Chennai Court October 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.
Shri Vasudeva Bank, Ltd., by Its Managing Director, N.V. Swaminatha Iy ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-09-1958
Reported in: (1959)2MLJ165
Ramaswami, J.1. This second appeal is preferred against the decree and judgment: of the learned District Judge of Tiruchirapalli in A.S. No. 156 of 1955, confiming the decree and judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge of Tiruchirapalli, in O.S. No. 252of 1951.2. One E.A. Rahamatullah, a tobacco merchant, had a warehouse licensed for storage of tobacco. This tobacco consisted of two varieties known as cheroot tobacco and beedi tobacco. Exhibit A-1 is a pattial of tobacco showing the purchase of 51 bags of tobacco. Exhibit A-2 is another pattial dated 20th August, 1946, showing the purchase of 45 bags of tobacco. Rahamatullah kept this tobacco in a warehouse licensed for storage of tobacco.3. Under Rule 140 of the Central Excises and Salt Rules, the Collector is given power to appoint public warehouses and in like manner license private warehouses for the storage of excisable goods on which duty has not been paid, and Rule 144 says that the goods should not be removed from any warehou...
In Re: Muthukarunga Konar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-08-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Mad175; 1959CriLJ603
Ramaswami, J.1. These are two connected appeals preferred attains t the convictions and sentence's by the learned Sessions Judge of Ramanathapuram in Sessions Case No. 143/1957.2. P.W. 3 Mandakalai alias Periakaruppa Konar obtained a decree against accused 1 Muthukarunga Konar on 21-7-1956 (vide Ex. P-15) in the Panchayat Court of Uthirakosamangai for Rs. 200. It was transmitted for execution to the Court of the District Munsif of Ramanathapuram, where P.W. 3 filed E. P. No. 99 of 1957. Thereupon accused 1 filed E. A. No. 34 of 1937 for recording full satisfaction of the decree on the foot of Ex. P-3, a stamped receipt dated 11-3-1957, alleged to have been executed by P.W. 3. P.W. 3 denounced this as a forgery. The scribe and attestor of the receipt Ex. P-3 was the deceased Ramalingam Servai.One of the two other attestors is accused 2. Ex. P-3 was sent to the Finger Print Bureau at Vellore on the application of P.W. 3. The thumb impression found in the receipt was oronounced by the Exp...
State of Madras by Collector of Ramanathapuram Vs. Rameswaram Devastha ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-08-1958
Reported in: (1959)2MLJ383
Ramaswami, J.1. These are two connected appeals preferred against the decree and judgment of the learned District Judge of Ramanathapuram in A.S. No. 32 of 1954, reversing the decree and judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge of Ramanathapuram, in O.S. No. 9 of 1953.2. The case of the plaintiff Rameswaram Devasthanam was 80 out of 84 shares in Venkatankurichi village in Paramakudi Taluk were given in Inam to the plaintiff Devasthanam by the ancestors of the Raja of Ramanathapuram and the remaining four shares were granted in Inam to the Dharmasanamdars. The Inam was confirmed in favour of the Devasthanam for the 80 shares and Inam Title Deed No. 794 was issued. For the Dharmasanamdars another title deed was issued, both Inams having been confirmed separately. Inasmuch as the confirmation was made in different portions, the village is not an estate under the Madras Estates Land Act. Consequently the provisions of the Madras Estates Land Reduction of Rent Act and the Madras Estates (A...
Subramaniya Pillai Vs. Dhanabagyathammal and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-07-1958
Reported in: (1959)2MLJ148
Ramaswami, J.1. This is a second appeal preferred against the decree and judgment of the learned District Judge of Tiruchirapalli in A.S. No. 216 of 1953, confirming the decree and judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge of Tiruchirapalli in O.S. No. 29 of 1951.2. The suit property originally belonged to Parimana Pillai who died in 1916 according to P.W. 1, or about 1923, surviving him his wife Kamakshi who died between 1943 and 1946 and three daughters, Pappathi and Sornathammal, who are alive, and Meenammal who died in July-August, 1948. The first defendant Dhanabagyam is the daughter of that Meenammal in whose favour Meenammal has bequeathed the suit property. The plaintiff is the son of Pappathi, examined as P.W. 2 in this case. The other daughter Sornathammal is married to Vythilingam (D.W. 2) and has no issue.3. Exhibit B-2 is the sale-deed, dated 29th September, 1937, by which Kamakshi Animal transferred the suit property, a house, to her daughter Meenammal. The evidence on th...
N. Doraswami Mudaliar Vs. S.V. Natesa Mudaliar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-07-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Mad453; 1959CriLJ1192; (1959)1MLJ256
ORDERBalakrishna Ayyar, J.1. There were as many as 25 applications for two permits to ply stage carriages between Mahabalipuram and Kancheepuram. By an order made apparently on 23-11-1957 the Regional Transport Authority granted one permit to N. Doraiswarni Mudaliar and another permit to Veerabadra Mudaliar. Four of the disappointed applicants appealed to the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Madras. By an order made on 5-9-1958 the State Transport Appellate Tribunal set aside the order of the Regional Transport Authority andgranted one permit to Kuppuswami Chettiar and the other permit to Natesa Mudaliar. The individuals who were prejudicially affected by the order of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal have filed these petitions for the issue of an appropriate writ to quash the order of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal.2. I shall first deal with the criticisms levelled against the order of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal relating to the grant of one permit to Natesa...
A. Bhaskaran and anr. Vs. Sellappa Goundan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-01-1958
Reported in: (1960)1MLJ183
Ramachandra Iyer, J.1. This Revision Petition is filed against the order of the District Munsif, Sankaridrug at Salem, transferring the records in O.S. No. 67 of 1957 on his file to the Estates Land Act Tribunal, Vellore, under Section 11 of Madras Act (XXX of 1956). The plaintiffs are the petitioners. O.S. No. 67 of 1957 was filed for ejectment of and recovery of mesne profits from the defendants. The plaintiffs claimed that the suit properties belonged to them absolutely, that they granted a lease of the same in the year 1949 to the first defendant (defendants 2 to 4 being his sons), and that the aforesaid lease was renewed thereafter. The renewed lease is stated to have terminated on 12th April, 1953 and as the defendants refused to hand over possession, the suit was filed for recovery of possession and mesne-profits.2. The defendants contested the suit. They denied the plaintiffs' title to the property and also the lease. They further stated that the suit properties were ryoti land...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›