Chennai Court August 1961 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.
M. Abdul Salam and ors. Vs. Lourdusami Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-11-1961
Reported in: (1962)1MLJ319
Ganapatia Pillai, J.1. These two petitions arise out of a common order passed by the Principal District Munsif, Salem, in two petitions under Order 21, Rules 104 and 105 and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. These two petitions before the lower Court were to restore R.E.A. No. 1326 of 1956 and R.E.A. No. 648 of 1956 which were dismissed on 16th April, 1958, for non-prosecution. The petitioners before me who were the decree-holders before the District Munsif had obtained an order of eviction of the respondent from a building and they applied to the District Munsif for execution of that order for obtaining delivery of possession. These two petitions, one for recognising the assignment and the other for an order of delivery, came up before the District Munsif on a particular date. On that date the counsel for the decree-holder was not present. A request for adjournment till the counsel appeared was refused. The party was unable to go on with the proceeding and consequently, the ...
Srimathi Amman Ammal Vs. Muthuswami Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-11-1961
Reported in: (1962)1MLJ381
ORDERGanapatia Pillai, J.1. The liability of a party claiming mesne profits by way of restitution to pay Court-fee on that claim arises in this Civil Revision Petition. The petitioner was the 1st defendant in a suit, which was laid by the plaintiff for recovery of possession of two items of property, a piece of land and a house. The petitioner resisted the suit on various grounds and also claimed title to the house. Both the District Munsif and the District Judge on appeal held against the petitioner's claim in respect of the house. On the strength of the decree granted by the District Munsif the plaintiff obtained possession of the house from the petitioner, and promptly he demolished a portion of the house and let out the other portion of the house. A compromise was entered into at the stage of Second Appeal by which petitioner's title to the house was recognised and she was declared to be entitled to possession thereof. The decree passed by this Court was based upon this compromise....
Sri La Sri Subramania Desika Gnanasambanda Pandara Sannathi, Hereditar ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-11-1961
Reported in: (1962)2MLJ67
ORDERS. Ramachandra Iyer, O.C.J.1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for calling for the papers relating to G.O. No. 3069 (Revenue), dated 4th August, 1956, for declaring that the Amending Act IX of 1956 and the aforesaid Government Order issued thereunder are ultra vires and inoperative to the extent to which they affect the rights of the petitioner, and for the issue of a writ of prohibition or other appropriate writ directing the Commissioner of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments, Madras, and the officials under him to forbear from further interference with the rights of the petitioner as hereditary trustees of Rajan Kattalai pertaining to Sri Thyagarajaswami Temple, Thiruvarur.2. In the town of Thiruvarur in the Thanjavur District there is an ancient temple noted alike for its beauty and sanctity. The presiding deity of this temple is Sri Thyagarajaswami. The peculiar feature of the temple is that apart from an allowance called the Mohini allowance, th...
B. Mahadeva Rao Vs. Yesoda Bai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-10-1961
Reported in: AIR1962Mad141
ORDER(1) This revision petition involves a question of some interest, whether with regard to children born out of lawful wedlock, any presumption of paternity can arise in a proceeding under Sec. 488, Cri. P. C. Merely upon the entries found in certain Birth Register extracts, where there is no evidence to show that the alleged father was the informant, or that he gave some information constituting an admission of paternity.(2) Briefly stated, the facts are that the revision petitioner was on terms of illicit intimacy with the respondent, one Yesoda Bai alias Radha Bai, a person related to him. But the revision petitioner himself has a wife, and six children born to him in lawful wedlock. Whatever might have been the attitude of the revision petitioner in the court below, his learned counsel (Sri. N. Suryanarayana) now concedes that the intimacy itself is indisputable. Further, it is clear that one child was born to the revision petitioner and the respondent (the petitioner in the cour...
Mohamed Abdul Kadar Syed Mohammed and anr. Vs. Mohamed ThassIn Mohamme ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-10-1961
Reported in: AIR1962Mad432
(1) The respondent in this civil miscellaneous second appeal was the second plaintiff in O. S. No. 922 of 1118 M. E. on the file of the District Munsif's Court, Nagarcoil, who obtained a mortgage decree in his favour and who in due course of execution proceedings of that decree purchased the hypotheca. The Court sale was held on 30-1-1955 and the respondent-decree-holder and auction purchaser obtained a sale certificate dated 27-8-1955. In C. M. P. No. 2856 of 1956, he applied for delivery of the properties comprised in the sale sanad and obtained a delivery order on 23-3-1956 in his favour. Men the amin entrusted with the task of delivery attempted to execute the. warrant of delivery he was met with obstruction from the two appellants in this appeal. The respondent therefore filed C. M. P. No. 5456 of 1956 in the District Munsif's Court of Nagarcoil, on 14-5-1956 complaining of the obstruction of the appellants and seeking to removal the obstruction and to obtain delivery of the prope...
Pushpa Talkies Vs. Its workmen (through the Secretary, South Indian Ci ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-10-1961
Reported in: (1961)IILLJ787Mad
ORDERVeeraswami, J.1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seeks to quash the award of the labour court, dated 15 June 1959, directing the petitioner to reinstate seven workers in service within a week after its publication in the fort St. George Gazette.2. The petitioner is sub-lessee of not only the leasehold interest in the land and building constituting the cinema theatre but also an assignee of the equipment, including a projector for running cinematograph business. From the original owners of the site and building, the lessor of the petitioner had taken out a lease of these properties. The agreement to transfer the site and building was dated 7 December 1958, which was executed by the lessor in favour of the petitioner, On 27 December 1968, the lessor, who was the previous employer, put up ft notice which ran thus:Take notice that since we have relinquished the business of Pushpa Talkies with effect from 27 December 1958 to one V. Subramaniam of Salem, your service...
The Management of Pushpa Talkies Vs. Workers in Pushpa Talkies represe ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-10-1961
Reported in: (1962)1MLJ415
ORDERVeeraswami, J.1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seeks to quash the award of the Labour Court, dated 15th June, 1959, directing the petitioner to reinstate seven workers in service within a week after its publication in the Fort St. George Gazette.2. The Petitioner is sub-lessee of not only the leasehold interest in the land and building constituting the Cinema Theatre but also an assignee of the equipment, including a projector for running cinematograph business. From the original owners of the site and building, the lessor of the petitioner had taken out a lease of those properties. The agreement to transfer the site and building was, dated 7th December, 1958, which was executed by the lessor in favour of the petitioner. On 27th December, 1958, the lessor, who was the previous employer, put up a notice which ran thus:Take notice that since we have relinquished the business of Pushpa Talkies with effect from 27th December, 1956, to one Mr. V. Subramaniam of Sa...
B. Mahadeva Rao Vs. Yasoda Bai Alias Radha Bai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-10-1961
Reported in: (1962)2MLJ107
ORDERAnantanarayanan, J.1. This Revision Petition involves a question of some interest whether with regard to children born out of lawful wedlock, any presumption of paternity can arise in a proceeding under Section 488, Criminal Procedure Code, merely upon the entries found in certain Birth Register Extracts, where there is no evidence to show that the alleged father was the informant, or that he gave some information constituting an admission of paternity.2. Briefly stated, the facts are that the revision petitioner was on terms of illicit intimacy with the respondent, one Yesoda Bai alias Radha Bai, a person related to him. But the revision petitioner himself has a wife, and six children born to him in lawful wedlock Whatever might have been the attitude of the revision petitioner in the Court below, his learned Counsel (Sri N. Suryanarayana) now concedes that the intimacy itself is indisputable. Further , it is clear that one child was born to the revision petitioner and the respon...
T.S. Srinivasan Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-09-1961
Reported in: (1962)1MLJ163
S. Ramachandra Iyer, O.C.J.1. The assessee and his brothers along with their father originally constituted a joint Hindu family. In the year 1929 there was a partition of their interest in a company an important item of property belonging to the family under which the assessee obtained 25-shares, each valued at Rs. 1,000. This asset enabled the assessee, in course of years to acquire considerable properties.Besides, the assessee was himself employed in one capacity or another in the company in respect of which he had been receiving salaries. The income from the properties as well as the remuneration received by the assessee were his separate income after 1929 and the assessee was accordingly assessed to tax as an individual. On nth December, 1952, a son was born to the assessee. In submitting his return for the assessment year 1952-53 (the year of account being from 1st April, 1952 to 31st March, 1953) the assessee stated that he should be assessed in regard to his salary alone as an i...
S.S. Ahobala Sastriar Vs. S.P. Kalimuthu Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-09-1961
Reported in: (1962)1MLJ304
Veeraswami, J.1. This Appeal is directed against the Judgment and Decree of the learned Principal Subordinate Judge of Coimbatore dismissing the appellant's suit to enforce two mortgages executed in his favour and dated respectively October 2, 1942 and February, 10, 1944, the first of them securing repayment of a sum of Rs. 3,000 and the second a sum of Rs. 7,000. Both the mortgages were with possession and prescribed specific periods for redemption. The first of the mortgages recited.2. A similar recital was also found in the other mortgage. The defence to the suit was that the mortgages were usufructuary ones and as such the suit to enforce them by bringing the hypotheca to sale was not maintainable. The defendant also claimed that inasmuch as he had, under Section 83 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, deposited the moneys due under the mortgages, as scaled down by the provisions of Section g-A of the Madras Agriculturists Relief Act, 1938, as amended by Madras Act (XXIV of 1950)...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »