Chennai Court March 1959 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.
Ramaswami and ors. Vs. Muniswami and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-31-1959
Reported in: AIR1960Mad124
(1) This second appeal is preferred against the decree and judgment of the learned District Judge of North Arcot at Vellore in A.S. No. 49 of 1955, confirming the decree and judgment of the learned District Munsif of Vellore in O. S. No. 502 of 1953.(2) The facts of this case have been fully set out in the judgments of the Courts below and need not be recapitulated. The only point for determination is a point of law.(3) Both Courts below have come to the conclusion that a well which is the subject-matter of the controversy was the substantial source of irrigation for the lands which are now held by the defendants and which at one time along with the lands now held by the plaintiffs constituted one tenement. Is this substantial source of irrigation for the defendants;' lands an easement of necessity or a quasi-easement giving the defendants a right to use the said well(4) The learned District Judge came to the conclusion that this cannot be described as an easement of necessity but that...
Srinivasalu Naidu Vs. S.K. Thangavelu Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-30-1959
Reported in: (1959)2MLJ235
Ganapatia Pillai, J.1. This appeal is directed against the appellate order of the District Judge, Chingleput, in A.S. No. 216 of 1956. That appeal was against the order of the District Munsif of Conjeevaram in M.P. No. 461 of 1956 in O.S. No. 318 of 1951. That was an application of the judgment-debtor in a mortgage suit for scaling down the decree debt in accordance with Madras Act IV of 1938. He sought to obtain the relief of scaling down in pursuance of Section 16 of the Amending Act XXIII of 1948. This Act came into force only on 25th January, 1949. The District Munsif dismissed the application for scaling down the decree on the ground that the parties had come to a compromise in I.A. No. 15 of 1952 which was an application made by the judgment-debtor to set aside the ex parte decree. The agreement alleged was that in consideration of the decree-holder giving up a sum of Rs. 150 from out of the decree amount the judgment-debtor agreed not to pursue his application for setting aside ...
Vellayammal Vs. Srikumara Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-27-1959
Reported in: AIR1960Mad42
(1) This second appeal is preferred against the decree and judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge of Dindigul in A. S. No. 34 of 196, reversing the well-considered judgment of the learned District Munsif of Dindigul in O. S. No. 48 of 1954.(2) The established facts are: The plaintiff Vellayammal was married to the first defendant Ramaswami Pillai in 1940. One child was born of this union but it died. The families of the plaintiff and the first defendant fell out. The first defendant started neglecting the plaintiff and she had to go to her father's house and stay there. The second defendant is practically the next door neighbour distant relative of the parties well acquainted with the affairs of these families. In these circumstances the 2nd defendant took a sale of all the properties of the first defendant, excepting the family residential house, under two sale deeds Exts. B. 1 and B. 2 for Rs. 500 and Rs. 200 respectively. The consideration was made up of the execution of a promis...
V.S.T. Thanusthasseem Hammepalli Madarasa, Melapalayam Vs. Melapalayam ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-27-1959
Reported in: AIR1959Mad506
1. These are applications under Art. 226 of the Constitution to call for the records connected with the demand notice No. 176 (Assessment No. 9518) for the half year ending 31-34955 and demand notice No. 362 (assessment No. 9518) for the half year ending 31-3-56 and demand notice No. 112 (Assessment No. 9318) for half year ending 30-9-1955 for door No. 177 Hameenpuram, Malapalayam and to quash the proceedings of the respondent-Municipality relating thereto.2. The petitioner is a charitable institution, who owns a private weekly market in Melapalayam. The market consists of land with sheds and buildings being municipal door Nos. 144 to 177. Upto and during the year 1955-56 each of the aforesaid numbers had a separate annual value put on it for the purpose of assessing the property tax under Section 82 of the Madras District Municipalities Act. The total value for Nos. 144 to 176 was Rs. 1266 and that for No. 177 was Rs. 30, the entire market was thus assessed to Rs. 1302. On 2-3-1956 th...
Public Prosecutor Vs. Shanmugham Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-27-1959
Reported in: (1959)IILLJ802Mad
1. These are appeals preferred by the learned Public Prosecutor against the acquittals arising from C.C. Nos. 2390 to 2393 of 1957, on the file of the Sub-Magistrate, Tanjore.2. The established facts are: The accused Shanmugham Pillai owns two premises bearing door Nos. 2308 and 2310 in Gandhiji Road, Karunthattankudi, Tanjore town. In door No. 2308 he has his shop where the accused sells cigars. Door No. 2310 is the workplace where cigars are rolled. The Assistant Inspector of Labour, First Circle, Tanjore, has chargesheeted this accused under the Madras Shops and Establishments Act XXXVI of 1947, in that with respect to the employees working in the workplace, premises No. 2310, the accused did not observe certain requirements of the aforesaid Act. The learned sub-magistrate upheld the contention of the accused that premises No. 2310 is not a shop and that therefore the prosecution under the Act is Incompetent. Hence these appeals.3. The terms 'shop,' 'factory,' 'workplace,' 'workshop...
V.S.T. Thanusthaseem Hammepalli Madarasa, Represented by Its Huqdar, V ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-27-1959
Reported in: (1959)2MLJ92
ORDERRamachandra Iyer, J.1. These are applications under Article 226 of the Constitution to call for the records connected with the Demand Notice No. 176 (Assessment No. 9518) for the half year ending 31st March, 1955 and Demand Notice No. 362 (Assessment No. 9518) for the half year ending 31st March, 1956 and Demand Notice No. 112 (Assessment No. 9518, for half year ending 30th September, 1955 for Door No. 177, Hameempuram, Melapalayam and to quash the proceedings of the respondent Municipality relating thereto.2. The petitioner is a charitable institution, who owns a private weekly market in Melapalayam. The market consists of land with sheds and buildings bearing municipal door numbers 144 to 177. Upto and during the year 1955-1956 each of the aforesaid numbers had a separate annual value put on it for the purpose of assessing the property tax under Section 82 of the Madras District Municipality Act. The total value for Nos. 144 to 176 was Rs. 1,266 and that for No. 177 was Rs. 36, ...
N.R. Narayanaswamy Iyer Vs. Ramier
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-26-1959
Reported in: (1959)2MLJ420
Rajagopalan, J.1. It was only on the ground of limitation that the plaintiff's claim against the defendant to recover the money due under the promissory note was dismissed. It is the correctness of that conclusion that is the subject-matter of this application for revision.2. It is common ground that unless the provisions of Madras Act I of 1955 could apply, the plaintiff's claim would be beyond the period of limitation. The promissory note was executed on 10th February, 1953, and the suit was filed on 4th September, 1957. The plaintiff could claim the benefit of the period excluded under Section 5 of Act V of 1954. But since the suit was filed only on 4th September, 1957, unless the time which can be excluded under Act I of 1955 is also excluded, the claim would be out of time. In deciding whether the defendant is an agriculturist within the meaning of Section 2 of Act I of 1955, what I have to consider is really whether the defendant comes within the scope of the exclusion in Section...
V.Pr.R.M. Velliammai Achi Vs. V.R.A.R.M. Chockalingam,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-25-1959
Reported in: AIR1960Mad54
(1) This second appeal is preferred by the decree-holder is O.S. No. 125 of 1948 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Devakottai. He filed E. P. No. 112 of 1954 in that suit for bringing the mortgaged properties to sale in execution of the mortgage decree which he had obtained. An objection was taken to this execution by the judgment debtor based upon limitation, and this objection found favour with both the lower courts and the execution petition was dismissed as barred by time. Hence the appeal.(2) The few facts necessary to appreciate the contention are the following: A preliminary mortgage decree was obtained on 31-8-1949. A final decree followed on 10-3-1950. In the meantime, an appeal had been preferred by the judgment debtor against the preliminary decree of the trial court, and this appeal was disposed of on 16-1-1951. It is common ground that the appeal of the judgment debtor was dismissed. But the cross objection preferred by the decree-holder which related to ...
issardas Somamal Lulla Vs. the Collector of Madras and Additional Cust ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-25-1959
Reported in: AIR1959Mad528; (1959)2MLJ313
ORDERRamachandra Iyer, J. 1. This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution to call for the record relating to the order dated 29-12-1958 in proceedings Ac. A. 2/104/58 of the respondent, which purported to cancel the permanent allotment of the export and import rights and the renewal of lease of import ant! export rights given to the petitioner. 2. The petitioner is a displaced person from West Pakistan. By the proceedings dated 17-4-1957, the Additional Custodian of Evacuee Property, Madras granted to the petitioner, the proprietor of Messrs. Oceanic Agencies, a lease of the import and export quota rights possessed by Sri Hussain Kasam Dada, who had been declared to be an evacuee. That lease was granted under Section 10 of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950, and was for a period of one year. It was then renewed for a further period of one year on 16-2-1958. Under instructions from the Regional Settlement Commissioner, Bombay, the Assistant Custodian of Eva...
V.Pr.Rm. Velliammai Achi Through Her Power Agent Kathiresan Chettiar V ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-25-1959
Reported in: (1959)2MLJ422
Ganapatia Pillai, J.1. This Second Appeal is preferred by the decree-holder in O.S No. 125 of 1948 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Devakottai. He filed E.P. No. 112 of 1954 in that suit for bringing the mortgaged properties to sale in execution of the mortgage decree which he had obtained. An objection was taken to this execution by the judgment-debtor based upon limitation, and this objection found favour with both the lower Courts and the execution petition was dismissed as barred by time. Hence, the appeal.2. The few facts necessary to appreciate the contention are the following. A preliminary mortgage decree was obtained on 31st August, 1949. A final decree followed on 10th March,1950. In the meantime, an appeal had been preferred by the judgment-debtor against the preliminary decree of the trial Court, and this appeal was disposed of on 16th January, 1951. It is common ground that the appeal of the judgment-debtor was dismissed. But the cross-objection preferred...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »