Chennai Court December 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.
A. Sundararamanujulu Naidu (Dead) and anr. Vs. Kamalammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-17-1957
Reported in: (1958)1MLJ289
P. Rajagopalan, O.C.J.1. The second plaintiff is the son of the first plaintiff. The first plaintiff was Venkatakrishnama Naidu's sister's son. Venkatakrishnama had no childeren of his own. The first defendant is the foster daughter of Venkatakrishnama, and the second defendant is her husband. They also lived with Venkatakrishnama in his house, No. 32, General Muthiah Mudali Street. On 1st December, 1943, Venkatakrishnama executed a deed of settlement, Exhibit P-1. He reserved a life interest in the house, the only piece of property dealt with under Exhibit P-1, for himself, after which it was to go to plaintiffs 1 and 2 for their life with a gift over to the descendants of the second plaintiff. Exhibit P-1 also provided for the payment of Rs. 25 a month by plaintiffs 1 and 2 to the first defendant, the foster daughter of Venkatakrishnama. It further directed the ' beneficiaries ', as plaintiffs 1 and 2 were styled, to perform every year at a cost of about Rs. 50 the Sri Alamelumanga T...
A. Balasundara Mudaliar Vs. Area Committee, Hindu Religious and Charit ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-17-1957
Reported in: AIR1958Mad275; (1958)2MLJ47
ORDERRajagopala Ayyangar, J.1. The petitioner was the sole hereditary trustee of Sri Avadinathaswami temple, Melvilvarayanallur, Polur Taluk, North Arcot district. It is common ground that the petitioner having succeeded to the office of trustee when his father died in 1936 has been functioning as such ever since. After the enactment of Madras Act XIX of 1951 proceedings were started by the Deputy Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable, Endowments, Coimbatore under Section 58(1) of the Act for framing a scheme in respect of this temple. Section 58(1) enables a scheme to be framed for a religious institution in two contingencies (1) When the Deputy Commissioner has reason to believe that in the interests of the proper administration of a religious institution a scheme should be settled for the institution, and (2) or when not less than five persons having interest make an application in writing stating that in the interests of the proper administration of a religious institution a...
Sir M. Ct. Muthiah Vs. the Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-17-1957
Reported in: (1958)2MLJ196
ORDERRajagopala Ayyangar, J.1. This petition involves virtually the proper construction of the Proviso to section 66 (1) of the Indian Income-tax Act. Section 66 enacts:66 (1) : Within sixty days of the date upon which he is served with notice of an order under Sub-section (4) of Section 33, the assessee or the Commissioner may, by application in the prescribed form, accompanied where application is made by the assessee by a fee of one hundred rupees, requires the Appellate Tribunal to refer to the High Court any question of law arising out of such order, and the Appellate Tribunal shall, within ninety days of the receipt of such application draw up a statement of the case and refer it to the High Court:Provided that if, in the exercise of its powers under Sub-section (2), the Appellate Tribunal refuses to state a case which it has been required by the assessee to state, the assessee may, within thirty days from the date on which he receives notice of the refusal to state the case, wit...
A.R. Ghazani Mohammed Sahib Vs. the Official Receiver
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-16-1957
Reported in: (1958)1MLJ424
Rajagopala Ayyangar, J.1. These revision petitions have been filed to revise the orders of the Sub-Collector of Pollachi passed under Section 3 of the Cultivating Tenants Protection Act directing the eviction of the petitioners on the ground that there were arrears of rent due from them. The ground urged by learned Counsel for the petitioners was that there was really no arrears and that therefore orders for eviction should be set aside.2. A few facts are necessary to be stated in order to appreciate the manner in which this point arises. The facts of the two petitions are nearly the same and as the points raised are identical it is sufficient to set out the facts involved in C.R.P. No. 538 of 1957.3. The property from which the petitioners-tenants were sought to be evicted originally belonged to Messrs. Mohamed Hussain Sahib and four others who were adjudicated insolvents in I.P. No. 17 of 1953 on the file of the Sub-Court, Coimbatore. The property was leased out to the petitioners un...
Ct.Pl. Chidambaram Vs. R. Muthukumaraswami Pillai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-16-1957
Reported in: (1958)1MLJ421
ORDERRajagopala Ayyangar, J.1. These two petitions have only this in common, namely, that they raise similar points for consideration. The facts of each case are different and have to be set out fully.2. W.P. No. 973 of 1956. It is concerned with the Board of trustees of Sri Jambukeswaraswami temple, Tiruvanaikaval, Trichinopoly district. This temple is governed by a scheme framed by the Hindu Religious Endowments Board on 17th November, 1945. Clause (3) of that scheme stated:The said temple and its properties shall be administered by one or more non-hereditary trustees (not exceeding three) who shall be appointed by the Board. If there is a single trustee he shall be selected from the members of the S.RM.Ct. family of Kanadukathan in Ramnad district. Even when there are three trustees, at least one of them shall be selected from the said family. 3. The matters which give rise to this writ petition are briefly these. In pursuance of the provisions of this scheme three trustees had been...
M.P.K.B. Karuppan Chettiar Vs. Pl.M.C.T.K. Krishnappa Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-13-1957
Reported in: (1958)1MLJ235
Rajagopala Ayyangar, J.1. The Chief Court of Pudukottai passed a decree against the appellant in O.S. No. 390 of 1944 on its file. This was a compromise decree on a claim under a settlement dated 31st July, 1946. The appellant claiming himself to be an agriculturist entitled to relief under Madras Act IV of 1938 applied to the Subordinate Judge, Pudukottai, which was the successor of 'the Court which passed the decree ' for its scaling down under Section 19 of the Act. This was O.P. No. 4 of 1953, and it is the correctness of the order of the Subordinate Judge dismissing the petition that forms the subject-matter of this appeal.2. There was no dispute regarding the appellant having a ' saleable interest in agricultural land '. But this claim to the relief was disputed on the ground that he fell within proviso (C) to Section 3(ii) by having been assessed to house tax under municipal enactments the aggregate of which exceeded Rs. 600. It may be stated that the appellant admittedly owned ...
Nallasivam Chettiar, Minor by Next Friend, Subbiah Chettiar Vs. Avuday ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-11-1957
Reported in: AIR1958Mad462; (1958)1MLJ181
ORDERRamaswami, J.1. An interesting point is raised in this Civil Miscellaneous Petition.2. There was a Second Appeal in this Court disposed of in S.A. No. 1056 of 1954. In this Second Appeal there was a C.M.P--C.M.P. No. 9546 of 1956 in which directions were asked for provision being made for the marriage expenses of the fourth defendant. This petition was disposed of by Ramaswami Gounder, J., by directing the fourth defendant to approach the lower Court for orders as to determining the quantum of the marriage expenses as the learned Judge had no sufficient materials before him to decide the matter. It may be noted here that there was no dispute that the marriage expenses of the fourth defendant constituted a legitimate item of expenditure to be incurred by the joint family. This order of Ramaswami Gounder, J., was on 7th January, 1957 and the aggrieved party thereafter filed I.A. No. 231 of 1957 on 25th February, 1957 in the trial Court. It is now pending and even before this applica...
In Re: Raman
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-10-1957
Reported in: 1958CriLJ779; (1958)IMLJ245
ORDERSomasundaram, J.1. Crl. R. C. No. 141 of 1957 is by the accused against his conviction for ant offence under Section 24 of the Cattle Trespass Act. Crl Ap. No. 264 of 1957 is by the State against the acquittal of the accused for an offence under Section 332, IPC with which he was also charged. On 28-8-1956, the Forest Guard P.W. 1 in the beat of Gudiyatam range and the forest watcher P.W. 2 working with P.W. H saw at about 12 noon some goats grazing in the reserved forest.There were about 67 goats grazing and two persons were grazing them They rounded up the goats for the purpose of taking them to the pound. The two servants shouted and the accused who presumably was the owner of the goats rushed with a knife in his hand and threatened the two officers with severe penalty if they took the goats to the pound. It is alleged that the accused caught hold of the neck of P.W. 1 and pushed him down and threatened to cut him with the knife.P.W. 1 sustained undoubtedly minor injuries which...
Govinda Reddi and anr. Vs. Pathimunnissa Bi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-10-1957
Reported in: AIR1958Mad510; (1958)2MLJ28
Ramaswami, J.1. This is an appeal preferred against the decree and judgment of the learned District Judge, North Arcot, at Vellore in A.S. No. 189 of 1953, modifying the decree and judgment of the learned District Munsif, Tirupattur, in O.S. No 84 of 19492. The suit property consists of 93 cents, namely, 86 cents in Section No. 19/2 and 7 cents in Section No. 20/2.3. These two survey numbers formed part of the estate of Ramakrishna Reddi, who died on 30th May, 1924, leaving surviving him his widow, Adiammal, and his mother, Varadammal. Adiammal succeeded to the properties as limited owner and Varadammal predeceased her. Adiammal died on nth January, 1946. During the minority of Adiammal, her motheR-In-law, Varadammal executed a usufructuary mortgage, Exhibit B-i, over Item 1 of the suit property of 86 cents in favour of Abdul Subhan, the father of defendants 2 to 10. Later, again, during the minority of Adiammal, a sale deed was executed by her father acting as her guardian in favour o...
Govindaswami Goundar Vs. Ramaswami Goundan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-09-1957
Reported in: (1958)2MLJ185
Rajagopala Ayyangar, J.1. The Letters Patent Appeals have been preferred against the Judgment of Panchapakesa Ayyar, J. in C.M.S.As. Nos. gi and 92 of 1954. The subject-matter of C.M.S.A. No. 80 of 1955 arises out of the same proceedings as those out of which the other C.M.S.As. arose and is by the same appellant in the Letters Patent Appeals and hence all these have been heard together.2. The points arising in these appeals are simple and a few facts are necessary to be stated to appreciate how they arise. The judgment-debtor in O.S. No. 267 of 1947 on the file of the Sub-Court, Coimbatore, is the appellant in the three appeals before us. That suit was for recovery of money due on a promissory note executed on 26th September, 1944, which stipulated for interest at six per cent, per annum. The suit was filed on 25th September, 1947 and in the written statement filed by the appellant on 19th January, 1948, no objection was raised to the legality of the rate of interest charged in the pr...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »