Chennai Court January 1958 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.
Subbaratnam Iyer Vs. Pattavarthi Moopan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-06-1958
Reported in: (1958)2MLJ184
Panchapakesa Ayyar, J.1. This is a petition by one Subbaratnam Ayyar for revising and setting aside the order of the District Munsif of Karur, in LA. No. 991 of 1956, in Original Suit No. 158 of 1955, transferring the suit filed by the petitioner for an injunction against the respondent Pattavarthi Moopan to the revenue Court under Section 6-A of Act XIV of 1956, acting on a prima facie presumption that the respondent, who was originally cultivating the land, would be a 'cultivating tenant'.2. I have perused the record and heard learned Counsel on both sides. Mr. K. Section Desikan, learned Counsel for the petitioner, urged that the respondent was only a waramdar, akin to a mattu-varamdar, and would not be a 'cultivating tenant', and that the lower Court erred in holding him to be a cultivating tenant. I cannot agree. The lower Court never held the respondent to be a cultivating tenant. It merely presumed from the evidence on record, that the respondent might turn out to be a cultivati...
V. Ratna Mudaliar (Died) and ors. Vs. the Cantonment Board of St. Thom ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-02-1958
Reported in: (1958)1MLJ349
ORDERBalakrishna Ayyar, J.1. The petitioner together with his brothers purchased the property-known as the Pallavaram Private Market under a sale-deed, dated 9th October, 1930. This property is situate within the limits of the Cantonment of St. Thomas Mount. By arrangement with his brothers the petitioner has been managing this market. Year after year he has been taking out an annual licence from the Cantonment Board after paying the prescribed licence fee demanded by the Board. The last of the licences was for the period from 1st April, 1955, to 31st March, 1956 and for the issue of this licence the Cantonment Board charged a fee of Rs. 440 being eight per cent, of the gross income received by the petitioner from the market. By a resolution, dated 30th April, 1956, the Cantonment Board decided to increase the licence fee from eight to ten per cent, of the gross income derived from the market on the ground that the expenses incurred by the Board was far in excess of the licence fee tha...
Adimoola Padayachi Vs. Pavadai Padayachi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-02-1958
Reported in: (1958)2MLJ57
Ramaswami, J.1. This second appeal is preferred against the decree and judgment of the learned District Judge of South Arcot in A.S. No. 219 of 1954, reversing the decree and judgment of the learned District Munsif of Cuddalore in O S No 407 of 1951.2. The dispute in this case relates to one acre of land purchased by the plaintiff under the sale-deed Exhibit A-1 , dated 8th August, 1938.Pinun.3. The facts are: The suit property orginally belonged to the third defendant Ramaswami Padayachi. On 27th August, 1929, under Exhibit B-1 Ramas Padayachi executed a settlement-deed in favour of his wife Rajammal T.W settlement deed recites that on account of love and affection the husband was set tling this property on the wife for life and that the sons born to her by the settlor would thereafter take the property absolutely. Though it was disputed in the Tower Courts, it has now been established beyond doubt that Ramaswami Padavachi? two sons viz., the second defendant Sarangapani Padayachi and...
Muhammad Mohideen Rowther Vs. N.N.H. Mohammad Mohideen Rowther
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-02-1958
Reported in: AIR1960Mad24
(1) This second appeal and the memorandum of objections arise out of the decree and judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge of Ramanathapuram in A. S. No. 8 of 1954 modifying the decree and judgment of the learned District Munsif of Sattur in O. S. No. 209 of 1952.(2) The facts are: Mussafar Rowther and his son Muhammad Sultan executed a mortgage in favour of Hameed Sultan executed a mortgage in favour of Hameed Rowther, father of defendants 1 to 3 for Rs. 272 on 1-8-1930; vide Ex A-1. The plaintiff has purchased the equity of redemption from the mortgagors under Ex A-4 dated 10-7-1952 for Rs. 300/- and filed the suit for redemption out of which this second appeal arises. Defendants 2 and 3 disclaimed any interest in the mortgaged property. It is unnecessary to go into the various points of controversy raised in the plaint and in the written statement because in this second appeal we are only concerned with the determination of the controversy whether the plaintiff is entitled to red...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›