Chennai Court July 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.
C.K. Chinnappa Chetty (Died) and ors. Vs. the Joint Family Firm of K. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-15-1957
Reported in: (1957)2MLJ269
1. This is an appeal filed by the defendant against an order on his application filed under Order 21, Rule 89. The property in question was attached and brought to sale on 21st July, 1955. On that date it was sold and purchased by the 2nd respondent, the 1st respondent being the decree-holder. The next day after the Court sale, that is, on 22nd July, 1955, the judgment-debtor who is the present appellant sold this property to one Ramaswami Ayyar for a sum of Rs. 4,000. As purchaser, Ramaswami Ayyar filed an application under Order 21, Rule 89, on 25th July, 1955, after depositing the full amount due to the decree-holder. While that application was pending, apparently on the advice of the judgment-debtor's lawyer that that application would not be competent, the judgment-debtor filed another application E.A. No. 558 of 1955, on 17th August, 1955 accompanied by the necessary deposit of the money. As the judgment-debtor filed that application, it was considered that Ramaswami Ayyar's appl...
Thangarasu Pillai and anr. Vs. Sivarama Iyer and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-15-1957
Reported in: (1957)2MLJ461
Ramaswami Gounder, J.1. This is an appeal preferred by the assignee-mortgagees against the order of the learned Subordinate Judge in appeal against an order made by the learned District Munsif on an application filed for scaling down under sections g-A and 19-A of Madras Act IV of 1938.2. The debt in respect of which the application was made was a usufructuary mortgage of the year 1920, executed by the grandmother of the petitioners as their guardian for a sum of Rs. 2,043 in favour of one Seethai Ammal. In August, 1937, the mortgagee, Seethai Ammal, assigned the mortgage to the respondents, Thangarasu Pillai and Jagadambal. As there was no personal liability under the mortgage and as the mortgagee could not obtain a decree for sale of the property the learned District Munsif thought that this would not be a debt for the purpose of Section 19-A of the Act, and on that ground dismissed the application. Though, he further held that Jagadambal was a woman falling within the exemption of S...
P.V.S. Krishnamurthy Vs. Joint Development Commissioner and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-11-1957
Reported in: (1957)2MLJ515
ORDERRajagopalan, J.1. The petitioner, an emplovee of the Central Government, held a permanent post in the Posts and Telegraphs Department. His services were lent to the Madras Government, and on 1st November, 1954, he was appointed a Block Development Officer. On 15th September, 1956, the first respondent the Joint Development Commissioner, ordered the reversion of the petitioner to his parent department the Posts and Telegraphs Department. The Government of Madras rejected the petitioner's appeal against the order, dated 15th September, 1956.2. The petitioner applied under Article 226 of the Constitution for the issue of a writ of certiorari to set aside the order of the first respondent, which was eventually confirmed by the second respondent.3. G.O.No. 2462, dated 16th July, 1956, contained the rules framed by the State Government under Article 309 of the Constitution regulating the service conditions of Block Development Officers and others employed in Community Projects and Natio...
Veda Gounder and ors. Vs. Arunachalam Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-10-1957
Reported in: (1957)2MLJ388
Rajagopalan, J.1. This application under Section 115, Civil Procedure Code, to revise the judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge of Cuddalore in A.S. No. 208 of 1954 on his file, arises out of proceedings in execution of the decree in S.C. No. 844 of 1933 taken subsequent to the disposal of S.A. No. 1432 of 1948 on 10th December, 1951. The respondent before me, Arunachalam Chettiar, was the plaintiff in S.C. No. 844 of 1933, and he obtained a decree against Katayya Goundan. The petitioners in these proceedings are the legal representatives of Katayya. In execution of the decree in S.C. No. 844 of 1933, the decree-holder Arunachala brought to sale the properties of the judgmeirt-debtor Katayya and purchased them himself at the sale held on 9th November, 1942. Katayya died on 14th November, 1942, before the sale could be confirmed under Order 21, Rule 92, Civil Procedure Code. The sale was confirmed on 12th December, 1942, but without notice to the legal representatives of Katayya. In...
Rm. M. Ramanathan Chettiar Vs. Ramaswami Pillai and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-08-1957
Reported in: AIR1957Mad780; (1957)2MLJ25
1. This is a revision petition under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, to revise the Order of the learned Subordinate Judge of Dindigul who dismissed the plaintiff's claim in S.C.S. No. 81 of 1954.2. The suit was laid against defendants 1 and 2 for recovery of money due on a promissory note executed by them. The plaintiff claimed that neither of the defendants was an agriculturist.3. The learned Subordinate Judge found that the second defendant was an agriculturist, and that since Section 3 of the Madras Indebted Agriculturists' Temporary Relief Act, (Act V of 1954) banned institution of suits where any of the debtors was an agriculturist, the plaintiff's claim was liable to be dismissed. Independent of this defence there was another, that the suit debt had been discharged by the defendants. That plea also was upheld.4. The first contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner was that the learned Subordinate Judge had no jurisdiction to dismiss the suit, even i...
Madurai Municipality, by Commissioner Vs. K.N.K. Jagannatha Ayyar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-08-1957
Reported in: (1958)1MLJ73
Rajagopalan, J.1. The respondent was the owner of the residential building No. 57, South Vadampokki Street, Madurai. The petitioner, the Madurai Municipality, was the tenant of that house till 1942, and the monthly rent was Rs. 60. Thereafter it was rented by the owner to one Krishnier, and the fair rent for that building was fixed at Rs. 47 a month by the Rent Controller. In 1949, the plaintiff himself obtained possession of the house for the occupation of his son. Subsequently on 16th July, 1951, the house was rented to Dr. Kaliappan. The respondent claimed that under the registered rent deed, the rent payable by the tenant Dr. Kaliappan was Rs. 75 a month. The municipal assessment of this building was Rs. 53-4-3 per half year, the annual rental value being taken as Rs. 526. For each of the half years in 1951-1952 the Commissioner of the Municipality proposed to enhance the assessment to Rs. 226-12-6 per half year, the annual value of the building being Rs. 2,240. That provisional as...
Rm. M. Ramanathan Chettiar Vs. Ramaswami Pillai and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-08-1957
Reported in: (1957)2MLJ267
Rajagopalan, J.1. This is a revision petition under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, to revise the Order of the learned Subordinate Judge of Dindigul who dismissed the plaintiff's claim in S.C.S. No. 81 of 1954.2. The suit was laid against defendants 1 and 2 for recovery of money due on a promissory note executed by them. The plaintiff claimed that neither of the defendants was an agriculturist.3. The learned Subordinate Judge found that the second defendant was an agriculturist, and that since Section 3 of the Madras Indebted Agriculturists' Temporary Relief Act, (Act V of 1954) banned institution of suits where any of the debtors was an agriculturist, the plaintiff's claim was liable to be dismissed. Independent of this defence there was another, that the suit debt had been discharged by the defendants. That plea also was upheld.4. The first contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner was that the learned Subordinate Judge had no jurisdiction to dismiss t...
Sundaralingam Chettiar and ors. Vs. S. Nagalingam Chettiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-08-1957
Reported in: (1957)2MLJ634; (1958)1MLJ332
Rajagopalan, J.1. The petitioners, who were the plaintiffs in O.S. No. 135 of 1955, on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Madurai, applied under Section 115, Civil Procedure Code, to revise the order of the learned Subordinate Judge, who rejected their application to amend the plaint in that suit.2. The suit was filed under Section 92, Civil Procedure Code and the main reliefs asked for in the plaint were (1) to modify the scheme and to provide for expenses for educational purposes out of the trust funds, and (2) the removal of defendants 1 to 5 from the trusteeship and the appointment of fresh trustees in their place. I am not concerned in these proceedings with the first of these two reliefs. In paragraph 14 of the plaint the plaintiffs set out the grounds on which they sought the removal of the trustees, defendants 1 to 5, which in substance were mismanagement of the trust funds, to which it was alleged internecine quarrels between the trustees also contributed. The amendmen...
In Re: V.K.S. Mohamed YassIn Rowthar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-05-1957
Reported in: (1958)1MLJ21
Ramaswami, J.1. This is a revision sought to be preferred against the order made by the learned District Judge of East Tanjore in O.S. No. 13 of 1956.2. The facts are:-The plaintiff V. K. S. Mohammad Noordin filed a suit for partition and separate possession of his half share in the suit joint family properties described in Schedules A to F of the plaint and to direct the defendant to render accounts for the rents and profits with regard to the plaintiff's half share and for costs. The defendant V.K.S. Mohamed Yassin Rowthar has raised the objection that the suit has been filed on the foot of joint possession, whereas in reality there has been no joint possession and therefore the relief of partition on the foot of joint possession cannot be asked for but that the suit should be one for recovery of possession for which ad valorem court-fee will have to be paid. In other words, even though the suit is filed on the footing of joint possession to be converted into separate possession, the...
C.S. Visalakshi Amma and ors. Vs. C.Y. Anjaneyalu Chetty and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-04-1957
Reported in: (1957)2MLJ387
Rajagopalan, J.1. This is an application in which the jurisdiction vested in this Court by Article 227 of the Constitution has been invoked to set aside or correct an order passed by the Master of this Court on the Original Side in proceedings on appeal preferred against the decree and judgment in C.S. No. 55 of 1954 on the Original Side of this Court.2. The question to be considered by the learned Master was, what was the correct Court-fee payable on the memorandum of appeal Againest this decision on that issue, under the provisions of the Court-Fees Act, there can be no appeal, because the statute has provided for none.3. The jurisdiction vested in this Court by Article 227 is a very limited one. An erroneous decision with nothing more of any statutory authority will not be enough in exercise of the powers vested in this Court by Article 227, to set aside the order in which the erroneous decision is embodied. Practically, the principles which would apply in deciding whether a writ of...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »