Chennai Court April 1961 Judgments
A. Andi and ors. Vs. Nallayya Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-27-1961
Reported in: AIR1962Mad416
1. This Revision Petition arises from the Order of the District Munsif of Sivaganga in O.S. No. 465 of 1957, directing the plaintiffs to pay a sum of Rs. 664-8-0 as additional Court-fee. The suit was one for a declaration of the plaintiffs' title to the property and for an injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with their possession. The defendant had obtained iruwaram rights under a cowle from the Zamindar of Sivaganga in certain properties. It is stated in the plaint that on 18th November, 1938 the defendant put into possession of the plaintiffs an extent of 17 acres, 63 cents of land for the purpose of reclamation and cultivation. It is the plaintiffs' case that since that agreement they have been in possession and enjoyment of the land after effecting improvements on the property at considerable expense. By arrangement entered into amongst the plaintiffs, each one of them held possession of definite portions out of the 17 acres, 63 cents which were given to them by t...
Tag this Judgment!A. Andi and ors. Vs. Nallayya Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-27-1961
Reported in: (1962)1MLJ172
ORDERRamachandra Iyer, J.1. This Revision Petition arises from the Order of the District Munsif of Sivaganga in O.S. No. 465 of 1957, directing the plaintiffs to pay a sum of Rs. 664-8-0 as additional Court-fee. The suit was one for a declaration of the plaintiffs' title to the property and for an injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with their possession. The defendant had obtained iruwaram rights under a cowle from the Zamindar of Sivaganga in certain properties. It is stated in the plaint that on 18th November, 1938 the defendant put into possession of the plaintiffs an extent of 17 acres, 63 cents of land for the purpose of reclamation and cultivation. It is the plaintiffs' case that since that agreement they have been in possession and enjoyment of the land after effecting improvements on the property at considerable expense. By arrangement entered into amongst the plaintiffs, each one of them held possession of definite portions out of the 17 acres, 63 cents whic...
Tag this Judgment!Muniammal and ors. Vs. Thulukkana Naicker and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-25-1961
Reported in: AIR1962Mad338
ORDER(1) The petitioners were the obstruction, against whom an order has been made by the Second Assistant Judge for removal of the obstruction. It would appear that originally, E. P. No. 543 of 1959 was filed for a delivery of possession. Obstruction was caused by these petitioners, and E. A. No. 1639 of 1959 was filed for the removal of obstruction. This application was made on 24-8-16-959. In the meantime however, these obstructors had apparently filed a suit, O. S. No. 2408 of 1959 for a declaration of the title to the property and for an injuction restraining the decree holder from executing the order for delivery that he had obtained in E. A. No. 1639 of 1959 referred to above. It is stated through it is borne out by the records, that an order of interim injuction was made towards the end of August 1959. That order appear to have been finally vacated only on 23-12-1959 when the suit filed by the obstructor was itself dismissed. In the meantime, however, E. P. No. 543 of 1959 whic...
Tag this Judgment!Valliammai Achi Vs. Velu Servai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-25-1961
Reported in: (1962)1MLJ197
Ramachandra Iyer, J.1. These appeals arise from the Judgment of Veeraswami, J., setting aside a preliminary decree for partition passed by the lower Courts. One Alangaram Chettiar who has been examined as P.W. 2 in the case had two sons 'through his wife, Valliammai, Samban Chettiar and Alangaram Chettiar (first defendant). On nth August, 1935, the suit properties were purchased on behalf of Samban Chettiar and Alangaram Chettiar who were then minors. They were represented in the sale transaction by their father. Samban and the first defendant were thus the co-owners of the property. Samban died in the year 1942 and his mother Valliammai succeeded to his share in the property as his heir. It appears from the evidence, that subsequent to the death of Samban the precise date not being ascertainable - the patta for the property was transferred in the name of the first defendant alone. It is now found by all the Courts that. Alangaram Chettiar, his wife Valliammai and their son the first d...
Tag this Judgment!Sv. P. N. Sithambara Nadar Sons Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-24-1961
Reported in: [1962]46ITR318(Mad)
SRINIVASAN J. - The assessee is a firm doing business at Virudhunagar. It is a partnership concern consisting of three partners. Its status under the income-tax law was that of a registered firm. It was assessed to excess profits tax in the chargeable accounting period commencing on January 31, 1941, and ending on January 30, 1942. Now it appears that the same partners of this assessee firm were also carrying on a business at Madurai. Previously that business had been an unregistered partnership of these three persons and one Seeni Nadar. This Seeni Nadar died on the 23rd December, 1940. Subsequently thereto, that business was carried on in partnership by these three persons and the profits were divided in the same ratio as in respect of the Virudhunagar business. In making the assessment to excess profits tax for the chargeable accounting period referred to, the Excess Profits Tax Officer aggregated the profits of the Madurai business along with the Virudhunagar business. From this or...
Tag this Judgment!P.S. Pattabhiraman and ors. Vs. Ganapathy Kannappa Mudali and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-21-1961
Reported in: AIR1962Mad202
ORDER(1) This civil revision petition is filed against the order of the District Munsif of Sholinghur in I. A. No. 327 of 1959 in O. S. No. 32 of 1959, declining to issue a third party notice under the provision of Order VIII-A C.P.C.(2) Subramania Pillai the deceased father of the petitioners, executed, on 11-2-1959, in favour of one Chinna Munuswami Mudali, a promissory note for a sum of Rs. 3000/- The respondent claiming that he obtained an assignment of the promissory note and thereby became a holder in due course, filed a suit against the petitioners, the sons of the executant, for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 4750/- Chinna Munuswami was not made a party to the suit.(3) The petitioners raised various contentions to the claim; they alleged that a number of payments had been made to the original payee, Chinna Munjuswami Mudali, and on his behalf to his two undivided sons, Kalathiswaran and Shanmugam in respect of which no credit hid been given; they also denied that the respondent w...
Tag this Judgment!Chellammal Vs. Abdul Gaffoor Sahib and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-21-1961
Reported in: AIR1962Mad1
Srinivasan, J.(1) The correctness of the decision in Sreenivasa Rao v. Abdul Rahim Sahib : AIR1956Mad618 is the question that is raised in these two appeals. We shall briefly set out the facts leading thereto.(2) S. A. No. 1048 of 1957 arises out of a suit on a mortgage executed on 26-10-1949. The principal sum was Rs. 2000/- and the contract rate of interest 18 per cent. A sum of Rs. 900/- had been paid by the mortgagors towards interest upto 1-4-1952. It has been duly appropriated. In the suit, the mortgagors contended that the payment of Rs. 900/- should be credited towards the principal. Relying on Ramalakshmi v. Gopalakrishna Rao : AIR1945Mad12 the trial Court rejected this contention; but in appeal, the learned Subordinate Judge held that : AIR1956Mad618 , applied to the facts of the case. He accordingly reopened the appropriation already made. By the time the matter came up in second appeal before Somasundaram, J., the decision in S. M. Tharanganar v. Sankarapandia Mudaliar, : A...
Tag this Judgment!M. Abdul Razack Vs. S. Mohammad Shah
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-21-1961
Reported in: AIR1962Mad346
(1) The order of the lower court impleading the husband of the second defendant as a party to the partition suit cannot be supported. The claim of the third party is that he was entitled to the suit property in his own right. Admittedly, he is not one of the sharers to the estate of Madarsa Sahib. It is well settled that, in substance, a partition suit between Mohamadan co-sharers is in the nature of an administration suit. The question of the title of the third parties to the estate will not always be a proper one for adjudication In a suit for administration. Mr. K. Hariharan contends that, the plea that the respondent was entitled to the property had already been taken by defendants 1 and 2 in the case, and that, if e is impleaded as a party, multiplicity of suits will he avoided. These are not the only considerations that should guide a court in impleading a party to the suit. The power to implead a party to a suit is governed by O. 1, Rule 10, C.P.C. A party can he impleaded only ...
Tag this Judgment!Public Prosecutor Vs. Syed Rowther and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-21-1961
Reported in: [1962]13STC69(Mad)
Anantanarayanan, J.1. This appeal possesses a considerable degree of interest, from the point of view of the citizen and of the rights of the general public in relation to departmental officers, such as officers entrusted with the implementation of the provisions of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, (Madras Act IX of 1939). What has actually happened in this case is that the learned Sub-divisional Magistrate of Dindigul tried the two respondents upon the following charges : that on 21st July, 1958, at Dindigul, they used criminal force to Thangiah (P.W. 1), the Special Assistant Commercial Tax Officer of Dindigul, with intent to prevent or deter him from discharging his duties as a public servant and thereby committed an offence under Section 353, Indian Penal Code, and that the same accused (the respondents) obstructed the inspection of accounts by the aforesaid Sri Thangiah (P.W. 1) and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 15(2)(b) of the Madras General Sales Tax Act...
Tag this Judgment!Peria Maria Gounden Vs. P.K. Ramaswami Goundar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-21-1961
Reported in: (1962)1MLJ106
Ramachandra Iyer, J.1. This Revision Petition raises the question whether a landlord would be entitled to take advantage of the provisions of the Madras Fair Rent Act (XXIV of 1956) (which will be hereinafter referred to as the Act), and institute proceedings for fixation of a fair rent against a cultivating tenant who owns or enjoys as a tenant lands exceeding 6| acres. The petitioner obtained a lease for a period of three years from the year 1953, of an extent of 1968 acres of lands which were partly garden lands and partly dry lands with coconut trees from the owner, one Palani Chettiar. The rent reserved under the lease was Rs. 625 per annum.Although the period of the lease had expired, the petitioner continued in possession of the properties, claiming to be a cultivating tenant entitled to protection under the Madras Cultivating Tenants' Protection Act, 1955. Palani Chettiar sold the lands to the respondent for a sum of Rs. 16,000. Soon after the purchase, the respondent filed a p...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »