Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1956)1MLJ493
Panchapakesa Ayyar, J.1. This is a petition filed by one Seth Mohandas Vasudev for revising and setting aside the order of the Subordinate Judge of Madurai, dated 27th January, 1954, in E.A.No. 246 of 1952, in E.A.No. 419 of 1951, in E.P.No. 311 of 1950, in O.S. No. 139 of 1949. The facts of the case were briefly these: E.A.No. 246 of 1952 was an application filed under Section 51, Civil Procedure Code, by the respondent Ramamurthi, an attaching decree-holder who had filed a petition under Order 21, Rule 90, Civil Procedure Code, for setting aside the sale, praying that the lower Court should not accept the joint memo submitted into the Court by him and Vasudev on nth February, 1952, for granting a sale-certificate, in respect of the properties of which Vasudev was the successful bidder in the name of Ramamurthi, on condition that he paid Vasudev Rs. 6,000 within three weeks. When the application was made, the lower Court probably thought that the prayer regarding the grant of sale-cer...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1955)IILLJ768Mad
Ramaswami, J.1. This is an appeal preferred against the order made by the Court of Additional Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Madras, in W.C.C. No. 147 of 1950.2. The facts are:--The appellant Sitharama Reddiar is a petty ryot of North Arcot district owning 4 acres of dry lands. There was a small well in his field. On account of the failure of monsoon for four years in succession, the well had got dried up. Therefore, he deepened it with a band of diggers of whom the respondent Ayyasami Gounder was one. The digging operations started in February 1948. The appellant or his father supervised the work. They paid the diggers advance at 12 annas plus 13/4 measures of rice every day and supplied them with gunpowder for dynamiting the rocks. On 26 March 1949 when dynamite was used for digging operations it resulted in explosion. The respondent was injured. He was taken to the hospital and his right arm was amputated up to his elbow and he lost three fingers in his left hand. Thereupo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1956Mad390; (1956)1MLJ72
ORDERGovinda Menon, J.1. In these appeals, a question of some importance regarding the forum of appeal in certain cases, has been raised and though on innumerable occasions such appeals had been entertained by the lower appellate Courts (District Courts) there has, so far been no reported decision of this Court that has been brought to our notice, which justifies such a practice. The learned District Judge himself was of opinion that before proceeding with the merits and deciding the rights of the parties, it would be desirable to have an authoritative pronouncement regarding the jurisdiction of his Court to entertain the appeals.2. In C.S. No. 100 of 1945 on the file of the Original Side of this Court, a decree for a large sum of money was passed against the defendants therein. It is unnecessary to recount the various proceedings that had taken place in the execution of that decree in this Court. Suffice it to say that after certain properties charged under the decree were sold there ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1956)1MLJ276
Rajagopala Ayyangar, J.1. The Civil Revision Petition and the Civil Miscellaneous Second Appeal in the alternative have been filed by the second defendant in O.S. No. 40 of 1945 on the file of the District Munsiff's Court of Kumbakonam in the following circumstances. I shall be referring to the 2nd defendant as the appellant in the rest of the judgment.2. O.S. No. 40 of 1945 was a suit brought by the plaintiff for redemption of a usufructuary mortgage executed in favour of the first defendant, wherein the second defendant, who is the present appellant, was a co-mortgagor. The redemption suit was decreed, the preliminary decree having been passed on 30th April, 1947, and this was confirmed on 16th April, 1948, by the Sub-Court of Kumbakonam on appeal. The 2nd defendant and the plaintiff deposited the mortgage amount of Rs. 1000 in equal moieties on 30th July, 1947, and the first defendant drew the amount from Court on 22nd September, 1948. The present application LA. No. 781 of 1950, is...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1956)1MLJ173
Somasundaram, J.1. This is a Revision Petition filed by the judgment-debtors in E.P. No. 83, of 1955 in O.S.No.138 of 1950 on the file of the Sub-Court, Madurai, against an order passed for proclamation of sale. The circumstances under which the present revision petition has been filed are these: The preliminary decree in the suit was passed on 31st October, 1950. The final decree was passed on 27th August, 1951. Subsequently on 27th November, 1951, E.P. No. 446 of 1951 was filed and after notice to the present petitioners, judgment-debtors, the terms of proclamation were settled. After the settlement of the terms of proclamation the Madras Indebted Agriculturists (Temporary Relief) Act V of 1954 came into force in consequence of which there was stay of further proceedings in execution, by an order dated 4th February, 1954. Now that Act has expired and it has been replaced by the Madras Act I of 1955 under which the decree-holder is permitted to execute his decree under the circumstanc...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1956Mad250; (1956)1MLJ52
Krishnaswami Nayudu, J.1. The plaintiff is the appellant. The suit was on a pronote for Rs. 500, dated 16th June, 1946, executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff repayable on demand with interest at 9 per cent, per annum. The pronote in the case was admittedly torn where the stamps were alleged to have been affixed. The plaintiff's case is that she entrusted the pronote to her brother for safe custody and when she looked at the pronote prior to the filing the suit, she found that a portion of the pronote bearing the signature of the defendant on the stamps was torn away. In the written statement of the defendant, his case was that the suit pronote was executed nominally and that at a settlement effected between the parties the pronote was discharged and the stamp was torn in the presence of the mediators, but was left with the defendant in connection with the settlement of the disputes with a third party. One of the issues framed in the suit was whether the suit was maintain...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1956)2MLJ193
Panchapakesa Ayyar, J.1. This is an appeal by one Kumari Alagammai the plaintiff in O.S. No. 57 of 1951, against the judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge, Devakottai, dismissing her suit with costs. That was a suit filed by her against her four paternal uncles, defendants 1 to 4, for giving her Rs. 40,000 for her marriage expenses, out of the joint family properties, said to be worth ten lakhs, divided by them among themselves under two partition deeds, Exhibit A-8, dated 6th May, 1942, and Exhibit A-9, dated 26th May, 1948, making only a provision of Rs. 25,000 for her marriage expenses and dividing it among themselves at Rs. 6,250, each to be paid individually at a later date. The plaintiff alleged that this provision of Rs. 25,000 for her marriage expenses in Exhibits A-8 and A-9 was not at all adequate and was in fraud of her rights to get Rs. 40,000 from them jointly at once. She did not, therefore, file a suit for recovering the Rs. 25,000, or for getting that sum deposit...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1956)1MLJ34
P.V. Rajamannar, C.J.1. This is an appeal against an order of Rajagopalan, J., allowing an application made by respondents 1 to 8 before us (Writ Petition No. 825 of 1953) under Article 226 of the Constitution to quash the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Tanjore, dated 7th March, 1953, passed on appeal against the order of the Conciliation Officer, Papanasam, in L.R.A. No. 200 of 1952. The decision of this appeal depends on the construction of the provisions of the Tanjore Tenants and Pannaiyal Protection Act, Madras Act XIV of 1952, defining 'cultivating tenant' and 'land-owner'. The facts are not in dispute. The concerned lands belonged to the Panchanadeeswara Swami Devasthanam. The Receiver appointed in respect of these lands granted a lease in favour of two persons Vasudeva Padayachi and Pichai Asari for a period of one year ending with 30th April, 1951. The Devasthanam eventually took possession of the lands on the expiry of the lease granted by the Receiver and cultivate...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1956)1MLJ47
Panchapakesa Ayyar, J.1. This is a petition to revise and set aside the order of the Subordinate Judge of South Malabar in A.S. No. 130 of 1952 on his file, reversing the order of the District Munsif in E.A. No. 74 of 1949 (E.A. 1126 of 1949) setting aside the sale held in E.P. 11 of 1949 and dismissing the petition filed by this petitioner, Karunakaran Nair, under Order 21, Rule 90, Civil Procedure Code, to set aside the sale.2. The short ground taken by Mr. Gopalan Nambiar for the petitioner, Karunakaran Nair, was that both the lower Courts below had agreed that there was no satisfactory evidence to show that the mandatory notice under Order 21, Rule 66, Civil Procedure Code, had gone to this judgment-debtor before the sale proclamation was drawn up or made, and that the absence of service of such mandatory notice on him would amount to an illegality and would make the sale null and void, especially when this was not a case of execution more than two years, after the date of the decr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1956Mad219; [1956]7STC19(Mad)
ORDERSomasundaram, J.1. These are revision petitions against the conviction of the petitioner by the Fifth Presidency Magistrate, Madras, in C. T. Nos. 92 and 93 of 1955.2. The petitioner, one P. Hanumanthiah, has been prosecuted for failure to pay the balance of sales tax for 1950-1951 and 1951-1952. That he was a partner along with one A.P. Subramania Mudaliar and that they were doing business under the name and style of Messrs P.H.A.P. Subramania Mudaliar and Co., is not disputed. The complaints have been undoubtedly laid against the petitioner and A.P. Subramania Mudaliar for offences under Section 15(b) of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1939. If both of them have been prosecuted, as has been pointed out in my decision in Behara Latchanna Patnaick v. State 1952 M.W.N.187, then it can well be contended that the firm was being prosecuted. Under the Act, if a firm is assessed to tax, it is the firm that must be proceeded against and prosecuted for non-payment of tax. It has been ma...
Tag this Judgment!