Chennai Court September 1955 Judgments
Srinivasa Pillai and ors. Vs. Muthayya Pillai and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-30-1955
Reported in: AIR1956Mad364; (1956)1MLJ319
P.V. Rajamannar, C.J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Cuddalore, on a promissory note, dated 1st November, 1937, executed by one Venugopala Pillai in favour of Lokambal Ammal, wife of Venkatachalam Pillai, for Rs. 8,253. The amount was payable with interest at 12 annas per cent. per mensem. Venugopal Pillai died on 13th September, 1943. On the 25th January, 1942, Lokambal purported to assign the promissory note in favour of Muthayya Pillai. The suit was brought on 27th October, 1943, by Muthayya Pillai against the widow (1st defendant) and the brothers (defendants 2 and 3) and the sons of his junior paternal uncle (defendants 4 and 5) of Venugopal Pillai. The suit was originally filed by Muthayya Pillai alone as the assignee of the promissory note. He obtained an ex parte decree. Defendants 2 to 5 filed a petition to set aside the ex parte decree. But that petition was dismissed. An appeal was filed to this Court against the order dismi...
Tag this Judgment!Karuppa Udayar and ors. Vs. Sellamuthu Udayar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-30-1955
Reported in: (1956)2MLJ250
Govinda Menon, J.1. Defendants 2 to 5 and 7 and 8 are the appellants in this Second Appeal which arises out of a suit for partition and recovery of possecsion of a half share in the properties which originally belonged to one Kolandaiappa Udayar and his brothers. Both the lower Courts have held that Kolandaiappa and his brother, Vythialinga, were divided in status as a result of a partition deed, Exhibit A-1, dated 24th April, 1890, though there had been no division by metes and bounds and on that finding a preliminary decree for partition was passed. The main question argued in this Second Appeal is whether the conclusion arrived at by the Courts below that the aforesaid brothers were divided in status is justified on a true and proper construction of Exhibit A-1.2. One Karuppa Udayar had four sons, Kothappa, Devaraja, Vythialinga and Kolandaiappa of whom by the time of Exhibit A-1, viz., 24th April, 1890, Kothappa had died leaving a son by name Karuppa Udayan. Exhibit A-1 is styled a...
Tag this Judgment!K.P.V. Balakrishna Naidu (Died) and anr. Vs. Karumuthu Sivalingam Chet ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-29-1955
Reported in: AIR1956Mad395; (1956)1MLJ293
Govinda Menon, J.1. A preliminary objection is taken by the respondent that the order appealed against is not one which comes within the purview of Section 39(1)(vi) of the Arbitration Act. But Mr. Viswanatha Ayyar for the appellant relying on the authority of the decision in Jagadish v. Sundar I.L.R. (1943) Pat. 86, contends that the dismissal of I.A. No. 478 of 1951 is tantamount to setting aside the arbitration award as contemplated by Section 39(1)(vi) of the Arbitration Act. The correctness of this contention will be examined after stating the facts of the case.2. The original appellant in this Court was the purchaser of certain properties over which the respondent had two mortgages and on account of disputes arising between them with regard to the exact amount due to the respondent the matter was referred to arbitration. The arbitrators after looking into the papers and hearing the parties gave their award on 15th May, 1947. On 18th May, 1947, the original appellant herein filed ...
Tag this Judgment!T.R. Ratnavelu Mudaliar Vs. Kamalabai Ammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-28-1955
Reported in: (1956)1MLJ378
Basheer Ahmed Sayeed, J.1. This appeal is against the order made in review by our learned brother, Panchapakesa Ayyar, J., in an Application made in C.S. Nos. 156 and 531 of 1949 by the wife, plaintiff in the latter suit.2. The present appellant and the respondent were married on 16th June, 1948. They lived together for about 20 days, when misunderstandings arose due to the interference of the proverbial mother-in-law. Allegations were then made against the husband of legal cruelty to the wife and a suit was filed namely, C.S. No. 531 of 1949 for separate maintenance and for return of jewels and clothes, etc., which were given to the wife at the time of the marriage and which she was entitled to get back from her husband. This appears to be a counterblast to the suit filed by the husband, namely, C.S. No. 156 of 1949 asking for restitution of conjugal rights against the wife.3. Both the suits were tried together by our learned brother and a common decree was passed in both the suits. W...
Tag this Judgment!Valappilekkandi Parambnate Valappil Raman Vs. Koroth Thanicheri Kunhi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-28-1955
Reported in: AIR1956Mad445; (1956)1MLJ403
Govinda Menon, J.1. Krishnaswami Nayudu, J., expressing the opinion that there is a conflict between the decisions in Kunhappa Nambiar v. Shridevi Kettilamma (1895) I.L.R. 18 Mad. 451, and Kunhi Kannan v. Soopi : (1908)18MLJ132 , on the one hand and the Full Bench decision in Venkatanarayana v. Venkata Somaraju : (1937)2MLJ251 , on the other has referred this second appeal to a bench and that is how it comes before us.2. The appellant was the petitioner in an application under Order 34, Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Code for a personal decree in O.S. No. 505 of 1936 on the file of the District Munsif, Tellicherry. That application was allowed by the trial Court but in appeal the learned District Judge set aside the personal decree passed by the trial Court and dismissed the application R.M.P. No. 47 of 1942.3. The facts are shortly these: The appellant was a tenant under the tarwad of the respondent and because the land revenue on the leased property had not been paid by the jenmi he w...
Tag this Judgment!P.A. Aiyannah Chetty and ors. Vs. Pala Muddukrishnayya and Co.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-27-1955
Reported in: (1956)2MLJ54
Somasundaram, J.1. This Civil Revision Petition is by the landlords against the Judgment of the Additional Judge, Court of Small Causes, Madras, confirming the order of the Additional Rent Controller refusing to order eviction of the respondents herein.2. The respondent company was occupying premises No. 84, Godown Street, G.T., Madras, as the tenant of the petitioner from 1928 onwards. At the inception of the tenancy in 1928 there was nothing to indicate that there was any written lease between the parties. In 1943 there was a written lease for a period of three years and this lease expired by 31st January, 1946. Subsequently there were negotiations between the parties for the execution of a fresh lease. The landlords who are the trustees of a certain charity, known as Pappichetti Raghaviah Chetty's charities through the manager of the charities sent a letter to the respondent for the purpose of executing a fresh lease which was more or less on the same lines as that of the previous o...
Tag this Judgment!Thayammal Vs. Adhimoolam Servai and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-23-1955
Reported in: (1956)1MLJ75
Krishnaswami Nayudu, J.1. This appear arises out of a suit for redemption of a usufructuary mortgage. The suit property belonged to one Periyasami Servai. He had four sons. The defendants are two of his sons. The 2nd defendant married the plaintiff as his second wife. Between the father and the four sons there was a partition evidenced by Exhibit A-1, dated 29th April, 1929. Even prior to the partition, the property had been mortgaged with possession to the 1st defendant for Rs. 1200 under Exhibit A-2, dated 19th May, 1927. In the partition the property fell to the share of the 2nd defendant. At the time of the marriage with the plaintiff the 2nd defendant executed a settlement deed, Exhibit A-3, dated 23rd June, 1932, which was, however, subject to the othi in favour of the 1st defendant. On 22nd March, 1943, the 2nd defendant purported to execute a release, Exhibit B-1, in respect of the suit property in favour of his father. The plaintiff's case is that she is entitled by virtue of ...
Tag this Judgment!Srimathi Saraswathi Bai, by Power of Attorney Agent T.S. Srinivasa Rao ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-16-1955
Reported in: (1956)1MLJ200
ORDERRajagopalan, J.1. These are applications under Article 226 of the Constitution for the issue of writs of certiorari, to set aside the order of the Appellate Tribunal constituted under the Estates Abolition Act, confirming the orders of Assistant Settlement Officer.2. The petitioner was the landholder entitled to what was known as the Pudur zamindari, which consisted of a number of villages. The estate vested in the Government after the Government issued the notification prescribed by Section 3 of the Abolition Act. The petitioner applied to the Assistant Settlement Officer for ryotwari pattas for various items of lands, in nine villages. Except possibly in the case of one item in Melapatti Village, all the lands for which the petitioner applied for ryotwari pattas stood registered in the accounts maintained by the landholder as poramboke lands. Two of the items were described further as nandavanams. The rest were described as topes. The topes contained either tamarind or palmyrah ...
Tag this Judgment!K. Veerankutty Vs. Pathummakutty Umma and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-14-1955
Reported in: AIR1956Mad514; (1956)1MLJ195
Govinda Menon, J.1. The Order of Reference to the Bench sets out the point for decision as depending on the construction of the gift deed, Exhibit A-2 which, if interpreted as creating a life estate with a vested remainder would raise for consideration the validity of such an estate under the Muslim Law; but in our opinion a true and proper construction of the deed leads to the conclusion that no life estate is thereby created in favour of the donor Muhammad Kutti. The document after reciting the properties dealt with thereunder proceeds as follows:I have out of natural love and affection I have for Nos. I and 2 released or surrendered by assignment gift all my rights to the kanom reclamation, house and improvements thereon as per terms staled thereunder. But till my death I shall keep and enjoy the properties of the schedule without any munpattom or creating any mortgage or debt or alienating the same and it is settled that after my death Nos. 1 and 2 should keep the schedule mentione...
Tag this Judgment!The Management of Rajamani Transport, Ltd. Vs. the Collector of Tiruch ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-14-1955
Reported in: (1956)1MLJ226
ORDERRajagopalan, J.1. The industrial disputes between the petitioner, a public motor transport concern, and its workers were referred to the Industrial Tribunal at Madurai for adjudication and the award of the Tribunal became effective on its publication in the Fort St. George Gazette, on 17th April, 1951. In paragraph 14 of that award were specified the wages that the several classes of workers in the transport and workshop departments of the petitioner's concern had to be paid. The award provided for the two grades of pay in the categories of workers specified in paragraph 14. The pay applicable to each of the grades was also fixed.2. On an application presented by some of the workers to take action under Section 20(1) of the Industrial Disputes (Appellate Tribunal) Act (XLVIII of 1950) (hereinafter referred to as the Act) the Government called for reports, and eventually on 22nd December, 1952, the Government referred to the Industrial Tribunal at Madurai, under Section 20(2) of th...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »