Chennai Court July 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.
T.S. Govindaraj Vs. A.B. Kandaswami Goundar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-24-1956
Reported in: (1956)2MLJ578
Rajagopala Ayyangar, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff against the decree in O.S. No. 9 of 1951, Sub-Court, Dindigul, dismissing his suit for the taking of the accounts of a dissolved partnership, for dealing in tobacco. The learned Subordinate Judge has dismissed the suit on the ground that the partnership put forward by the plaintiff was illegal as being prohibited by the Central Excises Act and the Rules framed thereunder.2. The plaintiff's case was that in or about 1945 he and the defendants (two in number) formed a partnership for trading in tobacco in Jakkamanayakkanpatti under the terms of which the plaintiff undertook to furnish the necessary finance, these advances carrying interest at 6 per cent, per annum, while the defendants were to be in charge of the day-to-day management of the business maintaining true and regular accounts, and that the profit and loss should be shared one half by the plaintiff, the two defendants together taking the other half. The agreement whi...
Parvathy Ammal Vs. Gopala Gounder and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-20-1956
Reported in: 1957CriLJ140
ORDERSomasundaram, J.1. This is an application by the wife against an order of the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Villupuram, who has refused to give maintenance to the petitioner herein on the ground that it has not been established that the petitioner and the respondent were married according to Hindu law.The evidence clearly discloses that the petitioner and the respondent went to a temple called Tiruvamuthur Easwaran temple and there with the aid of a priest, some ceremonies like Vigneswara Pooja, Kalasa pooja and Mangalya pooja were performed and then the thali was tied round the neck of the petitioner by the respondent; marriage invitations were issued inviting relatives and friends to attend the above function in the temple and the marriage itself was performed in the above manner.It is clear also from the evidence that some other ceremonies which are performed usually In marriages according to religious rites were not performed such as Homam, Patha Pooja, Ammi Mithithal and Sapthap...
Ramagopal Naicker Vs. Muthukrishna Ayyar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-20-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Mad1
1. This appeal raises an interesting question of limitation. The suit was on a simple mortgage executed by defendant 1 in favour of the plaintiff Ex., A-3 dated 25-4-1927, for a sum of Rs. 500. The amount was payable in instalments and the final Instalment was payable on 25-4-1930. The suit was Instituted on 30-9-1948.Defendant 2 is the purchaser of the suit property from the Official Receiver. Since defendant 1 was adjudged insolvent in I. P. No. 9 of 1935 on the file of the District Munsif's Court,. Koilpatti, the property became vested in the Official Receiver, Tirunelveli. Reliance was placed on Ex. A-5 dated 23-12-1940, a certified c6py of the sale deed in I. P. No. 5 of 1936, executed by the Official Receiver, in favour of defendant 2, wherein it appears that the Official Receiver has stated that the sale was subject to the mortgage under Ex. A-3.If this amounts to an acknowledgment of lia-bility under Section 19, Limitation Act, the suit would be within time. In Currimbhal v. Ah...
Ramagopal Naicker Vs. Muthukrishna Ayyar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-20-1956
Reported in: (1956)2MLJ421
Govinda Menon, J.1. The order of reference to the bench by Krishnaswami Nayudu, J., is sufficiently detailed as regards the facts of the case and no useful purpose will be served by our restating them once again. As stated by the learned Judge the question is whether an acknowledgment by an Official Receiver would be sufficient to prolong the period during which claim subsists. That there is an acknowledgement in writing of an existing debt cannot be disputed in view of Exhibit A-5 if it is admissible in which the Official Receiver has explicitly stated that the sale would be subject to the mortgage under Exhibit A-3.2. But the question is whether it would be an acknowledgment of a liability under Section 19 of the limitation Act, paragraph 1, which lays down that if an acknowledgment of liability in respect of a property or a right has been made in writing signed by the party against whom such property or right is claimed or by some person through whom he derives title or liability a ...
Thozhukkat Pathan Veettil Tavazhi Lakshmi Tarwad Karnavasthri Lakshmi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-20-1956
Reported in: (1956)2MLJ542
Ramaswami, J.1. This appeal is directed against the decree and judgment of the learned District Judge of South Malabar in A.S. No. 229 of 1951 confirming the order and decree of the learned Subordinate Judge of Ottapalam, in O.P. No. 34 of 1949.2. The case for appellants : The 5 items mentioned in the schedule to the petition belong to the tavazhi tarwad of the petitioners. Achutha Menon, the then karnavan of the tarwad, personally executed a mortgage in favour of Konthi Menon, the karnavan of the respondents' tarwad for Rs. 1,000 on the 23rd Medom 1049 (4th August, 1874), under Exhibit B-2. On the same day another possessory mortgage Exhibit B-1 was executed to the same Konthi Menon for a sum of Rs. 400. On the 13th of Medom 1052 (24th April, 1877) another mortgage for Rs. 1,376 was executed (Exhibit B-4.) Then Exhibit B-5 was executed for Rs. 143-12-1 on 8th of Meenam 1053 (19th March, 1878). Exhibit B-6 was another possessory mortgage document executed on the 28th Mithunam 1054 (7th...
Parvathy Ammal Vs. Gopala Goundar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-20-1956
Reported in: (1956)2MLJ468
ORDERSomasundaram, J.1. This is an application by the wife against an order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Villupram, who has refused to give maintenance to the petitioner herein on the ground that it has not been established that the petitioner and the respondent were married according to Hindu Law. The evidence clearly discloses that the petitioner and the respondent went to a temple called Tiruvamuthur Easwaran Temple and there with the aid of a priest some ceremonies like Vigneswara Pooja, Kalasa Pooja and Mangalya Pooja were performed and then the thali was tied round the neck of the petitioner by the respondent; marriage invitations were issued inviting relatives and friends to attend the above function in the temple and the marriage itself was performed in the above manner. It is clear also from the evidence that some other ceremonies which are performed usually in marriages according to religious rites were not performed such as Homam, Patha Pooja, Ammi Mithithal and Sapthap...
Damodaraswamy Naidu Vs. President of District Board, Coimbatore and an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-18-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Mad149
ORDERRajagopalan, J.1. Improvements had to be carried out to the Palladam-Cochin Frontier Road which lay in the Coim-batore district. The work had to be paid for by the District Board of Coimbatore. The estimated cost of the work was Rs. 98000. The Divisional Engineer, Highways, called for tenders for the execution of that work--tenders to be sub-mitted before 12-5-1955. The petitioner the 2nd respondent and others submitted tenders. Eventually, under the orders of the Government, the tender of the 2nd respondent, which was the lowest, was accepted by the District Board That was on 19-12-1955.2. It was the validity of that action of the District Board which the petitioner challenged by his application under Article 226 of the Constitution for the issue of a writ of certiorari.3. The petitioner contended that the acceptance of the tender of the 2nd respondent was vitiated by breach of Rules 9 and 10 of the rules for Tenders of Contracts framed by the Government Under Section 199(2)(n) o...
Subramaniam Chettiar and anr. Vs. Muthiah Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-18-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Mad189
Krishnaswami Nayudu, J.1. The question that arises for determination in this appeal is whether there is a period of limitation for an application by the mortgagor-plaintiff in a redemption suit to pass a final decree and whether Article 181 of the Limitation Act applies to such an application.2. A preliminary decree for redemption was passed on 21-6-1936, granting two months time for payment of the amount. The plaintiff paid the amount within the time-fixed but did not make an application for passing a final decree directing the mortgagee to deliver the documents and possession of the property. He filed two execution petitions. E. P. Nos. 252 and 253 Of 1949, in the Chief Court of Pudukottah but they were dismissed as being barred by limitation. This appeal arises out of the application filed by the plaintiff on 2-11-1951 for passing a final decree.A plea of limitation was taken as the application was filed long after the expiry of three years and it was contended that Article 181 of t...
Rajamma Vs. Varadarajulu Chetti and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-18-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Mad198
Ramaswami, J. 1. This is an appeal and memorandum of cross-objections directed against the decree and judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge of Chingleput in O. S. No. 69 of 1950, 2. The facts are: The first defendant Vara-darajulu Chetti had three sons by name Rajaman-nar Chetti, Dharmayya Chetti and Krishnan Chetti. The plaintiff was married in 1925 to Rajaman-nar Chetti when she was 11 years old and RajEt-mannar Chetti was 16 years old. This Rajamftnnar Chetti died in the first week of June 1926. Before the Karumathi of this Rajamannar Chetti, the plaintiff's father is said to have Settled the maintenance claim of his daughter by executing Ex. B-3 in pursuance of the arbitration award Ex. B-2 mediated under the muchalika Ex, B-l. The plaintiff has always been residing with her lather, because she has not joined her husband, this being a pre-puberty marriage. In 1950 on account of the fact that her father was becoming old and was unable to support her, the plaintiff has filed this...
Doraiswami Reddiar Vs. Gurunatha Iyer and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-18-1956
Reported in: (1956)2MLJ473
ORDERSomasundaram, J.1. This is a revision against the Order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Ulundurpet in Crl. M.P. No. 251 of 1955. The application was made by the respondent under Section 87 of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act for the issue of an order directing the delivery of the properties mentioned in the schedule therein to him from the petitioner. The lower Court has, in my opinion, very rightly passed the order directing the petitioner herein to deliver the properties to the respondent. It is against that order that this revision has been filed by the hereditary trustee, the petitioner herein. A preliminary objection was taken by the learned Counsel for the respondent, i.e., the trustee appointed by the Board, that this petition should not have been filed as a criminal revision petition and that the petition must be stamped with a Court-fee of Rs. 25 as the petition will lie under the scope of Article 227 of the Constitution. That preliminary objection is...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »