Chennai Court October 1957 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.
Varadarajulu Reddiar Vs. Venkatakrishna Reddiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-11-1957
Reported in: (1958)1MLJ199
ORDERPanchapakesa Ayyar, J.1. This is a petition by one Varadarajulu Reddiar, the plaintiff in O.S. No. 78 of 1955 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Cuddalore, for revising and setting aside the order of the learned Subordinate Judge directing him to pay Court-fee under Section 7(v) of the Court-fees Act on a sum of Rs. 38,000 the market value of all the unalienated properties claimed by him to be liable to be partitioned in the suit. The main basis for the lower Court's order was that the allegation of joint possession set up by the plaintiff as regards them was belied, at least regarding six items of properties, the old house, the new house and four plots of land by the admission of the plaintiff himself in O.S. No. 49 of 1953, District Munusifs Court Tindivanam, wherein he had expressly stated that, in or about 15 years ago, that is, about 1938, the house GHJK (old house) and items 2 and 3 of the plaint fell to his shares, the house MLPO (new house) and the properties AENM and Q...
Palchami and ors. Vs. Paramasiva Gounder
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-10-1957
Reported in: AIR1958Mad197; 1958CriLJ528
ORDERSomasundaram, J.1. This revision is against the order of the District Magistrate of Madurai and has been preferred by six accused of whom accused 1 to 4 are constables. A private complaint was laid for hurt and in that case the petitioners were the accused. The case was transferred from court to court and ultimately it came before the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Usi-lampatti, who took the complaint on file only as against accused 1 to 4 and transferred the case to the Sub Magistrate, Uthama-palayam for disposal. The complainant preferred a revision against the order of discharge of accused 5 and 6 to the District Magistrate.He set aside the order of discharge and directed the case to be enquired into against accused 5 and 6 as well. The case was then transferred to the Bench Court at Uthamapalayam. Thus the case of accused l to 6 came up before this Bench court and copies of complaint were not filed for service on accused 5 and 6 as required by Section 204 (1) (B), Cr.PC On the gro...
In Re: S.J. Nathan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-10-1957
Reported in: (1958)1MLJ9
ORDER1. There is no doubt whatever that this appeal ought to have been filed in the Court of the Principal Judge of the City Civil Court. It was wrongly filed here though in bona fide error. It will be returned for presentation to the proper Court. The Appellant can file a petition in that Court to excuse the delay in the peculiar circumstances. It is a fit case to excuse the delay. Return the papers at once....
Sinnapappal Alias Sinnakaliakkal Vs. Subbanna Goundan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-10-1957
Reported in: (1958)1MLJ250
ORDERPanchapakesa Ayyar, J.1. This is a petition by one Sinnapappal alias Sinnakaliakkal for revising and setting aside the order of the District Judge of Coimbatore, dated 13th September, 1955, in an unnumbered appeal by her against mesne profits of Rs. 9,766 found as due by her in respect of certain property under a decree of this Court, directing her to pay ad valorem Court-fee of Rs. 712-7-0 instead of the Court-fee of one rupee she had paid, as on an appeal against an order under Section 47, Civil Procedure Code, taking refuge in the fact that the mesne profits were determined in E.P. No. 1165 of 1953, in O.S. No. 406 of 1942 by the District Munsif of Gobichettipalayam who was in this case the person who could hear and determine the Execution Petition as, well as hear and determine a petition under Order 20, Rule 12, Civil Procedure Code, for mesne profits.2. The petitioner had contended before the learned District Judge that as a Bench of this Court had, in S.A. No. 429 of 1946, ...
S.K. Mahamad Kasim Rowther Vs. Noor Mahamed Rowther and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-09-1957
Reported in: (1958)1MLJ94
Ganapatia Pillai, J.1. The appellant in this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is the second defendant in O.S. No. 53 of 1956 on the file of the Subordinate Judge of Pudukottai. That was an application numbered as a suit, made by the first respondent for enforcing an award and passing a decree in terms thereof. The muchilika on which that award proceeded is Exhibit A-1. The learned Judge in the Court below on the application of the first respondent appointed a Receiver to take possession of three buses belonging to the partnership which was created under Exhibit B-1. The plaintiff in the lower Court came forward with the claim that by reason of Exhibit B-1 which was executed on 6th November, 1948, he became a partner with the first defendant in respect of the buses in question which were being run under the name of Mohideen Andavar Bus Service. The learned Judge accepted this contention and holding that the second defendant was really a benamidar for the first defendant, appointed a Receiver ...
A.S.N.S. Naina Pillai Marakkayar Vs. State of Madras by Secretary, Rev ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-09-1957
Reported in: AIR1958Mad532; (1958)1MLJ248
ORDERRajagopala Ayyangar, J.1. The petitioner challenges the constitutional validity of Section 3 of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act (XIX of 1951) in this petition invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.2. Section 3 of the Act XIX of 1951 (which I shall call the impugned section) enacts:Where the Government have reason to believe that any Hindu or Jain public charitable endowment is being mismanaged and are satisfied that in the interest of the administration of such charitable endowment it is necessary to extend thereto all or any of the provisions of this Act and of any rules made there under, they may, by notification in the Fort St. George Gazette, extend to such charitable endowments the said provisions and thereupon the provision so extended shall apply to such charitable endowments as if it were a specific endowment:Provided that before issuing such a notification, the Government shall publish in the Fort St. George...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›