Chennai Court March 1956 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.
Narasimha Rao Vs. Someswar Joshi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-09-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Mad210
Panchapakesa Ayyar, J.1. This is a petition by one Narasimha Rao, the second defendant in S. C. S. No. 3904 of 1949 on the file of the Court of Small Causes, Madras, to revise and set aside the judgment and decree of the Court of Small Causes, so far as he is concerned, and also the judgment and decree of the Court of Small Causes in N. T. A. No. 108 of 1953, so far as he is concerned.2. The facts are briefly these: One Some-swara Joshi sued the petitioner and his brother, Suryanaryana, the first defendant, to recover the amount due on a promissory note, Ex. P. 1, executed by them jointly in his favour, for Rs. 650 on 10-1-1949, and for costs. At first both the defendants were absent, and the suit was decreed 'ex parte' against them. Subsequently, the petitioner alone applied and got the ex parte decree set aside.Then he contended that he had not executed the suit promissory note, and that the signature in the suit promissory note purporting to be his was not really his, but was a forg...
Nalla Karuppan Chettiar and ors. Vs. Baladandayuthapani Vannia Mundar ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-09-1956
Reported in: (1956)2MLJ408
Govinda Menon, J.1. This Miscellaneous Appeal has been referred to a Bench by one of us, Ramaswami, J., because, the question involved is bereft of authority as regards the application of Section 9-A of Madras Act IV of 1938.2. The facts of the case are as follows : The first appellant is an assignee of certain mortgages from the first respondent and the application was by the mortgagors; to scale down the debt under Section 19-A of Act IV of 1938. The lower Court has scaled down the debt in a particular manner and hence this appeal.3. Mr. A.V. Narayanaswami Aiyar for the appellant at the very first instance raised the question that Section 9-A would not be applicable to the present case because there has been a partition in the family of the mortgagees who were respondents 2 to 5 in the Court below and as such, as stated in the Explanation to Section 9-A, the Section would not apply. For this reliance has been placed upon the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 3 of whom R.W. 1 was the second resp...
G. Narasimha Rao Vs. Someswar Joshi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-09-1956
Reported in: (1956)2MLJ399
Panchapakesa Ayyar, J.1. This is a petition by one Narasirnha Rao, the second defendant in Small Cause Suit No. 3904 of 1949 on the file of the Court of Small Causes, Madras, to revise and set aside the judgment and decree of the Court of Small Causes, so far as he is concerned, and also the judgment and decree of the Court of Small Causes in N.T.A. No. 108 of 1953, so far as he is concerned.2. The facts are briefly these : One Someswar Joshi sued the petitioner and his brother, Suryanarayana, the first defendant to recover the amount due on a promissory note, Exhibit P-1, executed by them jointly in his favour, for Rs. 650 on 10th January, 1949, and for costs. At first both the defendants were absent, and the suit was decreed ex parte against them. Subsequently, the petitioner alone applied and got the ex parte decree set aside. Then he contended that he had not executed the suit promissory note, and that the signature in the suit promissory note purporting to be his was not really hi...
Subramaniam Chettiar Vs. Revenue Divisional Officer and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-08-1956
Reported in: AIR1956Mad454; (1956)2MLJ126
Panchapakesa Ayyar, J.1. These three are connected matters. W.P. No. 921 of 1955 is against the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Devakottai, confirmed by the Collector of Ramnad at Madurai, with certain modifications, levying stamp duty and penalty on two bonds from Subramanian Chettiar, the Petitioner and the executant of those two bonds.2. The facts were briefly these : The two documents were produced before the Subordinate Judge of Sivaganga by one Palaniappa Chettiar in O.S. No. 81 of 1952 on his file, filed by the said Palaniappa Chettiar, against the Petitioner, Subramaniam Chettiar, for recovering moneys due under a document renewing the debt under the two bonds, which were labelled 'deposit letters'. The Court-fee Examiner put in a check-slip contending that the alleged deposit letters were really bonds and had not been duly stamped and suggesting that they should be impounded and sent to the Collector. When the matter was taken up by the Court, the plaintiff Palaniappa...
The State of Madras Represented by Collector of Malabar Vs. T.V. Parva ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-08-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Mad41; (1957)ILLJ531Mad; (1955)2MLJ401
1. This is an appeal against the judgment of Ramaswami Goundar J. in A. S. No. 435 of 1951. That appeal was from the decree and judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge of South Malabar, at Palghat, in O. S. No. 32 of 1949 on his tile. The suit was filed by one R. V. Lakshmana Aiyar against the Province of Madras in the following circumstances:2. Lakshmana Aiyar, the. plaintiff, entered Government service as a clerk in 1910. He became in due course a Tahsildar and was confirmed as such with effect from 1-12-1944. He was acting as Huzur Sheristadar between April 1943 to June 1945. Ort 4-6-1945, he was appointed as Additional First Class Magistrate, Malabar. He took charge as such on 16-6-1945, and continued in that office till 17-10-1946, when he took leave.There was a charge of corruption against him and the Special Officer for Departmental Enquiries held an enquiry and sent a report finding him guilty. After consideration of the report, the Collector passed an order on 28-11-1947, di...
The State of Madras Represented by the Collector of Malabar Vs. T.V. P ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-08-1956
Reported in: (1956)2MLJ401
P.V. Rajamannar, C.J.1. This is an appeal against the Judgment of Ramaswami Gounder, J., in A.S. No. 435 of 1951. That appeal was from the decree and judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge of South Malabar, at Palghat in O.S. No. 32 of 1949 on his file. The suit was filed by one R.V. Lakshmana Ayyar against the Province of Madras in the following circumstances:2. Lakshmana Ayyar, the plaintiff, entered Government service as a clerk in 1916. He became in due course a Tahsildar and was confirmed as such with effect from 1st December, 1944. He was acting as Huzur Sheristadar between April, 1943, and June, 1945. On 4th June, 1945, he was appointed as Additional First class. Magistrate, Malabar. He took charge as such on 16th June, 1945, and continued in that office till 17th October, 1946, when he took leave. There was a charge of corruption against him and the Special Officer for Departmental Enquiries held an enquiry and sent a report finding him guilty. After consideration of the rep...
In Re: Moorthy and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-07-1956
Reported in: AIR1956Mad536; 1956CriLJ1202
Govinda Menon, J.1. I agree. As leave to appeal had also been granted under Section 411A (1)(b), it is open to this Court to assess the evidence for itself and having done so, I am of the view that the convictions are justified. Having perused the testimony of P. Ws. 2, 3 and 4 in the light of the strong criticism levelled against their veracity, I feel that all the three of them are witnesses of truth. P. Ws. 5 and 6 corroborate the eye-witnesses' testimony to a large extent. In these circumstances on an analysis of the evidence there is no ground whatever for holding that the convictions are wrong. I agree to the confirmation of the convictions as well as the modification of the sentences,Ramaswami, J.2. These are appeals preferred by Moorthy and Mani, accused 2 and 1 respectively in Sessions Case No. 10 of die Fourth Criminal Sessions of 1955 of' the Madras High Court, against their convictions, under Section 302 read with Section 34, I.P.C. in the case of accused 1 and under Sectio...
In Re: Sankaralingam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-07-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Mad24; 1957CriLJ73; (1955)2MLJ185
ORDERSomasundaram, J.1. This is a reference by the District Magistrate under the following circumstances. A case has been filed against one Sankaralingam for the offence of murder. The case was enquired into by the Sub Magistrate, Tirunelveli. The accused is said to be deaf and dumb, and according to the committal order, with the assistance of P. W. 14, a teacher in the Deaf and Dumb school, Palayamcottah, the proceedings were interpreted to the accused, and the accused appeared to understand the proceedings as interpreted by P. W. 14.As there was a prima facie case, the Sub Magistrate committed the accused to take his trial before the Sessions Judge for the offence of murder. Under Section 341, Criminal P. C. a sub magistrate can submit the proceedings after commitment only if the accused though not insane, cannot be made to understand the proceedings.But once he has committed, the Sessions Judge has seisin of the case, and it is not open to him to write to the District Magistrate to ...
P.P. Raman Menon Vs. the State of Madras Represented by the Secretary ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-07-1956
Reported in: (1956)2MLJ228
ORDERRajagopala Ayyangar, J.1. This is a petition for the issue of a writ of certiorari, to quash an order passed by the State of Madras, in its Department of Industries, Labour and Co-operation. The order was passed under Section 57 of the Madras Co-operative Societies Act, in these circumstances.2. The petitioner was the Secretary of a Producer Gum Consumer Co-operative Society in Ponnani, Malabar District. He occupied this post on various dates from 26th August, 1946 to 28th December, 1948. During this period, he was stated to have been guilty of misappropriation of some amounts belonging to the society by using forged and irregular vouchers, in conspiracy with an accounts clerk of the same society. On the basis of these allegations, an application was made by the President of the Society to the Registrar, for arbitration under Section 51 of the Cooperative Societies Act. The amount claimed by the society as having been lost to it by this misappropriation, was a sum of Rs. 4,567-2-7...
T.S. Karthikeya Mudaliar Vs. Singaram Pillai and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-07-1956
Reported in: AIR1956Mad603; (1956)2MLJ515
Krishnaswami Nayudu, J.1. The short point for determination in this appeal is whether the second defendant is entitled to continue in possession by virtue of the application of the doctrine of part-performance under Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act. The plaintiff appellant instituted the suit out of which this appeal arises for an injunction or in the alternative for possession against the two defendants. The first defendant was impleaded as a lessee for one year, 1950-51 under a lease deed dated 15th July, 1950 (Exhibit A-14) and the second defendant who was a previous lessee was impleaded as the person who was in possession of the property but not entitled to continue in possession, as he has no manner of right to be in possession and that as he is an absolute stranger. So far as the first defendant is concerned, he admitted the lease and there is no difficulty in granting relief to the plaintiff as against him. But the second defendant contested the suit as not being lia...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »