Chennai Court October 1957 Judgments
P.V. Subbayyan Chettiar Vs. Rajaram (Minor by His Grandmother and Guar ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-31-1957
Reported in: (1958)1MLJ335
Ganapatia Pillai, J.1. The plaintiff is the appellant in this second appeal which arises out of a suit instituted by him for setting aside the order in E.A. No. 680 of 1952 on the file of the Court of the District Munsif, Periakulam. The admitted facts are shortly these. The appellant obtained a money decree against defendant 2 and her husband on a promissory note in O.S. No. 101 of 1948. In execution of that decree, he brought to sale two items of properties and purchased them himself. The property now in dispute in this litigation is the first item out of the two purchased items. After the appellant had taken delivery of possession of this item through Court, the first defendant the son of the 2nd defendant applied under Rule 100 of Order 21 for an order of re-delivery and this application was allowed. To set aside this order, the suit was brought by the present appellant. The title of the judgment-debtor is based upon Exhibit B-1, a settlement deed, dated 2nd July, 1937, executed by...
Tag this Judgment!Lakshmi Ammal Vs. Thangaraju Padayachi and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-30-1957
Reported in: (1958)1MLJ28
Ganapatia Pillai, J.1. The Civil Revision Petition is filed by an auction-purchaser, one Lakshmi Ammal, against the order of the Subordinate Judge of Kumbakonam in I.A. No. 187 of 1956 in O.S. No. 10 of 1955. To appreciate the question arising for determination in this petition, it is necessary to state the following facts.2. O.S. No. 10 of 1955 was a partition suit between co-sharers and in that suit, after the preliminary decree was passed for partition, an advocate-receiver was appointed by the Court with power to sell some items of property concerned in the suit. Accordingly, that receiver sold on the 16th June, 1956, one item of property S. No. 5/2, 73 cents in extent, in public auction. The present petitioner, Lakshmi Ammal, was the highest bidder in the auction and her bid of Rs. 701 was accepted by the receiver and he reported to the Court the fact of the highest bid received at the auction, held by him. After the conclusion of the auction, one Thangaraju Padayachi, the respond...
Tag this Judgment!Rangappa Goundan (Died) and ors. Vs. Marappa Goundan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-30-1957
Reported in: (1958)1MLJ188
Ramaswami, J.1. This is an appeal preferred against the Decree and Judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge of Coimbatore in Appeal Suit No. 41 of 1953 modifying the Decree and Judgment of the learned District Munsif of Tiruppur in Original Suit No. 249 of 1951.2. The suit property originally belonged to Begavathiakkal. She sold the property to Marappa Goundan under Exhibit A-2. Subsequently, she executed a mortgage to Marappa Goundan including the Exhibit A-2 item also. Later on, she sold the mortgaged property to Rangappa Goundan under Exhibit B-1. Therefore, both Marappa Goundan and Rangappa Goundan have been competing for the title in respect of the Exhibit A-2 property. Both the Courts held in favour of Marappa Goundan and hence this Second Appeal.3. The contention of Rangappa Goundan, based upon a decision of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in Sarat Chuiider Dey v. Gopal Chunder Laha (1892) L.R. 19 I.A, 203 : I.L.R. 20 Cal 296 and the decision of the Patna High Court...
Tag this Judgment!G.P. Venkataraman and Co., by Its Partner, Venkataswami Vs. Eastern Ra ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-30-1957
Reported in: (1958)1MLJ175
Subrahmanyam, J.1. The plaintiff appeals from the judgment and decree of the learned Second Additional Subordinate Judge of Coimbatore in O.S. No. 370 of 1950 on his file. The plaintiff is a firm doing business in potatoes and other commodities in Coimbatore. The firm booked on 3rd August, 1948, at Coimbatore, 370 bags of potatoes. The consignor is described as G.P. Venkataraman & Co. The consignment was booked to ' Self'. The person who signed the forwarding note is the partner of the firm, Venkataswami, who later instituted the suit which has given rise to this appeal. The consignment reached Shalimar (Calcutta) on the 19th August, 1948. The wagon was placed in position for delivery on 20th August, 1948. The articles were unloaded on 21st August, 1948. As no person claimed delivery till 25th August, 1948, the potatoes were sold by public auction by the Station authorities at Shalimar on 25th August, 1948, and a sum of Rs. 2,910 was realised by the sale. The articles were delivered ov...
Tag this Judgment!Mrs. S. Thomas Vs. Collector of Madras (Land Acquisition Officer)
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-28-1957
Reported in: (1958)1MLJ27
ORDERRajagopala Ayyangar, J.1. The point that is raised in this petition is the legality and propriety of the order of the Collector refusing to refer a question of the quantum of compensation to the Court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. The Collector declined the request for the reason that the petitioner had accepted the award. That the amount awarded as compensation by the acquiring officer was received by the petitioner and without any protest is not in dispute. But what is contended for the petitioner is that it is not the Collector who has to decide whether there has been acceptance of an award but the Civil Court on hearing the reference. It is stated that since the petitioner filed the application for the reference within the time limited by Section 18, it must be taken that the petitioner had not accepted the award and that consequently the Collector had no jurisdiction to refuse to refer.2. I do not agree. The acceptance of an award under Section 18 and the cons...
Tag this Judgment!Public Prosecutor Vs. A.D. Sabapathy and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-24-1957
Reported in: 1958CriLJ647; (1958)IMLJ8
Somasundaram, J.1. These are appeals against the orders of acquittal passed by the Chief Presidency Magistrate in C.C. Nos. 1156 and 1157 of 1956 on his file. The accused are editor and publisher and printer respectively of a Tamil Weekly known as Cinema Nesan. They are charged under Section 292 IPC for having published and printed articles which are alleged to be obscene in character. The articles have appeared in the issues of the journal dated 18th November, 25th November and Sth December of 1956. The articles purport to describe the conduct of several film stars in association with some other persons.In short the allegations in these articles are that the film stars mentioned by him are prostitutes. They give names of several persons with whom the film stars go about, suggesting the relationship between them is anything but fair and honest. The question is whether such an article will come within the definition of obscenity. Obscenity is not defined in the Code. Butt decisions of o...
Tag this Judgment!The Public Prosecutor Vs. T. Krishna Rao
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-24-1957
Reported in: (1957)2MLJ637
Somasundaram, J.1. This is an appeal against the acquittal of the respondent in C.C. 1 of 1956 on the file of the Special First Class Magistrate, Tanjore.2. The respondent was prosecuted according to the charge-sheet for offences under Section 250 read with Section 313 of the District Municipalities Act. The respondent by an application, Exhibit P-1, dated 12th May, 1955, applied to the Municipality for the installation of an automatic Heidelberg Printing Machine operated by electrical power of two H.P. to be attached to the already existing Printing Press Machine. By Exhibit P-2 dated 25th May, 1955 the Commissioner informed him that the application is under scrutiny and consideration, and therefore the respondent should not commence the work till permission is granted for the same. No final order either rejecting or granting permission was passed. But the Municipal Council by its resolution dated 7th January, 1956, recommended to the Government for granting exemption as the Governmen...
Tag this Judgment!V. Lakshmanan Vs. Sambandam Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-21-1957
Reported in: (1958)1MLJ26
ORDERSubrahmanyam, J.1. Purporting to act in the exercise of his discretion under Section 3(4)(b) of the Madras Cultivating Tenants Protection Act, 1955, the Revenue Divisional Officer passed an order on 24th April, 1957, which he thus concluded:I order that the counter-petitioner should pay the above arrears to Sambandam Pillai on or before 21st May, 1957, failing which he will be ordered to be evicted from the suit lands.2. The petition for eviction was posted to 22nd May, 1957. On that day, the tenant appeared before the Revenue Divisional Officer and presented a petition stating that he had brought Rs. 595 being the price of the 70 kalams of paddy which he had been ordered to pay the landlord on or before 21st May, 1957. The tenant requested the Revenue Divisional Officer to direct the landlord to receive the money. With reference to that request the Revenue Divisional Officer passed the following order:As the counter-petitioner has failed to measure 70 kalams of paddy on or before...
Tag this Judgment!M.A. Muthiah Chettiar Vs. SA. Ganesan and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-21-1957
Reported in: (1958)1MLJ110
P. Rajagopala Ayyangar, J.1. These are petitions for the issue of writs of prohibition and certiorari respectively and arise out of the Election Petition No. 86 of 1957 on the file of the Election Tribunal Madurai.2. The Election Petition (No. 86 of 1957) was for setting aside the election of the petitioner Sri Muthiah Chettiar to the Madras State Assembly from the Karaikudi Constituency in Ramanathapuram district. At the election to this Constituency held on 1st March, 1957, Sri Muthiah Chettiar whom we shall hereafter refer as the petitioner, and Sri Sa. Ganesan (to be referred to as the respondent) were the main contesting candidates. As many as eight persons filed nominations for the seat and tour withdrew their nomination papers and the other four went to the polls. The petitioner was declared elected on 5th March, 1957 as having obtained 24, 223 votes as against 23,365 votes secured by the respondents. The two other candidates obtained a very small number of votes and they might ...
Tag this Judgment!G. Raja Nainar Vs. N.T. Velusami thevar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-21-1957
Reported in: (1958)1MLJ124
ORDER1. Six candidates including Velusami Thevar, the 1st respondent, Chellapandian, the second respondent, Ambalavana Pillai, the third respondent, and Arunachalam, the fourth respondent, filed their nomination papers for election from the Alangulam Constituency for the Madras State Legislative Assembly. After the scrutiny of the nominations on 1st February, 1957, the Returning Officer rejected the nomination of Arunachalam, the fourth respondent, on an objection preferred by Chellapandian, the second respondent. Respondents 1, 2 and 3 were the candidates that eventually contested the election. The polling was held on 8th March, 1957. Velusami Thevar, the first respondent, was declared elected.2. The objection preferred on 1st February, 1957, by the second respondent to the Returning Officer ran:Arunachala Nadar has filed nomination for Alangulam Constituency for Assembly (1). He is employed as Headmaster, National Training School, Tiruchendur, which is run with Government's grants-in...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »