Chennai Court January 1959 Judgments
Home Cases Chennai 1959 Page 1 of about 11 results (0.010 seconds)Annamalai Goundan Vs. Venkatasami Naidu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Reported in: AIR1959Mad354; (1959)1MLJ309
ORDERGanapatia Pillai, J.1. This civil revision petition raises aninteresting question of law, namely, whether it is open to a person, against whom proceedings have been instituted for eviction under the Madras Cultivating Tenants Protection Act, to raise a plea based upon Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act, for resisting the application.2. The first respondent herein is the owner of the lands which were let to the petitioner by a lease deed dated 19-11-1952. The term in the lease deed was for a period of two years and it expired on 18-11-1954. The annual rent agreed upon was a sum of Rs. 166. The Assistant Collector, Hosur, against whose order this revision petition is filed, entertained an application for eviction at the instance of the first. respondent on 2-7-1957. The allegation made in the petition by the landlord-first respondent was that the petitioner had fallen into arrears in the matter of payment of rent since November, 1954. Some amounts had been admittedly paid ...
Tag this Judgment!T.K. Krishna Iyer Vs. Karur Vysia Bank Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Reported in: (1959)2MLJ215
Subrahmanyam, J.1. This is an application to revise the order passed by the learned District Judge, Coimbatore, on 30th October, 1956, in C.R.P. No. 853 of 1955 on his file. The revision petition was filed before the District Judge under Section 12 of the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1949.2. The building to which these proceedings relate was purchased by the petitioner on 27th July, 1953. At that time, he was conducting a coffee-hotel under the name and style of 'Ranjitha Vilas ' in a rented building in Coimbatore. He said in his petition filed before the House Rent Controller, Coimbatore City, that he purchased the building ' for accommodating this business (of Ranjitha Vilas) '. Immediately after purchasing the building, he sent a notice to the respondent, who was in occupation of the building as a tenant, calling on him to surrender vacant possession. The respondent by reply declined to do so. The petitioner thereafter entered into a family settlement with his brot...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. V.K. John, Madras Vs. G. Vasantha Pai, Madras
Court: Chennai
Reported in: AIR1959Mad331
V. V. Rajamannar C.J.1. In this petition Under Section 10(2) of the Indian Bar Councils Act, the petitioner was Dr. V. K. John, an advocate of this Court. The respondent was the advocate engaged by one T. N. Kuriakose, the defendant in two suits in the City Civil Court, Madras, O, S. Nos. 502 and 508 of 1957, filed by his wife, the daughter of the petitioner. An application was filed in this court by the said T. N. Kuriakose for a transfer of the two suits to the file of this court, in which certain allegations were made against Dr. John, the complainant, and the learned Fifth Assistant Judge of the City Civil Court, who had made the order in I. A- No. 78 of 1957, which was an application taken out by the complainant's daughter for the appointment of a Commissioner to take possession of certain articles in the possession of her husband, Mr. Kuriakose, including a motor car and to take an inventory of the said articles and deliver them to her.The complainant alleged that the respondent ...
Tag this Judgment!Vanguard Fire and General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Fraser and Ross, Char ...
Court: Chennai
Reported in: AIR1959Mad336; (1959)2MLJ104
1. This is an appeal against the judgment of Balakrishna Aiyar, J. dismissing a petition filed by the appellant (W. P. No. 922 of 1957) under Article 226 of the Constitution in the following circumstances.2. The appellant, the Vanguard Fire and General Insurance Co. Ltd. was incorporated in Madras on 25-9-1941, under the Indian Companies Act, 1913. The object inter alia of the said company was to carry on fire, motor, marine, accident and other general insurance business. It is common ground that the company was bound by the provisions of the Insurance Act, 1938.In accordance with the requirements of that Act, the company applied for and obtained certificate of registration for carrying on the aforesaid classes of insurance business. The necessary deposit to be made under Section 7 of that Act was also made. At an extraordinary general meeting of the share-holders of the company held on 15-10-1956, the following resolutions were passed :''Resolved that the company do forthwith cease to...
Tag this Judgment!Adakalathammal Vs. Chinnayyan Panipundar
Court: Chennai
Reported in: AIR1959Mad447; (1959)1MLJ314
Rajamannar, C.J. 1. The only question in these appeals is whether the jurisdiction of the civil courts to try a suit for possession and other incidental reliefs based on title is ousted by Section 56 (1) of the Madras Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948. These appeals have been posted before a Division Bench because Ramaswami Gounder J., considered that there was a conflict between the decision in Chidambaram Chettiar v. Muhammad Aliar Rowther W.P. No. 670 of 1955, C. R. P. 340 of 1956 and State of Madras v. Swaminathan, 1955 2 MLJ 178. Section 56 (1) of the Madras Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, which will be referred to in the course of this judgment as the Act, runs thus: 'Where after an estate is notified, a dispute arises as to (a) whether any rent due from a ryot for any fasli year is in arrear or (b) what amount of rent is in arrear or (c) who the lawful ryot in respect of any holding is, the dispute shall be decided by the Settlement...
Tag this Judgment!K. Hutchi Gowder Vs. H. Bheema Gowder
Court: Chennai
Reported in: AIR1960Mad33
(1) The plaintiff appeals from the judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge, Ootacamund, dated 31-12-1954 in O. S. No. 226 of 1952 on his file. The plaintiff prayed for a decree directing the defendant to execute and register a deed of release or, in the alternative, an instrument of conveyance, in respect of the defendant's undivided 1/6th share in the property known, as Wakefield Estate, Nilgiris. The Subordinate Judge dismissed the plaintiff's suit. Hence the appeal.(2) On 13-9-1946 the plaintiff, defendant and four others entered into the agreement Ex. A. 1. The document states that each of those six persons owned an undivided 1/6th share in the Wakefield estate. The defendant and the four others agreed under that document to sell each his undivided 1/6th share in the estate to the plaintiff in consideration of his paying to each of them Rs. 10,000/-. Rs. 1,000 was paid on the date of the agreement. Paragraph 13 of the agreement states."The purchaser will pay the balance of the p...
Tag this Judgment!Nambikkai Mary Ammal Vs. Prakasa Mary and ors.
Court: Chennai
Reported in: (1959)2MLJ120
ORDERPanchapakesa Ayyar, J.1. This is a petition filed by Nambikkai Mary Animal, plaintiff in O.S. No. 1448 of 1956 on the file of the City Civil Court, Madras, for revising and setting aside the order of the learned Fourth Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, agreeing with the Court-fee Examiner's Check-slip and calling for an additional Court-fee of Rs. 45 from the petitioner. The facts were briefly these.2. The petitioner was given by her deceased mother under a deed of settlement, dated 4th October, 1949, the life interest in a house worth Rs. 3,000. After the lifetime of the mother the property was directed to be taken absolutely by the petitioner subject to her paying her brother, David, and sister Prakasa Mary, 1/3rd of the market value of the house at the time of the death of the mother. The price of the house at the time of the death of the mother was Rs. 3,000. So the petitioner had to pay her brother David and sister Mary Rs. 1,000 each under the mother's directions. She filed...
Tag this Judgment!M.R.N. Mahalinga Nadar and anr. Vs. the Commissioner, H.R. and C.E. an ...
Court: Chennai
Reported in: (1959)2MLJ236
Subrahmanyam, J.1. This civil revision petition is preferred against the order passed by the learned Additional Judge of the City Civil Court, on 24th April, 1958,in O.P. No. 423 of 1957 on his file.2. In Old Washermanpet there is a temple known as Sri Siva Sundara Vinayagar temple. The Area Committee having jurisdiction under Madras Act XIX of 1951(The Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act), passed an order on 27th September, 1955, appointing five non-hereditary trustees for the temple. At that time, the Area Committee treated the second petitioner as the person in management of the affairs of the temple, and sent him a copy of the order appointing non-hereditary trustees and asked him to hand over charge of the temple and its affairs to those non-hereditary trustees. The trustees so appointed are respondents 2 to 6. The Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments, is the first respondent. The petitioners are brothers, the second petitioner being the younger...
Tag this Judgment!K. Hutchi Gowder Vs. H. Bheema Gowder
Court: Chennai
Reported in: (1959)2MLJ324
Subrahmanyam, J.1. The plaintiff appeals from the judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge, Ottacamund, dated 31st December, 1954, in O.S. No. 226 of 1952, on his file. The plaintiff prayed for a decree directing the defendant to execute and register a deed of release or, in the alternative, an instrument of conveyance in respect of the defendant's undivided 1/6th share in the property known as Wakefield Estate, Nilgiris. The Subordinate Judge dismissed the plaintiff's suit. Hence the appeal.2. On 13th September, 1946, the plaintiff-defendant and four others entered into the agreement Exhibit A-1. The document states that each of those six persons owned an undivided 1/6th share in the Wakefield Estate. The defendant and the four others agreed under that document to sell each his undivided 1/6th share in the estate to the plaintiff in consideration of his paying to each of them Rs. 10,000. Rs. 1,000 was paid on the date of the agreement. Paragraph 3 of the agreement states:The purchase...
Tag this Judgment!M. Ramiza Bi Saheba Vs. Income-tax Officer, Madras
Court: Chennai
Reported in: AIR1960Mad357; [1959]37ITR204(Mad); (1959)2MLJ1
ORDER(1) Ahmed Batcha, the husband of the petitioner, and his son Abdul Rahman traded in partnership. The name of the firm was Malang Trading Company. After the death of these two, the petitioner and Qumarunnissa, the widow of Abdur Rahman, entered into a partnership, evidenced by the partnership deed dated 6th March 1952, and continued the business under the same name. The petitioner's minor son Hayat and Qumarunnissa's minor son Ahmed Batcha were admitted to the benefits of the partnership, each of the minors was allotted a four annas share. The petitioner had a seven anna share, and Quamarunnissa, a one anna share.(2) For the assessment years 1953-54, 1954-55, and 1955-56 the Income-tax Officer refused to grant registration under Sec. 26-A to Malang Trading Company, and he treated it as an association of persons for purposes of assessment to tax. The assessees appealed to the Assistant Commissioner. He granted registration and directed the Income-tax Officer to make the consequentia...
Tag this Judgment!