Chennai Court March 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.
Krishnaswami Chettiar Vs. Sankili Chettiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-09-1955
Reported in: AIR1955Mad702; (1955)2MLJ541
1. The second appeal has been placed before a Bench id view of a very interesting question of Hindu law regarding Stridhana succession raised by it.2. The relevant facts are not in dispute. The property in suit was purchased by five persons along with one Vella Ammal with the last of whom alone we are now concerned. It is conceded that under this purchase Vella Ammal was entitled to a sixth share and it is the succession to this share that forms the subject-matter of these proceedings. Vella Ammal died on 18-5-1941 without issue. As there is no proof that she was married in any un-approved form, the succession, to the property which is admittedly the stridhana property of Vella Ammal would be to her husband and in his absence to his heirs. Vella Ammal was the second wife of her husband and by his first wife her husband Karuppan Chetti had five sons all of whom were dead by the date of Vella Animal's death.The plaintiff was a great grandson of Vella Ammal's husband through this elder wi...
Kulitalai Bank Ltd., Tiruchirapalli Vs. S.V. Nagamanickam and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-04-1955
Reported in: AIR1955Mad670; (1955)2MLJ485
1. The appellant is the plaintiff, the Kulitatai Bank Ltd., Tiruchirapalli. They filed the suit against defendant 1 and his four sous, three of whom were minors, (or recovery of Rs. 20,826 due on a security bond, Ex. A. 3 dated 30-11-1945, for advances made by the bank. It was executed by defendant 1 (or himself and as guardian of his four sons, all then minors, who were in existence. The Subordinate Judge passed a preliminary mortgage decree against defendant 1's share in the hypotheca and dismissed the suit against defendants 2 to 5, holding that the mortgage was not binding on their interests. The evidence shows, nor is it disputed, that defendant 1, a Chettiar of the Vysia community, got the hypotheca. under a partition deed, Ex. A. 7 (b) in 1938 with his-younger brother then aged about 16. This document refers to a shop business conducted by defendant 1 on his own account, the assets and liabilities of which all belonged to him. There can be no doubt the hypotheca is ancestral joi...
In Re: Royappan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-03-1955
Reported in: AIR1955Mad512; 1955CriLJ1200; (1955)2MLJ315
ORDERBalakrishna Ayyar, J.1. The third Presidency Magistrate, Saidapet, Madras, has convicted the petitioner under Section 325, I. P. C. and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six weeks and to pay a fine of Rs. 75 and in default to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three weeks.2. The evidence of P. W. 1 makes it perfectly clear that the petitioner hit her on the head with a tamarind post. Naturally she put up her hands to protect her head and one of the blows fractured the metacarpal hones of one hand. P. W. 2 who was grazing a buffalo near-by heard a cry of 'Ayyo' and saw the petitioner beating P. W. 1. Likewise P. W. 3 who was working in a house a few yards away. P. W. 4 dill not actually see the petitioner beat P. W. 1, but he testified that she heard an alarm and saw the petitioner running away. These are natural witnesses and it is clear that there was sufficient evidence before the learned Magistrate to justify the conviction.3. Learned counsel for the pet...
A.M. Mohammed Ishok Vs. the State of Madras, Represented by the Commer ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-02-1955
Reported in: AIR1955Mad502; (1955)2MLJ319
1. This is a revision petition filed by an assesses against the decision of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal raising for consideration the cannot construction of the Explanation to Article 286(i)(sic) of the Constitution.2. The assesses is a registered manufacturer of and a licensed dealer in groundnut oil carrying on business in Pollachi and the assessment relates to the year 1950-51. During the accounting year he sold oil to Messrs. Tata Oil Mills Co. Ltd., under the terms of a contract on conditions embodied in an order in the form below:ToMessrs. Tata Oil Mills Co. Ltd., Coimbalore.Dear Sirs,Ref: Sales contract -- Groundnut oil.This is to confirm that I have this day sold groundnut oil to you as per terms and conditions given below:Quantity: tons of 2240 Ibs. each.Price: Rs. 2025 (Rs. two thousand and twenty-five only per ton of 2240 Ibs. nett loose F.O.R. Pollachi In including sales tax.Quality: Pure expeller groundnut oil with six per cent F. F. A. or below.Delivery: F. O. R. Pol...
V.R. Lakshmanan Chettiar and anr. Vs. S.K. Kamarajendara Kadirveluswam ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-02-1955
Reported in: AIR1955Mad606; (1955)2MLJ293
Govinda Menon, J.1. Exhibit A-1 dated 27-7-1947 is a charcoal licence agreement between defendant 1 and plaintiff 1 on behalf of the plaintiffs in O. S. No. 8of 1949 on the file of the Sub Court, Dindigul, by which it was agreed that plaintiff 1 shall be at liberty to cut at his own cost for a period of two years from the date of the document the trees in the forest described in the schedule to the document and belonging to defendant 1 except a few varieties of wood specified therein for manufacturing charcoal and for the purpose of removing the charcoal from the place of manufacture defendant 1 was to issue a pass from time to time. .It was also stipulated that plaintiff 1 was to pay to defendant 1 at the rate of Re. 0-7-0 per bag of charcoal removed by him from the place of manufacture. A sum of Rs. 3000 was paid to defendant 1 as advance.It was agreed that for every bag of charcoal Re. 0-3-6 should be deducted out of the sum of Rs. 3000 paid by way of advance and only Re. 0-3-6 per ...
Lakshmi Talkies Vs. Munuswami (G.A.) and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-02-1955
Reported in: (1955)IILLJ477Mad
Balakrishna Ayyar, J.1. The first respondent Munuswami was a ticket collector in the employ of the Lakshmi Talkies, Perambur. According to the management, he applied for leave in January 1951. He was then asked to produce a medical certificate, but did not do so. Instead he stopped away from work but turned up on 3 February 1951, when he had a fit and had to be removed in an unconscious condition. On 8 February 1951 he again went to the office of the Lakshmi Talkies and said that he did not desire to serve them any more and wanted his accounts to be settled up to the date. Accordingly the management paid him whatever was due and thereafter he ceased to be their employee. Later, he wanted to return to his original post, but the management did not want him back. According to Munuswami, however, his services were wrongly terminated in March 1951. Munuswami moved the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation and prayed for an order directing the Lakshmi Talkies to reinstate him in his old pl...
Thirupathi (Minor by Mother and Next Friend 2nd Appellant) and anr. Vs ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-02-1955
Reported in: (1956)1MLJ1
Govinda Menon, J.1. The point in issue in this Second Appeal, is technical and devoid of direct authority. The plaintiff sues for recovery of a sum of money due on a mortgage for Rs. 3,000, Exhibit A-I, dated 29th November, 1942. The document stated that the defendant-mortgagor put the plaintiff-mortgagee in possession as the mortgage was a usufructuary one and the plaintiff was allowed to take the usufruct towards the interest on the mortgage money and enjoy the same. The mortgage was redeemable only after a lapse of five years. There was an oral lease-back to the mortgagor which ended on 29th November, 1946 and the plaintiff was put back in possession of the property. The present suit is for recovery of Rs 3000 being the principal money due on the mortgage, as well as a certain sum, being the rent due during part of the period when the mortgagor as lessee was in possession. So far as the Second Appeal is concerned, the only question is whether the plaintiff is entitled to get the ent...
R.M.N. Ramanathan Chettiar Vs. Narayanan Chettiar, Minor and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-01-1955
Reported in: AIR1955Mad629; (1955)2MLJ414
1. This case is a concrete instance of the considerable difficulty experienced by members of a coparcenary owning property both in India and Ceylon and also it may be, Malaya or Burma, in obtaining relief as against the managing member in possession and control of all the property. In this case, the plaintiffs are minor sons suing their own' father by their mother as guardian for partition, which has been found to be in their interests, the, father having neglected his wife and children and having been found by the trial court, to have been spending large sums out of the joint family estate on evil living, leaving his own wife and children destitute without making proper provision for their maintenance.The learned Subordinate Judge granted partition of the joint family property in India, being of course unable to" direct a partition of the substantial properly in Ceylon in B, B 1 and C schedules as being for this purpose outside the jurisdiction of the Indian courts. I am in complete a...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›