Chennai Court December 1957 Judgments
In Re: Parthasarathy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-30-1957
Reported in: AIR1959Mad497; 1959CriLJ1344
ORDERRamaswami, J.1. This is a Revision Case sought to be preferred against the convictions and sentences by the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate, Cheyyar, in C.C. No. 183 of 1957 which convictions were confirmed hut the sentences reduced by the learned Sessions Judge of North Arcot at Vellore in C.A. No. 98 of 1957.2. The case for the prosecution is that the accused, motor driver, drove the bus MDJ 1122 on 28-8-1957 at 10-30 a.m. in Pernamallur village causing thereby the death of two children and injuries to two other persons, P.Ws. 3 and 5.3. The locality in which this occurrence happened may be briefly sketched. In the village of Pernamallur there is a road running from north to south called Bazaar street. There is a street called Vanniar street branching off west from the Bazaar street. There is a shop of one Jeevendra Nainar in the Bazaar street in its eastern row, just north of junction. There is a soda shop of one Perumat Chetti in the eastern end of the southern row of Vannia...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: J.C. May
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-30-1957
Reported in: 1960CriLJ239
ORDERRamaswami, J.1. This Revision is sought to be filed against the conviction and sentence by the learned' Third Presidency Magistrate, Madras, in M. V. Case No. 901 of 1957.2. The accused Mr. J. C, May who was driving his car MSZ. 6150 on 14-7-1957 at about 16-1Q hours collided against the car MSZ 5070 coining on -his right at the interSection of South Beach Road and Edward Elliots Road, Madras, which is near the Inspector-General of Police's Office.3. The case for the prosecution as set out by P.W. 2 the driver of MSZ 5070 is; He was driving his car (Hudson) from Edward Elliots Road to St. Thomas Road. At the junction of the road there was the caution board prominently calling upon vehicles to stop, listen and proceed. P.W. 2 accordingly stopped on the Edward Elliots Road at the turning point within about 10 feet of the fountaui and looked up on either side of the main road. MSZ. 6150 was coming at a distance of about 150 yards on P,5V, 2's left. As both sides were thus clear for h...
Tag this Judgment!Kesavalu Naidu Vs. Doraiswami Naidu (Died) and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-26-1957
Reported in: (1958)2MLJ189
Ramaswami, J.1. This Second Appeal is preferred against the Decree and Judgment: of the learned District Judge of Chingleput in A.S. No. 290 of 1953, reversing the Decree and Judgment of the learned District Munsif of Trivellore, in O.S. No. 117 of 1952.2. The facts of this case can be easily followed if we take on hand the sketch annexed to this judgment for reference.3. The case for the plaintiff is : The suit property marked as ABCD in the annexed sketch is owned in common by the plaintiff and the defendants. The said plot ABCD originally belonged to the plaintiff's predecessors-in-title who owned the properties east of ABCD and to the defendants. The plot ABCD had been set apart as a passage by those persons for reaching their houses and sites to the east and south thereof and for taking their cattle, carts, etc. The plaintiff who has purchased the property east of ABCD claims to have become the owner of ABCD in common with the defendants and to be entitled to the right of taking h...
Tag this Judgment!Syed Sahib Vs. Angamuthu Mooppan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-20-1957
Reported in: (1958)1MLJ232
Panchapakesa Ayyar, J.1. This is a petition filed by one Syed Sahib, the owner of the holding, for revising and setting aside the order of the Revenue Court, Tiruchirapalli, in E.A. No. 104 of 1957, holding that the respondent, Angamuthu Mooppan, was the cultivating tenant in respect of the suit land and should not be evicted therefrom under Act XIV of 1956, and that he was not also barred by limitation regarding his ' assumed ' petition for restoration of possession. The petitioner had contended that the respondent was at no time the cultivating tenant of the suit land, and that one Sevanthalingam and his wife were the cultivating tenants, and that the respondent was simply an interloper trespasser and impostor, against whom the petitioner had filed O.S. No. 422 of 1956 on the file of the District Munsif, Tiruchirapalli, for an injunction, restraining him from interfering with possession of the land. When that suit was pending, the Act was passed, and, under Section 6(A), the learned ...
Tag this Judgment!K.P.M. Aboobucker Vs. K. Kunhamoo and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-20-1957
Reported in: AIR1958Mad287; (1958)1MLJ303
P. Rajagopalan, O.C.J.1. This is an appeal against the order of the Additional City Civil Judge, Madras, passed on an application preferred under Order 39, Rule 1, Civil Procedure Code, in O.S. No. 1119 of 1955, refusing to grant the interim injunction asked for by the appellant, the petitioner in the lower Court, against the contesting respondent, the decree-holder in C.S. No. 228 of 1954. It should be convenient to refer to the decree-holder in C.S. No. 228 of 1954 as the respondent in the rest of this judgment. 2. I shall first set out the relevant details of what preceded this appeal. Abdulla carried on business in timber. It was common ground that he had business dealings with the respondent for a number of years. Abdulla died in 1939, leaving behind him his widow and six minor children, three daughters and three sons, of whom, the appellant was one. He also left behind a comparatively large extent of properties including the business in timber. Abdulla's brother Ummerkutti claime...
Tag this Judgment!Panchayat Board, C. Mutlur by President Vs. Regional Inspector of Muni ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-19-1957
Reported in: AIR1959Mad38
ORDERRajagopala Ayyangar, J.1. The revenue village of C. Mutlur was declared 'a village' under the Madras Village Panchayats Act, 1950 (Act X of 1950) and a Panchayat board was constituted for carrying on the local administration of that village. This revenue village really consisted of more than one part namely the main village of C. Mutlur and a hamlet nearby by name Theethampalayam. The village and the hamlet are separated by the river Vellar which passes through the revenue village.2. The Regional Inspector of Municipal Councils and Local Boards, Chingleput, published two notifications on 8-10-1955 for effecting the separation of the hamlet from the 'revenue village' and for constituting the former as a separate area to be administered by a separate Panchayat Board. The legality of this action on the part of the officer is challenged in this petition by the Panchayat Board of C. Mutlur. The two notifications whose validity is impugned both dated 8-10-1955 are in these terms.''In ex...
Tag this Judgment!Annamalai Ayee Chatram by Trustees, N.N.C.Ar.Rm. Arunachalam Chettiar ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-18-1957
Reported in: (1958)1MLJ317
Rajagopala Ayyangar, J.1. These three petitions have been heard together as they raise a related point as regards the effect and construction of the Madras Cultivating Tenants (Amendment) Act, XIV of 1956. The precise questions involved in the Writ Petition and in the Civil Revision Petitions are slightly different and they would therefore, be dealt with separately. I shall first deal with W.P. No. 39 of 1957.2. The petitioners are landlords in the District of Tanjore in their character as trustees of a chatram charity which owns about 42 acres of wet lands. These lands were leased to certain persons who were cultivating tenants as defined by the Tanjore Tenants and Pannaiyal Protection Act (XIV of 1952) which I shall hereafter refer to as the Act. The tenants filed on 26th June, 1956, a petition before the Conciliation Officer, Kumbakonam, under Section 13(1) of the Act invoking the jurisdiction of the Officer to settle their dispute with their landlords as regards certain remissions ...
Tag this Judgment!Arumuga Goundar Vs. Natchimuthu Pillai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-18-1957
Reported in: AIR1958Mad459; (1958)2MLJ154
Ramaswami, J.1. This is an appeal arising from the decree and judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge, Dindigul, in A.S. No. 21 of 1954, confirming the decree and judgment of the learned District Munsif, Dindigul, in O.S. No. 72 of 1953.2. Kuppanna Pillai, Ammayappa Pillai and Arumugham Pillai were three brothers who effected a partition 25 years ago. The lands in suit fell to the share of Arumugham Pillai. Plaintiffs 1 to 3 are the sons of Kuppanna Pillai. Plaintiffs 4 and 5 are the sons of Ammayappa Pillai. Arumugham Pillai died in 1949, leaving defendant 1, his widow, as his heir. Defendant 1 has mortgaged the suit lands in favour of defendant 2 by a deed, dated 3rd February, 1953 for Rs. 2,500.3. It is in these circumstances that the plaintiffs have filed a suit for a declaration that the mortgage deed, dated 3rd February, 1953, executed by defendant 1 in favour of defendant 2 is not valid and binding upon them, the reversioners, beyond the lifetime of the widow, on the ground th...
Tag this Judgment!S.R. Narayana Ayyar Vs. Mavalathara Veerankutti and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-17-1957
Reported in: (1958)1MLJ263
Basheer Ahmed Sayeed, J.1. These three Civil Revision Petitions arise out of a common order passed by the learned Principal Judge, City Civil1 Court, in G.S. Nos. 224 of 1950, 353 of 1947 and 272 of 1950 and some'other suits transferred for disposal to the file of the City Civil Court from the Original Side of the High Court.'2. The Madras City Civil Court Act (VII of 1892) was amended by Madras Act X of 1955. The main purpose of this Amending Act was to enhance the pecuniary jurisdiction of the City Civil Court from Rs. 10,000 up to Rs. 50,000. In consequence, Section 8 of Madras Act X of 1955 enacted a transitory provision in the following terms:Transitory provision (1).--All suits pending in the High Court on the date of the commencement of this Act and which would be within the cognizance of the Madras City Civil Court under the provisions of this Act shall stand transferred to the Madras. City Civil Court. By a further amending Act, Madras Act XXIX of 1955, this transitory provisi...
Tag this Judgment!Muthuswami Gurukkal Vs. Ayyasami thevan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-17-1957
Reported in: (1958)1MLJ256
P. Rajagopalan, C.J.1. These appeals by' the plaintiffs arise out of interlocutory proceedings under Order 39, Civil Procedure G6de, in two suits O.S. No. 264 of 1956 and O.S. No. 267 of 1956 instituted under Section 62 of Madras Act XIX of 1951.2. The Area Committee appointed defendants 1 to 5 as the trustees of the suit temples. That was how they were arrayed in both the suits. In O.S. No. 267 of 1956 the plaintiff and defendants 6 to 12 claimed that they were the hereditary trustees of the temples. In the other suite O.S. No. . 264 of 1956, the 3rd plaintiff, Narasimha Ayyangar, claimed he was,the hereditary trustee along with two others. Those claims were negatives by. the Deputy. Commissioner of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments in proceedings under Section 57(b) of Act XIX. Of 1951, and that decision was upheld by the Commissioner. The plaintiffs filed the suits for which statutory provision was made in Section 62 of the Act. The main reliefs asked for in O.S. No. 267 of ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »