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.
Commissioner, Coimbatore Municipality Vs. Chettimar Vinayagar Temple C ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-12-1956
Reported in: (1956)2MLJ563
Krishnaswami Nayudu, J.1. In this appeal the correctness of the judgment of the lower appellate Court in so far as it excluded a portion of the premises belonging to the plaintiff from the scope of a market liable to be licensed under the Madras District Municipalities Act is questioned. The Plaintiff which is a temple represented by its secretary trustee owned the suit property and utilised a portion of it, viz., the land in front of the temple, according to the appellant municipality, as a private market. The temple and the private market are situated in Rengai Goundan Sereet. The entrance both to the market and the temple is from the street as could be seen from the plan prepared by the Commissioner, Exhibit A-10. There are a row of stalls on either side, namely on the northern and southern side, the market and the temple facing east. The entrance on the eastern side is marked BG in the plan. The open space in front of the temple has been enclosed and it is common ground that the en...
Patteri Pakker Vs. Chengatiye Kombi Ammad and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-09-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Mad701
Basheer Ahmed Sayeed, J.1. This second appeal is preferred by the first defendant in the suit against the decree and judgment of the learned District Judge of North Malabar.2. The plaintiff brought the suit for directing the first defendant and seven other defendants to vacate and surrender possession of the suit property to the plaintiff with, arrears of pattom as shown, in the plaint and future purappad calculated at the rate mentioned in the plaint on the basis of an oral entrustment mentioned in the plaint. In the alternative, if the oral entrustment is not proved, he prayed for a decree on the basis that the plaintiff and defendants are in the relationship of jenmi and tenants because the defendants are holding the properties under the plaintiff with his permission and also on the strength of the plaintiff's title thereto.The defendant-appellant contested the suit on the ground inter alia that he was not under permissive occupation of the plaintiff. On the other hand his allegatio...
In Re: Public Prosecutor
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-06-1956
Reported in: 1957CriLJ402
ORDERSomasundaram, J.1. In this case the accused was first convicted by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Kum-bakonam, in C. C. No. 70 of 1953 on his file and sentenced to detention for a period of two years in a Senior Certified School by the judgment dated 26-9-1953. At that time the boy was aged only 16 years. When ho was undergoing detention in the Senior Certified School, he was sent to the hospital on 8-12-1953 for treatment as an in-patient.While he was in hospital, he escaped from the hospital on 12-12-1953. While he was at large he committed an offence of theft, which is the subject-matter of the case under review. In this case he was convicted of the offence and the Sub-divisional Magistrate Mayuram, has sentenced him under Section 8 of the Borstal School Act to detention for a period of two years, the sentence to take effect after the expiry of the sentence in the previous case. The second order of detention was passed on 31-5-1954.2. This revision is by the Government bringing...
In Re: Vadasseri Tharawattil Karnavan and Manager Ittichathara Valia M ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-04-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Mad73
Rajamannar, C.J. 1. We agree with the learned Judge, Mack J. and with the trial Judge that Ex. A-l, the raji decree in O. S. No. 15 of 1920 on the file of the Sub Court of South Malabar at Falgliat is inadmissible in cvi-device because it was not registered. The case of the plaintiff was that under that raji the defendants 1 and 2 were allowed to be in possession of the properties as permanent tenants subject to a condition that they should not mortgage or assign or otherwise alienate the properties, and impliedly there should be a forfeiture if there was any alienation. The suit was brought on the ground that the defendants had alienated the properties.2. As the raji was not registered, it is obvious that the plaintiff cannot rely upon any clause in it which gave him a right to forfeit the permanent lease on alienation. This is in effect what the learned Judge, Mack J. has held. Me agreed with the trial court in dismissing the plaintiff's suit.3. Mr. C. K. Viswanatha Iyer, learned cou...
In Re: Vadasseri Tharavattil Karnavan and Manager, Ittichathara Valia ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-04-1956
Reported in: (1956)2MLJ573
P.V. Rajamannar, C.J.1. We agree with the learned Judge, Mack, J., and with the trial Judge that Exhibit A-1, the raji decree in O.S. No. 15 of 1920 on the file of the Sub-Court of South Malabar at Palghat is inadmissible in evidence because it was not registered. The case of the plaintiff was that under that raji the defendants 1 and 2 were allowed to be in possession of the properties as permanent tenants subject to a condition that they should not mortgage of assign or otherwise alienate the properties and impliedly there should be a forfeiture if there was any alienation. The suit was brought on the ground that the defendants had alienated the properties.2. As the raji was not registered, it is obvious that the plaintiff cannot rely upon any clause in it which gave him a right to forfeit the permanent lease on alienation. This is in effect what the learned Judge, Mack, J., has held. He agreed with the trial Court in dismissing the plaintiff's suit.3. Mr. C.K. Viswanatha Ayyar, lear...
Swaminatha Udayar Vs. Mottaya Padayachi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-03-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Mad209
Rajagopala Ayyangar, J.1. The relevant facts in this miscellaneous appeal against an order of remand lie within a narrow compass. One Subramania was the original owner of the property in dispute for the recovery of which the suit out of which this appeal arises has been filed. He had usufructuarily mortgaged the property to one Marudamuthu Padayachi on 4-12-1893 for Rs. 40. The plaintiff claims title from the heirs of Subramania, he having purchased the suit property from them by a registered sale deed dated 25-2-1948.These heirs claimed that the usufructuary mortgage had become extinguished by reason of the provisions of Madras Act IV of 1938 and that consequently they were entitled to recover possession of the property, and they transferred their title in the property to the plaintiff. On the other hand the case of the contesting defendants who claim under the usufructuary mortgagee Marudamuthu Was two-fold.First they pleaded that the property sold to the plaintiff under the deed of ...
N.V. Govindaraja Nadar and ors. Vs. T. Namadevar Reddiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-03-1956
Reported in: (1956)2MLJ425
Somasundaram, J.1. This appeal is by respondents 1 to 3 and 6 to 14 in E.P. No 161 of 1952, in O.S. No. 55 of 1943 on the file of the Additional Subordinate Judge of Vellore. The suit O.S. No. 55 of 1943 was filed on a mortgage dated 21st September, 1931. A decree was passed on 27th September, 1944, for a sum of Rs. 2,000 and odd. The rate of interest on the mortgage was 9 per cent, and after a certain date, 12 per cent, per annum. An execution application was filed for the execution of the decree for an amount of Rs. 37,000 and odd. The appellants herein claimed relief under the Agriculturists' Relief Act, and contended that the Amending Act XXIII of 19481s applicable to the facts of this case and that therefore they are entitled to relief under Section 13-A of the Agriculturists Relief Act. The lower Court has held that relief should be given as from the date of the amendment, that is, from Jannuary, 1949 and net from the date of debt which is 1931. It is against this order that the ...
In the Matter of Agricultural and Industrial Bank Ltd.;
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-03-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Mad295
ORDERBalakrishna Ayyar, J.1. On 18th June 1956 Surendranath Nayak acquired 60 shares in the Agricultural and Industrial Bank Ltd., Coondapoor, now in liquidation. The shares were of the face value of Rs. 50 on which only Rs. 10 had been paid. On 4th January 1950 the directors declared these shares to be forfeited to the bank on the ground that the ca'ls due on the shares had not been paid. On 18th February 1953 a petition was filed in this court for winding up the Bank, and, on 6th April 1953, an order was made directing that the bank be wound up.2. On 12th January 1956 the liquidator filed a claim against Surendranath Nayak for a sum of Rs. 2400 being the amount of the unpaid calls on the 60 shares. Article 34 of the Articles of the Bank empowered the directors to charge interest on arrears of calls at a rate not exceeding nine per cent per annum. On the basis of this article the liquidator has also claimed interest at nine per cent.which, on the date the claim was filed, amounted to ...
D.D. Italia and J.D. Italia Vs. Free Press Journals (Madras) Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-02-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Mad162
ORDERBalakrishna Ayyar, J.1. On 19th April 1955, an application was made to wind up the Free Press Journals (Madras) Ltd. On 2nd May 1955, an interim receiver was appointed and on 18th July 1935, an order to wind up the company was made.2. The Free Press Journals (Madras) Ltd, was located in premises belonging to the Dinrose Estate whose proprietors are D. D. Italla and J. D. Italia. On 12.1-1956 possession of the premises-was delivered to the properietors by the Receiver. On 4-1-1956 the Dinroze Estate filed a claim before the Official Receiver for a sum of Rs. 5670, which it alleged was due to it as arrears of rent for the premises occupied by the Free Press journals (Madras) Ltd.The receiver made a preferential payment of Rs. 2625 to the Dinroze Estate on the basis that the rent for the period between 2-5-1955 when he was appointed interim receiver and 12-1-195S when he handed over possession should be properly treated as part of administration charges. The Dinroze Estate has now fi...
In Re: Indian Companies Act Vii of 1913; in Re: Free Press Journal (Ma ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-02-1956
Reported in: (1956)2MLJ463
ORDERBalakrishna Ayyar, J.1. On 19th April, 1955, an application was made to wind up the Free Press Journal (Madras) Ltd. On 2nd May, 1955, an interim receiver was appointed and on 18th July, 1955, an order to wind up the company was made.2. The Free Press Journal (Madras) Ltd., was located in premises belonging to the Dinroze Estate whose proprietors are D.D. Italia and J.D. Italia. On 12th January, 1956, possession of the premises was delivered to the proprietors by the Receiver. On 4th January, 1956, the Dinroze Estate filed a claim before the Official Receiver for a sum of Rs. 5,670 which it alleged was due to it as arrears of rent for the premises occupied by the Free Press Journal (Madras) Ltd. The Receiver made a preferential payment of Rs. 2,625 to the Dinroze Estate on the basis that the rent for the period between 2nd May, 1955, when he was appointed interim receiver and 12th January, 1956, when he handed over possession should be properly treated as part of administration ch...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »