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.
Palthadi Venkappa Rai Vs. Devamma
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-06-1956
Reported in: AIR1956Mad616; (1956)2MLJ207
Krishnaswami Nayudu, J.1. This Appeal raises an interesting question as to the liability in tort of a village patel, who seems to have seized certain paddy of the plaintiff under orders of the Tahsildar purporting to act under the provisions of the Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act (Act XXIV of 1946). The and defendant is the village patel and the 1st defendant is the Tahsildar. Both of them were sued for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 1,000, being the damages alleged to have been caused to the plaintiff' by reason of the paddy belonging to her being seized and later sold to the South Kanara Central Co-operative Wholesale Stores, Bellary. The facts of the case are that in March, 1948, P.W. 4 bought a cart-load of paddy for the plaintiff, who is his sister, and asked the cart-man, P.W. 5, to carry it to her. On the 6th March, 1948 while the paddy was being loaded into the cart on the public road, the 1st defendant' who was then the Tahsildar of Puttur, appeared on the scene accomp...
Chekku Vs. Puliyaseri Parvathi Alias Amma Ammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-06-1956
Reported in: AIR1956Mad634; (1956)2MLJ348
Govinda Menon, J.1. The suit out of which this second appeal arises was for recovery of a sum of money by sale of the plaint items on the strength of a mortgage deed, Exhibit A-1, dated 2nd May, 1934, for a sum of Rs. 750 executed by one Krishna Menon, Karnavan of the tarwad of defendants 1 to 4 in favour of the plaintiff. The fifth defendant is the purchaser of the jenm right, etc., in some of the mortgaged items in Court auction under Exhibit B-10. The other defendants were impleaded ither as persons in possession or as mortgagees.2. The main contest by the fifth defendant was that the hypothecation deed was not valid and binding on the tarwad of defendants 1 to 4 and as such the plaint items could not be sold in enforcement of that document. There were other pleas raised by her with which at this juncture we are not concerned. The trial Court found that to the extent of Rs. 635-7-11 the mortgage was binding on the tarwad and decreed the suit for sale of the properties to that extent...
The State of Madras Vs. Ramalingam and Co.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-05-1956
Reported in: [1957]8STC77(Mad)
Govinda Menon, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 10,485-3-4 collected by the Government of Madras as sales tax from the plaintiff for the year 1945-46, on the ground that such collection was ultra vires and illegal, because the export trade of the plaintiff during that period was not assessable to any sales tax prior to the amendment by Act XXV of 1947.2. In the plaint, a list of several exports giving the names of the constituents and the net turnover deducting the freight, and the nature of the contracts have been given, and it is stated that the order of assessment on exports detailed there was wholly ultra vires and beyond the powers of the Government. The lower court agreed with the contentions raised by the plaintiff with regard to a refund of the sum of Rs. 10,325 and decreed the suit to that extent. The State of Madras, through the District. Collector, Tirunelveli, is the appellant herein.3. Exhibit A-7 contains a list of exports to various ...
Chinnaswami Vs. Ponginanna Goundar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-05-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Mad40; (1955)2MLJ567
Govinda Menon, J.1. The question for decision in this second appeal is. settled from the earliest times and dues not require any reconsideration. It is argued by Mr. D. Ramaswami Aiyangar for the appellant that when a man dies leaving a divided brother and a pre-deceas-ed divided brother's son, the succession should be for the brother and the nephew together and that the brother does not take precedence 'over the nephew.The basis of this argument is centred round the text of Yanjavalkya which Mr. Ramaswami Aiyangar contends means that the brother's son stands on an equal footing with brother, in which case, the brother cannot exclude the brother's son. He admits that a brother would exclude a brother's son if the son is that of a living brother; but if the son is that of a deceased brother and if there is another living brother, then both of them take together. We do not think that there is any justification for this argument, in Mayue's Hindu law, Edn. 11, at p. 653, the learned autho...
Chinnaswami Vs. Pongianna Goundar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-05-1956
Reported in: (1956)2MLJ567
Govinda Menon, J.1. The question for decision in this second appeal is settled from the earliest times and does not require any reconsideration. It is argued by Mr. D. Ramaswami Ayyangar, for the appellant, that when a man dies leaving a divided brother and a pre-deceased divided brother's son, the Succession should be for the brother and the nephew together and that the brother does not take precedence over the nephew. The basis of this argument is centered round the text of Yajnavalkya ^^HkzkrjLrFkk rRlqr%** which Mr. Ramaswami Ayyangar contends means that the brother's son stands on an equal footing with the brother, in which case the brother cannot exclude the brother's son. He admits that a brother would exclude a brother's son if the son is that of a living brother but if the son is that of a deceased brother and if there is another living brother, then both of them take together. We do not think that there is any justification for this argument. In Mayne's Hindu Law (11th edn.) ...
Aiyesha Bi Bi Vs. the Commissioner of Income-tax and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-02-1956
Reported in: (1956)2MLJ143
Rajagopalan, J.1. The petitioner was assessed to income-tax foi the year 1951-52. The petitioner was not permitted to challenge the validity of that asssessment in these proceedings. The assessed tax was in arrears. On the issue of a certificate by the Income-tax Officer under Section 46(2) of the Income-tax Act, the Collector of Madras issued a notice of demand to the assessee on 17th July, 1954, which purported to be under the provisions of the Revenue Recovery Act, Act II of 1864. The assessee is a resident of Vepery in the City of Madras. The assessee challenged the validity of the notice of demand and the further proceedings for recovery of the income-tax taken thereunder and she filed this application under Article 226 o f the Constitution for the issue of a Writ of prohibition.2. The two grounds on which the jurisdiction of the Collector to issue the notice, dated 17th July, 1954, was questioned were: (1) Section 64 of Act II of 1864 excluded the operation of the provisions of t...
The Managing Director, Rasipuram Union Motor Service Vs. Ramaswamy Gou ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-02-1956
Reported in: AIR1956Mad641; (1956)2MLJ230
Krishnaswami Nayudu, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for damages for the injuries sustained by the plaintiff when he was travelling in the defendant's bus, consequent on the negligent driving of the bus.2. On 4th July, 1948, the plaintiff was travelling in the bus of which the defendant was the Managing Director of the Rasipuram Union Motor Service, Ltd., Rasipuram, who were the owners. The accident in this case is stated to have happened after the bus left Namagiripet, at a place 12 miles from that place. The bus in which the plaintiff was travelling dashed against another bus, with the result that his left hand little finger, according to the plaintiff, had been disfigured, and he had received other minor injuries on his body. His case was that he was prevented from doing any work for four months and he claimed Rs. 1000 as and for damages.3. The defence was that at the time when the accident happened, it was not the driver of the bus that drove the bus but it was the conductor ...
Aiyesha Bibi Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras, and Another.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-02-1956
Reported in: AIR1956Mad687; [1956]30ITR81(Mad)
ORDERThe Order of the Court was Delivered byRAJAGOPALAN, J. - The petitioner was assessed to income-tax for the year 1951 - 52. The petitioner was not permitted to challenge the validity of that assessment in these proceedings. The assessed tax was in arrears. On the issue of a certificate by the Income-tax Officer under section 46 (2) of the Income-tax Act, the Collector of Madras issued a notice of demand to the assessee on 17th July, 1954, which purported to be under the provisions of the Revenue recovery Act (II of 1864). The assessee is a resident of Vepery in the City of Madras. The assessee challenged the validity of the notice of demand and the further proceedings for recovery of income-tax taken thereunder and she filed this application under article 226 of the Constitution for the issue of a writ of prohibition.The two grounds on which the jurisdiction of the Collector to issue the notice, dated 17th July, 1954, was questioned were : (1) section 64 of Act II of 1864 excluded ...
Adiraja Ariga and ors. Vs. K. Beeranna Rai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-01-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Mad14
Krishnaswami Nayudu, J.1. This second appeal arises out of a suit on a mortgage executed by defendants 1 to 3 in favour of the plaintiff on 9-6-1941, Ex. A-1. The suit properties belonged to one Padmayya Kottari and he mortgaged the properties with the predeces-sors-in-interest of the plaintiff under Ex. A-2, dated 12-4-1927 for a sum of Rs. 5000.The date of the death of Padmayya Kottari is nut in evidence but it is stated that he died sometime between 1927 and 1941. He made a testamentary disposition of his properties by his last will and testament Ex. A-3 dated 9-7-1925 giving defendants 1 to 3, his three sons, a life estate in the properties and the vested remainder absolutely to his daughters, defendants 4 to 7.The plaintiff as the heir of one of the mortgagees under Ex. A-2 became entitled to a moiety of the mortgage amount and obtained the suit mortgage from defendants 1 to 3 and laid the suit on that mortgage.2. The defence was that the Suit mortgage was not supported by conside...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›