Chennai Court May 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.
Thothan and anr. Vs. Murugan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-01-1958
Reported in: 1958CriLJ1488; (1958)IIMLJ353
Somasundaram, J.1. This is an appeal filed under Section 417 (3) Cr.PC In the trial court the appellant herein prosecuted the respondents for theft, in that they cut away the crops on the land which was said to be in the possession of the complainant. The lower court found that the complainant's possession has not been established beyond all reasonable doubt, and. therefore, acquitted the accused of the offence of theft. Against that acquittal the complainant preferred under Section 417 (3) Cr.PC this appeal. Leave of the court has been granted and the appeal has been admitted. After admission of this appeal and before its hearing the appellant died. The question is whether the appeal abates under Section 431 Cr.PC2. Section 431, Criminal P. C, is as follows: 'Every appeal under Section 411-A, Sub-section (2), or Section 417, shall finally abate on the death of the accused, and every other appeal under this Chapter (except an appeal from a sentence of fine) shall finally abate on the d...
P. Subbiah Mudaliar and ors. Vs. Pakkiri Pandaram
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-01-1958
Reported in: (1958)2MLJ510
ORDERP.V. Rajamannar, C.J.1. These two Revision Petitions arise out of two applications made by the respondent under Section 4(1) of the Madras Cultivating Tenants Protection Act (XXV of 1955) as amended by Madras Act XIV of 1956. Alleging that they were forcibly evicted about the commencement of the agricultural year 1956-1957, the respondents applied for restoration of possession of the lands covered by the petitions. For the purpose of these revision petitions it is not necessary to refer to the pleas put forward by the counter-petitioners who contested the petitions. It suffices to refer to only one of such pleas, namely, that the petitions are barred by limitation. The Revenue Court dealt with this objection in the following way:A contention that the petition is barred by limitation was also raised in the counter. This was answered by saying that the delay in filing the petition had already been condoned in the cases and both the cases had been taken on the file only thereafter un...
P.R. Subbier Vs. W.P. Chetty
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-01-1958
Reported in: (1958)2MLJ583
Ramaswami, J.1. This is a Revision which has been filed against the order made by the learned Small Cause Judge, Madras, in H.R.A. No. 364 of 1955, confirming, the order made by the Rent Controller, Madras, in H.R.C. No. 1004 of 1955.2. W.P. Chetty is the owner of premises No. 65, Thambu Chetty Street, G. T., Madras. The tenant is P.R. Subbier who is running a small press for printing, All India Racing News. In other words, the building is being used for a non-residential purpose. It is stated that the rent which was being paid was in the region of Rs. 90 per month.3. In these circumstances the tenant committed default in the payment of rent, which entitled the landlord to get him evicted. The landlord therefore came to Court with an application for eviction of this tenant.4. On this Petition being filed, the parties began to negotiate with each other in regard to the tenant being allowed to continue in the premises and a rent more appropriate to the times being paid by the tenant to t...
Krishnaswami Naicker Vs. Naranappa Naicker
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-01-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Mad209; (1958)IIMLJ429
1. This second appeal is against the Order of the learned Subordinate Judge of Ramanathapuram at Madurai in A. S. No. 59 of 1956.2. The main question of law that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether execution could be allowed in favour of the legal representatives of a deceased receiver and whether a receiver could have legal representatives to succeed him. To appreciate the point for decision it may be necessary to mention a few relevant facts in brief. On 9-8-1923 the father of the appellant before me executed a mortgage in favour of one Solayappa Naicker for Rs. 200.It was a simple mortgage. The mortgagee, Solayappa, was indebted to another Solayappa on a promissory note. The promisee P. Solayappa, filed a suit on the promissory note and obtained a decree. The suit filed by the said P. Solayappa was O. S. No, 25 of 1935. On 10-8-1936 the decree-holder P. Solayyappa in the promissory note suit O. S. No. 25 of 1935 was appointed receiver to collect the debts due to his j...
Putta Rm. Ramanatha Iyer Vs. T.S. Ramachari and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-01-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Mad431; (1958)2MLJ532
ORDERRamachandra Iyer, J.1. This revision arises under Section 75 of the Provincial Insolvency Act at the instance of an execution creditor. The petitioner obtained a money decree against one Srinivasa Iyer. In execution of his decree he attached certain property belonging to the debtor, obtained leave to bid and set off the sale proceeds against his dues under the decree and brought the properties to sale. The sale took place on 15-9-1952 and was confirmed on 21-10-1952, A few days before the sale, i.e., on 6-9-1952 the debtor filed I.P. No. 26 of 1952 on the file of the Sub Court, Madurai, to adjudicate himself an insolvent.Srinivasa Iyer was adjudicated an insolvent on 19-6-1953 and his properties vested in the Official Receiver. The Official Receiver was then moved to take steps to set aside the sale which took place in execution of the petitioncr's decree but the Receiver held that the court sale was valid but that the petitioner should deposit the sale amount into court. A credit...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›