Chennai Court July 1961 Judgments
Gajavalli Ammal and anr. Vs. Narayanaswami Mudaliar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-31-1961
Reported in: AIR1962Mad187
(1) The plaintiffs are the appellants. The first plaintiff is the widow of one Govindaswami Mudaliar and the second plaintiff is his daughter. This Govindaswami Mudaliar left a son by his first wife and he is the respondent to the appeal and defendant to the suit. Govindaswami Mudaliar died on 21-11-1953. He and his son Narayanaswami (respondent) were members of a joint Hindu family which owned the properties mentioned in the plaint. The suit was brought for partition and possession of a half share in the family properties as the share due to the first plaintiff who claimed her husband's share under the Hindu Women's Rights to Property Act, 1937. On behalf of the second plaintiff a maintenance provision of Rs. 20 per month and marriage expenses or Rs. 2000 were asked for.(2) The respondent resisted the suit on the strength of a settlement deed dated 17-12-1953 executed by him in favour of the first appellant which, according to him was the result of a panchayat arrangement. It was ple...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Arumugha Gounder and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-31-1961
Reported in: 1962CriLJ762; (1962)2MLJ91
ORDERRamakrishnan, J.1. This criminal miscellaneous, petition arises out of the following circumstances. One Deivasigamani filed a complaint against eleven accused persons in the court of the sub-divisional magistrate Villupuram, alleging that they committed offences punishable under. Sections 506 (2), 392, 647 (evidently a mistake for 447) Indian Penal Code. This list included offences which are cognisable by the police, and thereupon the learned sub-divisional magistrate made an endorsementThe offences complained, of are cognisable. Forwarded to the inspector of police, Tindivanara Town, for investigation and report Under Section 156(3) CrIPCThe police investigated the case and filed a charge-sheet in the court of the sub-magistrate, Tindivanam, for offences Under Section 447 IPC for criminal trespass and 379 IPC for theft.2. The accused raised a preliminary objection before the sub-magistrate, Tindivanam, alleging that the sub-divisional magistrate acted illegally in forwarding the ...
Tag this Judgment!K.S. Janakiram Vs. the Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-31-1961
Reported in: (1962)1MLJ188
Srinivasan, J.1. The assessee was a partnership firm doing business as freight brokers for various shipping lines including Ashoka Lines, Ltd. Later, it became the proprietary concern of the assessee. It would appear that a firm known as 'Inden Biselers' was in need of a vessel for the carriage of tiles from the ports on the West Coast to ports in Ceylon. A charter party was entered into by this firm with Ashoka Lines, Ltd., the latter agreeing to provide a vessel called 'Menaka', later re-named 'Manek Prasad'. The Ashoka Lines, Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the owners) had to purchase the vessel and make it available to the charterers Inden Biselers. They were however in somewhat straitened circumstances and had need of funds to enable the purchase. The charterers agreed to advance a sum of Rs. 25,000 which was to be adjusted against the freight payable. The charterers were however unwilling to rely solely on the owners with regard to the repayment of this sum. They accordingly req...
Tag this Judgment!M.S.V.V. Thayanayagi Achi Vs. C.T.C.T. Chidambaram Chettiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-28-1961
Reported in: AIR1962Mad406
S. Ramachandra Iyer, Offg.C.J.(1) The appellant in these appeals is the wife of one Venkatachalam Chettiar, a businessman belonging to the Nattukotti Chetti community, who had an ancestral family money-lending business and considerable Properties in Burma, besides other properties in this country. In accordance with the custom of the community moneys by way of Stridhana and Seemurai were presented to the appellant by her father at the time of her marriage and those moneys were Entrusted to her father-in-law for the purpose of investment and improvement of his business at Burma. It is stated that moneys entrusted came to Rs. 16,575-0-3 oil 13th April 1940 and that the amount due at present would be very much above Rs. 20.000. It was held by, this Court in several cases that moneys presented to a bride on the occasion of marriage, In accordance with the custom of the community, which is handed over to the husband's people for the purpose of investment is held in trust by the person who r...
Tag this Judgment!Duraisami Nadar Vs. Sudalaimada Nadar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-28-1961
Reported in: AIR1962Mad181; (1962)1MLJ40
(1) This appeal originally came on before Subrahmanyam J., who considered that it should be heard by a Division Bench, mainly because, in his opinion, the decision of a Division bench inVenkatasubba Reddi v. C. Linga Reddi, 41 Ind Cas 640 : (AIR 1918 Mad 554 (1)) required reconsideration. The learned Judge formulated the following questions as falling for decision in the appeal :1. Whether, in the matter of limitation, suits, for which provision is not made by Order XXI rule 103 C.P.C., are not governed by Art. 11-A of the Limitation Act notwithstanding that such suits are within the terms of Art. 11-A and2. Whether an order dismissing an application made under Or. XXI rule 100 may be deemed to be an order passed under rule 101, where such an order is made (i) by the court on the merits after investigation of the claim made by the applicant, (ii) by the court on such application being not pressed by the applicant after a date had been fixed under rule 100 (2) for investigation of the ...
Tag this Judgment!H. Venkata Sastri and Sons by Its Manager H. Venkata Sastri (Died) and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-28-1961
Reported in: (1962)1MLJ78
Ramachandra Iyer, J.1. The following question has been referred for the opinion of the Full Bench:Whether the decision in Veerappa Chettiar v. Subrahmania Iyer (1928) 55 M.L.J. 749 : I.L.R. Mad. 123 requires reconsideration.2. The appeals which have given occasion for the reference involve a question as to the validity of a security bond executed in favour of the Registrar of this Court creating a charge over certain immoveable properties for payment of the amount due under a decree. The document was attested only by one witness at the time of execution. When the document was presented for registration, the admission of execution by the Mortgagor was vouched by the signature of the Registrar. Two persons who identified the mortgagor before the Registrar also affixed their signature in token of their identification. The appellant, who impugned the validity of the security bond, contends that neither the Registrar nor the identifying witnesses could be deemed to be attesting witnesses, a...
Tag this Judgment!Nachal Achi by Agent S.V.R. Muthappa Chettiar Vs. Sowrimuthu Udayar an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-21-1961
Reported in: (1962)1MLJ361
ORDERGanapatia Pillai, J.1. This batch of Civil Revision Petitions arises out of a common order made by the Special Deputy Collector, Tiruchirapalli in a batch of petitions filed by the landlord for eviction against 11 tenants. It was alleged that the tenants had refused to pay rent due for 1957-58 samba crop. It is common ground that the tenancy agreement was a waram agreement by which the landlord and the tenant had agreed to share the crop equally with the additional burden of the landlord being liable to pay half a markkal per kalam out of the yield for wages for harvesting the crop. It is also agreed that two bundles of straw for every five kalams of the gross produce had to be delivered by the tenant to the landlord. A lease deed embodying these terms had been executed by all the tenants (respondents) in favour of the landlord for the year prior to the year of the petition. Admittedly in the year 1957-58, disputes arose, the tenants claiming that they would be liable to pay only ...
Tag this Judgment!P.C. Dakshinamurthy Vs. the State (Corporation of Madras by Its Assess ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-21-1961
Reported in: (1962)2MLJ103
ORDERRamakrishnan, J.1. This is a revision against an order of the Sixth Presidency Magistrate, Saidapet, Madras, in M.C. No. 155 of 1960. The Commissioner of the Corporation of Madras, represented by an assessor, prosecuted the accused for arrears of property tax due to the Corporation for four half years commencing from the second half-year of 1957-58 to the first-half year of 1959-60. Rule 20 of the Rules under Schedule IV of the City Municipal Act provides that before tax can be collected a notice shall be served in the prescribed form on the person who has to pay the tax. Rule 21 provides that if the tax so demanded in the notice has not been paid within 15 days from the service of the notice, the Commissioner can recover it by distraint under a warrant and sale of the movable properties of the defaulter. Rule 22 says that if for any reason distraint or sufficient distraint of the defaulter's movable properties is impracticable, the Commissioner may prosecute the defaulter before ...
Tag this Judgment!Janab Abubucker Sait Vs. the Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-19-1961
Reported in: (1962)1MLJ298
S. Ramachandra Iyer, O.C.J.1. The following questions have been referred to us for our decision:(1) Whether the determination of the profits on the sale of lands at Rs. 66,000 and its inclusion and assessment under the head business is lawful and correct?(2) Whether on the material on record the Appellate Tribunal could reasonably come to a finding that the sum of Rs. 30,000 was an income from undisclosed sources?2. These questions arise in proceedings relating to the assessment of one Abubucker Sait for the year 1948-49 the year of account being the corresponding financial year. The assessee owns a coffee plantation at Yercaud and he also grows oranges and gallnut on other lands. The income from the former source is received through the India Coffee Board. That from the latter directly. In one year, the income by the sale of oranges and gallnuts is said to have approximated Rs. 3,000. The assessee says that he maintains no accounts. He did not file any return of income for the year 19...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Vellaisamy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-19-1961
Reported in: (1962)2MLJ100
Ramakrishnan, J.1. The accused was convicted by the learned Sixth Presidency Magistrate, Saidapet, Madras, under Section 5 of the Madras Prohibition Act for possession of spirit or preparation containing spirit in respect of which he knows or has reason to believe that attempt had been made to render it fit for human consumption. He was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 750 with default sentence. He appeals from the conviction and sentence.2. The prosecution case against the accused is this. On information received, P.W. 1 Inspector of Police with a party of persons went to the shop of the accused in Appu Mudali Street. As soon as the police van neared the shop, the accused was found running away. His shop was searched in the presence of two witnesses and a bottle M.O. 1 containing four ounces of liquor was recovered under a mahazar Exhibit P-1. Chemical examination showed that this spirit had been mixed with articles like caoutcheucine and pyri...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »