Chennai Court August 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.
Emu Amma and ors. Vs. Pollekkattil Ammini Alias Kamalakshi Amma and or ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-22-1956
Reported in: (1957)2MLJ275
Govinda Menon, J.1. Defendants 1 to 5 in O.S.No. 81 of 1951 on the file of the Sub-Court, Palghat, are the appellants in this appeal which arises out of a suit filed in forma pauperis for possession of the plaint A Schedule properties and all the improvements therein with mesne profits at the rate of 1000 paras of paddy and Rs. 150, from 1950-51 from defendants 1 to 3 and their tarwad assets as well as for recovery of cash and moveables or their value as shown in B Scheduleand also the documents and records of the deceased Govinda Nair and for accounting in respect of items 20 and 21 in the B Schedule and for ancillary reliefs. The first plaintiff is the widow and plaintiffs 2 to 4 are the minor children of one Patinhare Choorathil Govindan Nair who was a brother of the first defendant and the uncle of defendants 2 to 5. Defendants 6 to 8 are the tenants in possession of the suit properties. The allegations in the plaint are shortly these:2. Defendants 1 to 5 at present constitute memb...
P. Ct. Pr. Periakaruppan Chettiar Vs. S.S. Rm. Raman Chettiar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-20-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Mad299
Rajagopala Ayyangar, J.1. This is a petition to revise the order of the District Judge of Tiruchirapalli to C. M. A. No. 11 of 1954 before him whereby he affirmed an order of the Sub Judge of Pudu-kottai adjudicating the petitioner an insolvent. The only point that was urged before me was that the order of adjudication was vitiated by no notice having been taken out by the alienee whose alienation was attacked as an act of insolvency in the petition for adjudication. 2. The facts of the case are briefly these: The respondent Raman Chettiar obtained a decree In O. S. No. 191 of 1952 on the file of the District Munsif of pudukettai for a sum of about rs. 2000. He took out execution against a flour and rice mill at Pudukottai belonging to the petitioner and proceeded to attach, it. The debtor put forward a claim that the mill was no longer his property having been transferred by him to one Udayammai Achi alias Sigappayee Achi, and thereupon the respondent filed a petition to adjudicate th...
Arumugham Pillai Vs. Valliamal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-20-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Mad296
ORDERRamaswami, J.1. This is a petition directing against the order of the learned Dist. Munsif of Namakkal In. I. A, No. 717 of 1955 in I. A. No. 336 of 1955, in O. S. No. 114 of 1955, for sending for through the clerk of the Sub-Registrar's Office, Velur, Book III wherein a copy of the registered will dated 6-8-1935 executed by one S. P. Palaniappa Mudaliar (deceased) and his wife, Valliammal, is maintained in that office, for the purpose of an enquiry in the claim petition I. A. No. 336 of 1955.2. The learned District Munsif dismissed that application and hence this civil revision petition.3. The learned District Munsif rightly dismissed because under Section 57 of the Indian Registration Act, which is the relevant provision which deals with registered wills and entries in Book III, persons other than the executant or his agent, are not entitled to get a copy of the registered will before the death of the executants. In this case, one of the executants of the will in question is ali...
Manicka Goundan Vs. Elumalai Goundan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-16-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Mad78
1. This appeal raises an interesting question of law on which there is no direct authority. The facts necessary for discussing this Question are briefly these. Defendants 2 and 3 executed a sale deed, Ex. P. 1, on 2-8-1942, conveying the suit properties to plaintiff 1. Defendant 2 by a sale deed dated 1-7-1942 purported to convey the same properties to defendant l. It has now been found by the Courts below that this sale deed was antedated and that it was actually executed subsequent to the execution of the sale deed in favour of plaintiff 1.After the execution of the sale deed in favour of plaintiff 1, evidently in view of the sale deed executed by defendant 2 in favour of defendant 1, defendant 3 added the following at the end of the sale deed: "Should any dispute arise in aspect of this it shall not concern us." Though the plural is used, only defendant 3 made this endorsement.When the document was presented for registration defendant 3 accepted execution; but defendant 2 refused to...
K. Syamalambal Vs. N. Namberumal Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-16-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Mad156
Rajamannar, C. J.1. This appeal arises but of a suit filed by the appellant for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 10,300 from the defendant as damages for -unlawful attachment of her properties. The material factswhich are beyond controversy are: The defendant obtained a decree against one Perurl Suryapra-kasam on 9th May 1934 in C. S. No. 166 of 1934 on the original side of this Court. On llth January 1935 the suit properties among others were transferred by the said Suryaprakasam to one P. Venkatasubba Rao.The defendant in execution of the decree obtained by him attached the suit properties. Venkatasubba Rao filed a petition under Oder XXI, Rule 58 C. P. G. claiming the properties on thestrength of his purchase. The petition was allowed in his favour. As against this order the defendant filed a suit. O. S. No, 171 of 1940, ,in the Subordinate Judge's Court of Chingleput. Meanwhile, on the 15th January 1940, there was an agreement to sell the suit properties by Venkata-subba Rao in favour ...
Manicka Goundan Vs. Elumalai Goundan Minor by Guardian Ammakannu Ammal ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-16-1956
Reported in: (1956)2MLJ536
P.V. Rajamannar, C.J.1. This appeal raises an interesting question of law on which there is no direct authority. The facts necessary for discussing this question are briefly these. Defendants 2 and 3 executed a sale-deed (Exhibit P-1) on 2nd August, 1942, conveying the suit properties to the first plaintiff. The second defendant by a sale-deed dated 1st July, 1942, purported to convey the same properties to the first defendant. It has now been found by the Courts below that this sale-deed was ante-dated and that it was actually executed subsequent to the execution of the sale-deed in favour of the first plaintiff. After the execution of the sale-deed in favour of the first plaintiff, evidently in view of the sale deed executed by the second defendant, in favour of the first defendant, the third defendant added the following at the end of the sale deed:Should any dispute arise in respect of this it shall not concern us.2. Though the plural is used, only the third defendant made this end...
Thayoth Puthiyapurayil Ayisomma Vs. Choolat Puthiyapurayil Kunhali and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-16-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Mad674
Govinda Menon, J. 1. We agree with the learned Cheif Justice that a civil court has Jurisdiction to decide whether a particular institution is a public temple or not. When such a question arises incidental to other disputes in the case before the court.2. But the more important question which was strongly pressed upon me by Mr. Achuthan Nambiar, learned counsel for the plaintiff respondent, was that the ordinary civil court in its original jurisdiction had no power to adjudicate upon a dispute whether a particular temple is not a temple within the meaning of Madras Act II of 1927 and it is only the Board that could in the first instance adjudicate on the dispute. Even thereafter the aggrieved party could only file an application to the District court. This, It was contended, followed from the provisions of Section 84 of the Act.3. The argument of Mr. Achuthan Nambiar for the respondent, if I understood him aright, was that whenever there was any dispute between any parties in any conne...
Muthappa and Sons, Mangalore Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-14-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Mad206; [1956]30ITR560(Mad)
Rajagopalan, J.1. The question referred to this court under Section 66(1) of the Income-tax Act ran;'Whether the firm can be registered under Section 26-A of the Indian Income-tax Act for the assessment year 1949-50.'The partnership which constituted the assesses firm was evidenced by the deed dated 20-8-1945. That deed provided that Raghavendra Suvarna should manage the affairs of the partnership. Nagamma was one of the six partners. She died on 1-1-1948.2. The firm was registered under Section 26-A and the last of the renewals of registration was for the assessment year 1948-49. On 9-9-1949 the firm applied for registration for the assessment, year 1949-50. The corresponding account year of the assessee had ended on 30-6-1948. By then Nagamma was dead. The application was signed by the five surviving partners including Raghavendra Suvarna, and he signed over again for and on behalf of Nagamma. The Departmental authorities refused registration on the ground, that the application did n...
Firm Al. Ar. Arunachalam Chettiar and ors. Vs. Kaleeswarar Mills Ltd., ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-14-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Mad309
1. This is a petition filed under Article 228 of the Constitution for a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order, directing the respondents to forbear from enforcing in any manner the resolution passed by respondents 2 to 9 on 7th April 1956. There was a prayer for a similar writ in regard to the convening of the annual general body meeting of 29th June 1956; but we are leaving that out of consideration, because that date is now long past, and no meeting took place on that date. The petitioners are a firm of Al AR. Arunachalam Chettiar represented by four partners whose names are set out in the petition. The first respondent is the Kaleeswarar Mills Ltd., Colmbatore, and respondents 2 to 9 are its present directors.The first respondent-Mills was incorporated as a limited liability company in 1903 with the object of carrying on the business of spinning and weaving of cotton yarn and cloth. In consideration of the services rendered by the petitioner firm in the promotion o...
In Re: Syed Ibrahim
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-13-1956
Reported in: AIR1959Mad32; 1959CriLJ203
Somasundaram, J. 1. This is an application by P. W. 1 in S. C. No.6 of 1956 on the file of the Sessions Judge ofWest Tanjore for leave to appeal under Clause (3)of Section 417 Crl. P. C. against the acquittal of therespondent. 2. The respondent was tried on a charge of murder. The case was instituted upon a police charge-sheet. It is respresented that P. W. 1, the brother of the deceased, was the person, who gave the first information to the village munsif, which resulted subsequently in investigation by the police and the filing of the charge-sheet by them. Section 417 Crl. P. C. deals with appeals against acquittals. Under Clause (1) of Section 417, the State Government is given power to direct the Public Prosecutor to present an appeal to the High Court from an original or appellate order of acquittal passed by any court other than High Court. We are not concerned with Clause (2) of Section 417, as it deals with the investigation by the Delhi Special Police Establishment. Under Clau...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »