Chennai Court August 1957 Judgments
In Re: Badrajala Naidu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-30-1957
Reported in: (1958)1MLJ99
ORDERRamaswami, J.1. This reference arises out of the Office Note relating to S.R. Nos. 18960 and 18971 of 1957.2. The facts are : These S.R. Numbers are connected with S.R. Nos. 18969 and 18970 which are being dealt with separately and arise from the proceedings of the lower Court appointing a Commissioner for an enquiry into the waste committed by the respondent and for ascertainment of future mesne profits respectively, under Order 20, Rule 12. This order for appointment of a Commissioner, I need not point out is not one of the orders appealable under Order 43, Rule 1. The lower appellate Court entertained however an appeal under the latter provision and dismissed it. Thereupon these C.M.S. As. are being sought to be filed against the order of the lower appellate Court.3. These S.R. Numbers cannot be allowed to be filed as C.M.S.As. at all, and if so advised, they can be filed only as revision petitions. Here are my reasons:4. First of all assuming for the sake of argument that the ...
Tag this Judgment!Muthuswami Naicker and ors. Vs. Ramalinga Naicker
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-30-1957
Reported in: AIR1958Mad366; (1958)1MLJ408
Panchapakesa Ayyar, J.1. This is a petition for revising and setting aside the order of the Subordinate Judge of Madurai dismissing E.A. No. 389 of 1957 in E.P. No. 403 of 1956 in O.S. No. 93 of 1950 on his file. That was a petition put in by these petitioners, under Section 151, Civil Procedure Code alone, for directing the respondent, Ramalinga Naicker, to give sufficient immovable property, security before drawing out the amount of Rs. 2,000 deposited by them into Court as a first installment by way of restitution of the amount of some Rs. 7989.54 in all due to the respondent by virtue of the first Court decree against him in O.S. No. 93 of 1950, Sub-Court, Madurai, having been set aside by this Court in appeal (A.S. No. 480 of 1952). The petitioner's case was that they had filed L.P.A. No. 41 of 1956 in this Court against the judgment and decree in A.S. No. 480 of 1952, and that, though the stay application in that L.P.A. had been dismissed by a Bench of this Court, to which I too ...
Tag this Judgment!C. Dhanalakshmi Ammal Vs. the Income-tax Officer, Ii Additional City a ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-30-1957
Reported in: (1957)2MLJ567
P.V. Rajamannar, C.J.1. This is an application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of India against an order passed by this Court dismissing a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution by the petitioner. In that petition she prayed for the issue of a writ of mandamus restraining the Income-tax Officer, Second Additional City Circle, Madras, the Collector of Nilgiris district, and the Tahsildar of Coonor from proceeding to attach, or to bring to sale the petitioner's properties for the realisation of the alleged income-tax arrears of her husband, Tharani Singh Gramani, and in particular from proceeding with the sale of Benhutty Estate, in the Nilgiris district.2. The facts material for this petition may be briefly stated : For the recovery of arrears of income-tax due from the petitioner's husband a certificate was issued by the Income-Tax Officer to the Collector of Nilgiris under Section 46(2) of the Indian Income-Tax Act. The Collector in pursuance of this certificate...
Tag this Judgment!C. Dhanalakshmi Ammal Vs. Income-tax Officer, Ii Additional City Circl ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-30-1957
Reported in: [1958]34ITR738(Mad)
RAJAMANNAR C.J. - This is an application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of India against an order passed by this court dismissing a petition filed under article 226 of the Constitution by the petitioner. In that petition she prayed for the issue of a writ of mandamus restraining the Income-tax Officer, Second Additional City Circle, Madras, the Collector of Nilgiris District, and the Tahsildar of Coonoor, from proceeding to attach, or to bring to sale the petitioners properties for the realisation of the alleged income-tax arrears of her husband, Tharanisingh Gramani, and in particular from proceedings with the sale of Benhutty Estate, in the Nilgiris district.The facts material for the petition may be briefly stated. For the recovery of arrears of income-tax due from the petitioners husband a certificate was issued by the Income-tax officer to the Collector of Nilgiris under section 46(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act. The Collector in pursuance of this certificate proceeded ...
Tag this Judgment!Natesan Vs. Surya Bagadhur Shah
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-29-1957
Reported in: (1957)2MLJ586
Panchapakesa Ayyar, J.1. This is a petition filed by one Natesan, the landlord, for revising and setting aside the Order of the District Judge, Tirunelveli, in M.C. No. 8 of 1955, dismissing that petition for revising and setting aside the order of the appellate authority, the Subordinate Judge, Tirunelveli, in C.M.A. No. 23 of 1955, confirming the Order of the Rent Controller rejecting the petitioner's prayer for eviction of the 'respondent from the house he is occupying.2. The facts were briefly these : The petitioner, Natesan, looks after a set of 21 houses in a colony on the Madurai Road, Tirunelveli, on behalf of his mother and two other ladies, who are all members of a joint family, and he has been deputed to look after all the 21 houses and to collect the rents therefrom and is in the position of a 'landlord'. He was reading for his B.A., examination and was residing in a rented house in the Dakshamanara Nadar Sangham and intended to settle down in a house in this colony, and so...
Tag this Judgment!K.A. Gopalaswami Reddiar Vs. Peria Siddammal and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-26-1957
Reported in: AIR1958Mad488; (1958)2MLJ107
P.V. Rajamannar, C.J.1. The only question m this appear is whether the alleged adoption of the plaintiff-appellant to one Peddappa Reddiar by his senior widow, the first defendant, is valid. The suit was filed by him for a declaration that he was such validly adopted son and for partition of the suit properties. The two defendants were the two widows of Peddappa Reddiar who died on 2nd September, 1946. He had no male issue but by the first defendant he had four daughters and there is evidence that the daughters have also sons who were alive at the time of the death of Peddappa Reddiar. The plaintiff is the second son of Appuswami Reddiar, the only brother of Peddappa Reddiar, but divided from him. In the plaint it was alleged that Peddappa Reddiar authorised the first defendant, his senior widow, to make an adoption. It was further alleged that the widow also obtained the consent of the nearest agnates of her husband, namely, Appuswami Reddiar, his divided brother, and two sons of one ...
Tag this Judgment!Veluchami Naicker and ors. Vs. M. Mouna Gurusami Naicker (Deceased) an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-21-1957
Reported in: (1957)2MLJ628
P.V. Rajamannar, C.J.1. This is an appeal against the decree and judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge of Dindigul in O.S. No. 52 of 1954, a suit filed by the first respondent (who has died pending the appeal and whose legal representative has been brought on record as the third respondent) for recovery of possession of certain lands situated in the villages in Palni taluk, Madurai district, from defendants 1 to 7 who are the office-bearers of the 8th defendant which is a sangham. The substantial issue before the learned trial Judge was whether the defendants were not liable to be evicted because of the provisions of the Madras Cultivating Tenants Protection Act, XXV of 1955, which came into force on 24th September, 1955, that is, long after the suit was instituted. The learned Judge held that the Act did not apply because the suit had been filed on 22nd October, 1954, prior to the coming into force of Madras Act XXV of 1955 and there was no indication of the intention of the Legis...
Tag this Judgment!Pubbiri Vs. S. Govinda Mudaliar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-19-1957
Reported in: 1958CriLJ523
ORDERRamaswami, J.1. Crl. M. P. No. 740 of 1957 is an application for withdrawal of M. P. No. 46 of 1957 from the file of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Dharmapuri and disposal of the case in the High Court or re-transfer the same to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Dharmapuri, after deciding the question of law and Crl. M. P. No. 741 of 1957 is for stay of further proceedings.2. The facts are: The Board of Trustees of Sri Penimal Temple, Maruderi village, Salem Dt. have obtained a certificate under Section '87 of Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, XIX of 1951 and applied to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Dharmapuri, for execution of the same as laid down in the said section. The persons who were in possession of the lands and from whom delivery was asked for are the Poojari and lessee tion that Polaris. The contention of the lessee is that he is protected from being evicted under Section 3 of Madras Cultivating Tenants Protection Act, XXV of 1955, as extended by M...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Kirukku Mayandi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-19-1957
Reported in: 1958CriLJ1042
Ramaswami, J.1. This is an appeal preferred by accused 2 against his conviction and sentence by the learned Sessions Judge of Madurai in Sessions Case No. 106 of 1956.2. The facts are : One Ameen Ammal, an aged lady, was carrying on money-lending business at Batlagundu. With her P.W. 1, her grandson aged about 16, and an orphan was Jiving. Her another son Muhammad Kasim was living in Tiruyedagam. Her daughter P, W. 10 was Jiving with her husband in Chityayankottai.3. On (he night of 1-3-1956 this Ameen Ammal was alone in her house, her grandson P.W. 1 having gone to a cinema in Dindigul. He returned practically in the early morning of 2-3-1956. Therefore, fearing that his grandmother would (take him to task for keeping such a late hour, he laid himself inside a cart standing in the lane north of their house and slept away.4. On the morning of 2-3-1956 P.W. 1 woke up at 7-30 A.M. and went home. He found the main entrance partially closed. When he went in he found his grandmother lying d...
Tag this Judgment!Pubbiri Alias Perumal Goundan Vs. S. Govinda Mudaliar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-19-1957
Reported in: (1957)2MLJ617
ORDERRamaswami, J.1. Crl. M.P. No. 740 of 1957 is an application for withdrawal of M.P. No. 46 of 1957 from the file of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Dharmapuri and disposal of the case in the High Court or re-transfer of the same to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Dharmapuri, after deciding the question of law and Cr. M.P. No. 741 of 1957 is for stay of further proceedings.2. The facts are: The Board of Trustees of Sri Perumal Temple Maruderi Village, Salem District, have obtained a certificate under Section 87 of Madras Act XIX of 1951 and applied to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Dharmapuri, for execution of the same as laid down in the said section. The persons who were in possession of the lands and from whom delivery was asked for are the poojari and lessee from that poojari. The contention of the lessee is that he is protected from being evicted under Section 3 of Madras Act XXV of 1955 as extended by Act XIV of 1956 as a cultivating tenant. It is contended that the provisions...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »