Chennai Court November 1956 Judgments
Marudamuthu Khandar Vs. P.S. Ar. Ar. Arunachalam Chettiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-30-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Mad395
1. This is an appeal by one Marudamuthu alias Veerappa Kandar, the plaintiff in O. S. No. 108 of 1948, on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Salem, against the Judgment and decree dismissing his suit with costs. That suit was filed by the plaintiff to set aside the decree in O. S. No. 95 of 1929, on the file of the lower Court, and to set aside the decree and execution sales in O. S. No. 10 of 1930, on the file of the lower Court, and to put him in possession of the plaint properties free from all encumbrances and to decree the past and future mesne profits at Rs. 4000 per year, and costs.2. The plaintiff's allegations were briefly these: One Palaniappa Kandar was the paternal grandfather of the plaintiff and had properties worth nearly a lakh of rupees. His wife's brother was one Nataraja Kandar, a scheming and cunning man with an eye on Palaniappa's properties. Kandaswami the father of the plaintiff, was a man with an unsteady and undeveloped mind and was given to many vices and weak...
Tag this Judgment!R.A. Natarajan and anr. Vs. the Regional Transport Officer, Chingleput ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-30-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Mad392
1. A common question arises in these two appeals which were heard together. They are from the judgments of Rajagopala Aiyangar J. in two writ petitions Nos. 243 of 1954 and 615 of 1953 respectively. As the main judgment of the learned Judge was given in W. P. No. 615 of 1953, we shall deal with W. A. No. 75 of 1954 first.2. The material facts in W. A. No. 75 of 1954 are as follows: The appellant is a bus operator to Chingleput Dt. One of his buses, M.D.H. 1174 was allowed to run on the route Kancheepuram to Maduranthakam under a stage carriage permit granted to him and which was due to expire on 31-1-1953. The Regional Transport Officer. Vellore, who was then the Secretary of the Regional Transport Authority, Chingleput, in his Memorandum dated 26-8-1952, framed a charge against the appellant that on 4-2-1952 the bus was overloaded. The appellant submitted an explanation but the Regional Transport Officer found the appellant guilty of the charge and by his order dated 2-11-1952 suspend...
Tag this Judgment!Marudamuthu Alias Veerappa Kandar Vs. P.S. Ar. Ar. Arunachalam Chettia ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-30-1956
Reported in: (1957)2MLJ202
Panchapakesa Ayyar, J.1. This is an appeal by one Marudamuthu alias Veerappa Kandar, the plaintiff in O.S. No. 108 of 1948, on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Salem, against the judgment and decree dismissing his suit with costs. That suit was filed by the plaintiff to set aside the decree in O.S. No. 95 of 1929, on the file of the lower Court, and to set aside the decree and execution sales in O.S. No. 10 of 1930, on the file of the lower Court, and to put him in possession of the plaint properties free from all encumbrances and to decree the past and future mesne profits at Rs. 4,000 per year and costs.2. The plaintiff's allegations were briefly these : One Palaniappa Kandar was the paternal grandfather of the plaintiff and had properties worth nearly a lakh of rupees. His wife's brother was one Nataraja Kandar, a scheming and cunning man with an eye on Palaniappa's properties. Kandaswami, the father of the plaintiff, was a man with an unsteady and undeveloped mind and was given t...
Tag this Judgment!Abdul Khadar Vs. Taib Begum
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-29-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Mad339
Somasundaram, J.1. This is an appeal against the conviction of the appellant by the Second Presidency Magistrate for an offence under Section 500 I. P. C. The appellant has been sentenced to a fine of Rs. 500, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months.2. The complainant is no other than the wife of the appellant. They belong to the Muslim community. The complainant married the appellant sometime, in May 1930. The relationship appears to have been quite cordial for quite a long time. It is stat-ed that the complainant has borne eight children to the appellant. This fact is not disputed. She has got a son aged about 23 and a daughter aged about 19, though one daughter given in marriage appears to have died and some of the children also have died.The fact that the appellant has taken an Anglo-Indian girl as his second wife is not also disputed. It is stated that this girl has been converted into a Muslim and thereafter the appellant married her; According to the complaina...
Tag this Judgment!Ramakrishna Pillai and ors. Vs. Varadarajaswami Koil, Kumbakonam and o ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-29-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Mad735
Ramaswami, J. 1. This appeal is directed againstthe judgment and decree of the learned Subordinate Judge of Kumbakonam in O. S. No. 68 of 1951. 2. In Elandurai village there are 60 velis ofland of which 45 velis are inam sarvamanyamlands. The rest are tharapu lands. In regard tothe mirasdars of these sarvamanyam lands there are certain properties commonly owned by thereand which are utilised for remunerating the villageartisans and also for such purpose as are obligations on the part of these inam sarvamanyam mirasdars like channel-digging, the performance of village utsavams etc. The properties set apart incommon seem to be considerable. It may be stated at the outset itself and what has been pointedout by the learned counsel for the respondent thatthe defendants own considerable shares in theseinam servamanyam lands in comparison to whomthe shares owned by the plaintiffs are inconsiderable. 3. In these circumstances, in 1937 the sarvamanyam mirasdars have met and they have put the th...
Tag this Judgment!General Papers Limited Vs. A.P.A. Pakkir Mohideen and Brothers
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-28-1956
Reported in: (1958)1MLJ294
Panchapakesa Iyer, J.1. This is an appeal by the General Papers Limited, Madras, defendants in O.S. No. 43 of 1951 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge of Tirunelveli, against the judgment and decree therein.2. That was a suit filed against them by one Pakir Mohideen and others of Kadianallur for recovering from them Rs. 6,781-12-0 with subsequent interests and costs. The story of the plaintiffs was briefly this.3. On 1st March, 1950, the plaintiffs' agent, Annamalai Nadar, placed an order Exhibit B-1 with the defendants for 7 bales 308 reams of imitation glassine paper worth Rs. 4,499-11-o. On 6th March, 1950, he placed an order for 3 bales of coloured transparent paper worth Rs. 1,454-11-0, under Exhibit B-2. Both these orders were placed by him after inspecting the stock of such paper with defendants, and approving of their quality but without separating the bales covered by the two contracts from the general stock with the defendants. The prices were ex-godown Madras, and...
Tag this Judgment!N. Sundararaja Iyer Vs. Sub-collector of Dindigul and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-26-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Mad333
1. The constitutional validity of the Madras Cultivating Tenants Protection Act, XXV of 1955 is challenged in this petition for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash an order of the Sub-Collector, Dindigul, dated 17-4-1956 who acting under Section 4 of the Act directed the restoration of the 2nd respondent, Rakkappan Servat, to the possession of certain lands belonging to the petitioner,2. The land which forms the subject-matter of the dispute in the present proceedings is of an extent of about 3 acres situated in the village of Mannadimangalarn in Nilakottai taluk. The 2nd respondent claimed that he along with one Ayyaswami Pillai was jointly cultivating these lands under a lease deed executed on their behalf in favour of one Sadastvam pillai. Their case was that the joint family of the petitioner and his elder brother was the owner, of the land and that in or about May, 1953, the petitioner's elder brother Rajagopala Aiyar now deceased leased the lands to Sadasivam Pillai for a ...
Tag this Judgment!C.B.R. Ratnam and Co. by Its Sole Proprietor, C.B.R. Ratnam Vs. D. Eka ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-26-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Mad724; (1957)IILLJ266Mad
1. An order of the Government directing recovery of arrears of land revenue amounting to Rs. 829-2-6 from the petitioner is challenged in this writ petition as ultra vires and beyond their jurisdiction.2. The petitioner is C. B. R. Ratnam and Co., which is a proprietary concern carrying on business as mechanical engineers. One D. Ekambaram, the first respondent in this writ petition was a foreman employed in the petitioner's firm. He ceased to be so employed on and from 12-12-1955. This Ekambaram complained about this by his letter of even date stating that the employer had improperly terminated his services and also asking for reasons as to why his services were dispensed with.3. A few days later he brought this improper discharge from service to the notice of the Labour Officer and requested him to take up this for conciliation and get him reinstated. The Labour Officer issued notice to the petitioner and held an enquiry into the workman's Complaint, While these matters were pending ...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Mohideen Sahib
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-21-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Mad436
Rajamannar C.J.1. Two points were raised by Mr. Parthasarathi Aiyangar, learned counsel for the appellant in this case. One is that the learned Judge Basheer Ahmed Sayeed J., erred in law in holding that the gift by the second defendant to the plaintiff of his share in the suit property was valid. The contention was that as the donee was entitled only to an undivided share, the gift was invalid because of the doctrine of musha, under the Muhammadan law. As the learned Judge observed, the prevailing view is that a gift of an undivided share which is capable of division is not void.Learned counsel for the appellant did not dispute this but argued that such a division could be made only by the donor himself and relied on the decision of the Lahore High Court in Said Hassan v. Shah Hussain, AIR 1947 Lah 272 (A). That decision has obviously no application to the facts of the present case because there it was possible for the donor to have made a division himself and deliver the share which ...
Tag this Judgment!Deivanai Achi Vs. Kasi Viswanathan Chettiar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-20-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Mad766
Ramaswami, J.1. This appeal is preferred against the decree and judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge Of Pudukottai in O. S. No, 215 of 1949.2. The plaintiff Deivanai Achi who sues for separate maintenance, past and future, against her husband Kasiviswanathan Chettiar impleaded as the first defendant and his brother Annamalai Chettiar, impleaded as the second defendant in the suit, was married to the first defendant on 8-7-1935; see the marriage invitation Ex. A-16. There is no dispute that this Couple lived in accordance with the Nattukottai Chetty custom in separate quarters in the family house of the defendants between 1935 and 1937. Between 1937 and 1941 when the first defendant was in Arimalam the plaintiff wife does not seem to have lived with her husband. Then in 1941 the first defendant left for Malaya and returned to India in 1946 and the plaintiff lived only in Arimalam.Then after the first defendant's return from foreign parts in 1946 till the date of the institution of ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »