bundle of raw silk which was stated to have been despatched along with the other four bundles and the plaintiff claimed a sum of Rs. 3,488-15-0 as the cost price of the said bundle of raw silk. His case in the plaint ...
Tag this Judgment!Janab Jameelamma Vs. the Income-tax Officer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-15-1955
Reported in: AIR1956Mad387; (1956)2MLJ83
ORDERRajagopalan, J.1. The only question debated before us in this application under Article 226 of the Constitution for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the order of the Income-tax Officer, Nagapattinam, was the validity of Section 4(2) of the Income-tax Act.2. The petitioner is the wife of one Mohammad Abdulla, who was admittedly a 'non-resident' for the purposes of the Income-tax Act. He was a partner of a firm at Singapore. The finding of the Income-tax Officer was that the petitioner, who was a resident in the taxable territories, received during the year of account ending with 31st December, 1947, a sum of Rs. 10,217 which constituted the remittances by her husband from Singapore. On this sum the petitioner was assessed to income-tax.3. One, of the contentions of the petitioner before, the taxing authorities was that these were not remittances to her at all.but constituted remittances made by her husband to one Mohammad Yousuff, with directions to pay over the amounts t...
Tag this Judgment!Janab Jameelamma Vs. the Income-tax Officer, Nagapattnam.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-15-1955
Reported in: [1956]29ITR246(Mad)
The order of the Court was deliver by RAJAGOPALAN, J.The only question debated before us in the application under article 226 of the Constitution for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the order of the Income-tax Officer, Nagapattnam, was the validity of section 4(2) of the Income-tax Act.The petitioner is the wife of one Mohammad Abdulla, who was admittedly a 'non-resident' for the purposes of the Income-tax Act. He was a partner of a firm at Singapore. The finding of the Income-tax Officer was that the petitioner, who was a resident in the taxable territories, received during the year of account ending with December 31, 1947, a sum of Rs. 10,217 which constituted the remittances by her husband from Singapore. On this sum the petitioner was assessed to income-tax.One of the contentions of the petitioner before the taxing authorities was that these were not remittances to her at all but constituted remittances made by her husband to one Mohammad Yousuff, with directions to pay ...
Tag this Judgment!Bilige Laxminarayana Rao and ors. Vs. A.P. Fernandes and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-15-1955
Reported in: (1956)2MLJ211
Ramaswami Gounder, J.1. A.S. No. 444 of 1951 arises out of a suit O.S. No. 48 of 1950 filed in the Additional Sub-Court, South Kanara, and the other appeal A.S. No. 144 of 1952, arises out of another suit, O.S. No. 172 of 1947, filed in the same Court. Both the appeals are preferred by the plaintiffs. The first three of the six plaintiffs in O.S. No. 172 of 1947 Were the plaintiffs in O.S. No. 48 of 1950. Both the suits were filed to recover possession of the plaint-schedule properties together with mesne profits. The suit properties and other properties originally belonged to the family of one Somayya Karnika who had two wives. By the first wife, he had four son of whom the youngest was one Bhavani Rao, and who died, leaving a son by name Somayya. That son Somayya also died, in January, 1892, leaving a widow, by name Lakshmi Amma. By the second wife, the said Somayya Karnika had three sons, one of whom was Ranga Rao. He died, leaving a son, by name Subba Rao, and the latter died, leav...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »