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.
Ramachandrayya Vs. Laxminarayana Rao
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-18-1956
Reported in: (1956)2MLJ565
Krishnaswami Nayudu, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for redemption of a mortgage by Conditional sale. The trial Court, on a construction of the document, Exhibit A-9, Which is an ostensible sale, dated 19th May, 1942, held that the document evidenced a mortgage transaction, i.e., a mortgage by conditional sale, and that the plaintiff was entitled to redeem. In appeal, the learned District Judge took a contrary view and held that the document amounted to an absolute sale and that therefore there was no question of any redemption arising in the case.2. The plaintiff purchased the suit properties from one Ranga Rao under Exhibit A-10, dated 29th January, 1949. Exhibit A-9, which purports to be a sale deed, was executed by Ranga Rao in favour of the defendant for a consideration of Rs. 900, It is conceded that the sum of Rs. 900 mentioned as consideration was the amount of a pre-existing debt due by Ranga Rao to the defendant and for that sum the document was executed, The following...
P.S. Ramaswami Nadar Vs. R. Viswanathan and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-17-1956
Reported in: 1957CriLJ673
ORDERSomasundaram, J.1. This is a revision by the complainant against the order of the Seventh Presidency Magistrate in C. C, No. 3971 of 1956 on his file. A complaint was filed against the two respondents herein for an offence under Section 420 and Section 420 read with Section 109, I. P. C. Under Section 200, Cr. P. C. as amended, a Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence on complaint shall at once examine the complainant and the witnesses present, if any, upon oath, and the substance of the examination shall be reduced to writing and shall be signed by the complainant and the witnesses and also by the Magistrate. Then the provisos follow.2. But these provisos have no bearing on this case. Under Section 203 which relates to the dismissal of complaints, the Magistrate before whom a complaint is made or to whom it has been transferred may dismiss the complaint if, after considering the statement on oath (if any) of the complainant and the witnesses and the result of the investigatio...
Venkatesa Reddiar Vs. Veeraswami Mudali and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-17-1956
Reported in: (1956)2MLJ449
ORDERSomasundaram, J.1. This is a revision against the order passed by the Sub-Divisional. Magistrate, Cheyyar, in C.A. No. 4 of 1955 on his file. The petitioner was the complainant in the trial Court and he filed a complaint under Section 20 of the Cattle Trespass Act, alleging that while the carts engaged by him for carrying silt to his fields were being driven over certain fields belonging to the respondents, they stopped the carts, unyoked the bulls, seized them and put them in the pound. Under Section 22 of the Act, the trial Court adjudged the seizure as illegal and awarded compensation of Rs. 50 to be paid by each of the respondents herein for the loss sustained by the complainant due to seizure and detention. Against, that order, the respondents herein preferred an appeal, and in the appeal, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate set aside the order of the trial Court, thereby setting aside the order for compensation. It is against the order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate this revisio...
D. Mohanavelu Mudaliar and anr. Vs. Indian Insurance and Banking Corpo ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-16-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Mad115
1. I have had the advantage of reading the Judgment which my learned brother is about to deliver and in view of the Importance of the question of law raised I wish to add a few words of my own.2. What are the scope and import of the dispositions of life insurance policies; (a) by assignment and (b) by nomination seem to be the chief points for consideration.3. That a policy of life Insurance is a security for money payable at a date uncertain, but calculable is well established for the sum insured is certain, the premium or consideration for its payment is also cetain and the time when the money is payable is also certain where the date is fixed but uncertain on death. As per Porter's Laws of Insurance (8th edn. p. 305) a life insurance policy is "Nihil Certius morte, nihil incertius hora mortis,"4. Such being the case a life insurance policy has to be construed as a contract to pay a certain eum in a certain event depending on the duration of human life. Such a policy always forms par...
Sakkarama Rao Vs. Nagasami Rao and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-16-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Mad191
Krishnaswami Nayudu, J.1. The short point for determination in this appeal is as to whether the discharge of a mortgage by allowing the property to be in possession of a co-mortgagee would amount to a payment to a Joint promisee. The plaintiff and the third defendant were co-mortgagees of the suit property, the 2nd defendant being the mortgagors' representative. It was found that the property was in the possession or the third defendant for a period of five years, during which period the Income of the property was appropriated by the third defendant. It was found by the Court below and in a previous proceeding that the Income of the property was more than sufficient for the discharge or the principal and interest due on the mortgage. In view of the discharge of the mortgage being effected though not by payment not actually made by the mortgagor but by allowing the co-mortgagee to be in possession of the property and to recover the income the lower Court found that it would amount to a ...
D. Mohanavelu Mudaliar Alias D. Mohanam Mudaliar and anr. Vs. the Indi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-16-1956
Reported in: (1956)2MLJ476
Govinda Menon, J.1. I have had the advantage of reading the judgment which my learned brother is about to deliver and in view of the importance of the question, of law raised I wish to add a few words of my own.2. What the scope and import of the dispositions of life insurance policies : - (a) by assignment and (b) by nomination are seem to be the chief points for consideration.3. That a policy of life insurance is a security for money payable at a date uncertain, but calculable is well established for the sum insured is certain, the premium or consideration for its payment is also certain and the time when the money is payable is also certain where the date is fixed but uncertain on death. As per Porter's Law of Insurance (8th edn., page 305) a life insurance policy is nihil certius morte, nihil incertius hora mortis.4. Such being the case a life insurance policy has to be construed as a contract to pay a certain sum in a certain event depending on the duration of human life.. Such a ...
B.S. Ramappa Vs. B. Monappa and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-13-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Mad76
1. This appeal arises out of a petition filed by the first respondent, who will hereafter be referred to as the respondent, on the Original Side of this Court, under Section 46 of the Indian Trade Marks Act, 1940, for a direction that the entry in the Trade Mark Register at Bombay registering the trade mark referred to in paragraph 4 of the petition in the name of the appellant under No. 126612 be expunged from the register and that the registration granted to the appellant under the said entry be cancelled. The petition was disposed of after contest by Ramaswami, J., who allowed the petition to this extent, namely, that he directed a joint registration of the trade mark in the name of both the appellant and the respondent. The respondent in the Court below is the appellant before us.2. The facts which led up to the petition have been fully set out in the judgment of the learned Judge and it is sufficient to state only such of the facts as are essential for the disposal of this appeal....
B.S. Ramappa Vs. B. Monappa and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-13-1956
Reported in: (1956)2MLJ469
P.V. Rajamannar, C.J.1. This appeal arises out of a petition filed by the first respondent, who will hereafter be referred to as the respondent, on the Original Side of this Court, under Section 46 of the Indian Trade Marks Act, 1940, for a direction that the entry in the Trade Mark Register at Bombay registering the trade mark referred to in paragraph 4 of the petition in the name of the appellant under No. 126612 be expunged from the register and that the registration granted to the appellant under the said entry be cancelled. The petition was disposed of after contest by Ramaswami, J., who allowed the petition to this extent, namely, that he directed a joint registration of the trade mark in the name of both the appellant and the respondent. The respondent in the Court below is the appellant before us.2. The facts which led up to the petition have been fully set out in the judgment of the learned Judge and it is sufficient to state only such of the facts as are essential for the dis...
S.M.A. Abdul Fatha and ors. Vs. Mohammad Jabbar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-13-1956
Reported in: (1956)2MLJ475
Govinda Menon, J.1. The petitioner in this Civil Revision Petition is the legal representative of a mortgagor-lessee against whom an application for eviction under the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1949, had been filed in the Court of the House Rent Controller, Nagapattinam. By an order dated 12th September, 1949, the House Rent Controller directed eviction. The mortgagor-lessee died on 17th November, 1949 and an application to bring on record his legal representative and continue execution against him was filed only in 1954. Before the appellate Court, the only question raised was as to whether the order for eviction was illegal, irregular and improper and is liable to be set aside. The learned Judge found that there was no illegality, irregularity or impropriety and dismissed the revision petition. The mortgagor-lessee's legal representative has filed this revision petition.2. Mr. K.S. Naidu on behalf of the petitioner contends that as it was Admitted in the petition...
Ramakrishna Mardi and ors. Vs. Vishnumoorthi Mardi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-12-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Mad86
1. These connected appeals arise out of O. S. No. 54 of 1950 on the file of the Additional Sub-Court, South Kanara, which was a suit for partition of the properties belonging to a joint family consisting of the plaintiff and the defendants. Schedule A to the plaint is the genealogical tree showing the relationship of the parties from which it is scon that the ancestor was one Krishna Mardi through whose sons, Subraya Mardi and Ramappa Mardi the other members of the family originated. As is seen therefrom the plaintiff is the son of Ramappa Mardi and he claims partition and separate possession of a one-fourth share in the joint family properties described in schedules B to E at-tached to the plaint.The main contest in the court below was with regard to certain items of properties claimed by the respective groups of defendants as not belonging to the joint family. It was contended that those were the self-acquisitions of the claimants thereto, and in regard to the other points in controv...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »