Chennai Court July 1963 Judgments
In Re: Vairana Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-31-1963
Reported in: 1966CriLJ222
Anantanarayanan, J.1. The appellant before us, an elderly man, named, Vairana Pillai, has been convicted by the learned Session Judge, Madurai, of the murder of his wife, Nallammali and also of causing grievous hurt with 'a deadly weapon to his sister-in-law Vallayammal (P. W, 1) during the course of the same transaction. He was sentenced by the learned Judge to imprisonment for life upon the capital charge and to rigorous imprisonment for three years under Section 326, I. P. G the sentences being directed to run concurrently.2. The facts are very simple, and the background is of some significance, with regard to the particular ilea advanced by the learned Counsel for the appellant on his behalf. The evidence abundantly proves that the appellant was not leading a happy married life with Nallammal (deceased), mainly owing to the aggressive and unyielding temperament of the latter, and her unfeeling behaviour towards her husband. We have the evidence of close relatives and neighbors like...
Tag this Judgment!C.D. Sankara Narayanan Vs. the Egmore Benefit Society (Third Branch) L ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-29-1963
Reported in: AIR1964Mad256
Kunhamed Kutti, J.1. The plaintiff is the appellant in this second appeal. In O.S. No. 477 of 1949 on the file of the City Civil Court, Madras, he sued for a declaration of his title to, and partition of, his one-fifth share in the suit properties. That suit was decreed declaring his title to one-fifth share and directing partition and allotment of the said one-fifth share in final decree proceedings on his producing the probate of the Will executed by his grandfather, Rajagopala Mudaliar. In appeal, the first Additional Judge set aside the said decree and dismissed the suit.2. To appreciate the controversy between the parties, it is necessary to state the brief facts. The suit property originally belonged to Rajagopala Mudaliar. He executed a sale deed Ex. B-l in favour of his wife Ammakannu Ammal, the tenth defendant, on 6-4-1910. Thereafter, a certificate was issued by the Tahsildar of Madras to the tenth defendant as owner of the property and she is said to have mortgaged the prope...
Tag this Judgment!T.S. Raghupathi Iyer (Died) His Legal Representatives T.R. Sitharamiah ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-26-1963
Reported in: AIR1964Mad16
Veeraswami, J.1. This second appeal raises an interesting question as to the scope of Order XXII, Rule 9, C. P. Code. The legal representatives of the plaintiff are the appellants. The suit was for a declaration of the plaintiff's title to the suit properties and for recovery of possession thereof from the respondent. The properties admittedly belonged originally to one Ramakrishna Aiyar, who died in, April 1903, leaving his son Ramachandran and widow Ramammal. Ramachandran died in October 1903, and his mother, as his heir, succeeded to the suit properties. Ramammal instituted O.S. No. 440 of 1952 on the file of the Court of the District Munsif, Tirupattur, against the respondent for a declaration of her title to the suit properties, and for recovery of possession thereof. She claimed that the respondent was her lessee and was denying her title by setting up adverse possession. While this suit was pending, she surrendered the suit properties to the plaintiff in the present suit on 6th ...
Tag this Judgment!B. Sangarmal Sowcar Vs. K. Murugesa Naicker
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-26-1963
Reported in: AIR1964Mad77
Venkatadri, J.1. This civil revision petition arises cut of S. C. S. No. 738 of 1960 on the file of the Court of Small Causes, Madras filed by the petitioner for recovery of the balance of the loan advanced to the respondent on the security of jewels pledged with him.2. Originally, the respondent borrowed a sum of Rs. 950 on 19-6-1954, and executed a promissory note. Subsequently the respondent deposited with the petitioner some gold jewels as security for the loan on 25-6-1954. Since the respondent did not pay the loan the petitioner brought the pledged jewels to auction after due notice to the respondent. The amount due and payable to the petitioner was about Rs. 1316-50 nP. as on 17-6-1957. He realised by the sale of the pledged jewels Rs. 989 on 17-6-1957. After giving credit to that amount, the petitioner filed the suit for recovery of the balance of Rs. 327-50 with interest at 12 per cent per annum on that amount upto the date of suit.3. The defence to the suit was that it was ba...
Tag this Judgment!Subbalakshmi Ammal Vs. Ramalakshmi Ammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-26-1963
Reported in: AIR1964Mad76
Ramamurti, J.1. This revision petition raises a question of construction of Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.2. The properties involved in the suit originally belonged to one Subba Rao, who died in 1948, leaving behind him his widow Meenakshi, one son and six daughters. The son died in 1950 leaving behind him his widow, Subbalakshmi. Misunderstandings arose between the mother-in-law and the daughter-in-law, and Meenakshi filed the suit, O.S. No. 8 of 1961 for partition and separate possession of her half share in the suit properties under section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act of 1956 and Hindu Women's Rights to Property Act, 1937.3. Even before the passing of a preliminary decree Meenakshi died in May 1962 and her daughters filed an application to get themselves impleaded as the legal representatives of their mother. The daughter-in-law who was the defendant in the suit raised objection that the right which the mother, Meenakshi had was a purely personal right, that the sa...
Tag this Judgment!Nallathambi Nadar Chellakannu Nadar Vs. Ammal Nadachi Chellathankom Na ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-26-1963
Reported in: AIR1964Mad169
S. Ramachandra Iyer, C.J.1. This second appeal arises out of a suit for redemption brought by one co-mortgagor against another who had earlier redeemed the mortgage and obtained possession of the mortgaged properties. The question which has necessitated a reference to the Full Bench can be formulated thus:'Whether in order to constitute a valid acknowledgment of liability under Section 19 of the Indian Limitation Act, it is essential that the person acknowledging should be under a liability its regard to the right in dispute at the time when he made the acknowledgment or whether it would be sufficient if he were liable at the time of the suit or an application in respect of that liability.'2. Before considering the question we shall refer to the facts which have given rise to this appeal. Madi Pillai, the original owner of the property which forms the subject-matter of this litigation, created in the year 1869 (14-10-1044 M. E.) a usufructuary mortgage over it in favour of one Raman Ku...
Tag this Judgment!Valliamma Champaka Vs. Sivathanu Pillai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-26-1963
Reported in: AIR1964Mad269
S. Ramachandra Iyer, C.J.1. This appeal filed against the judgment of Ramakrishnan, J. has been referred to a Full. Bench, as it raises an important question regarding the period of limitation applicable to a suit for redemption filed by one mortgagor of his share of the mortgaged properties against another who redeemed and got possession of the same from the original mortgagee.2. The facts giving rise to this appeal are these. The properties forming the subject-matter of the litigation originally belonged to two brothers, Madhavan Pillai and Sivathanu Pillai. They are situate in Kanyakumari Dt. which, on the dates of the mortgage and the redemption thereof, formed part of the princely State of Travancore, later they came within the territory of Travancore-Cochin State, and after the reorganisation of various States under the States Reorganisation Act of 1956, they with the rest of the Kanyakumari Dt. became part of the Madras State. The Transfer of Property Act, which contains inter a...
Tag this Judgment!The Premier Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. V.R. Kannan and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-26-1963
Reported in: AIR1964Mad284
ORDERS. Ramachandra Iyer, C.J.1. This is a petition to revise the order of the Second Assistant Judge of the City Civil Court, Madras, refusing to declare an arbitration agreement as having, become void and unenforceable. The petitioner is an insurance company carrying on business as insurers of motor vehicles. The first respondent who owned a bus took a comprehensive policy of insurance for the vehicle to be in force from 29th May 1961 to 28th May 196Z. On 4th. March 1962, the bus met with an accident resulting in injuries to its passengers. There was also damages to the bus. The first respondent thereupon made a claim to me petitioner for the damage sustained by him which the latter would be liable to pay under the terms of the insurance. The claim1 was repudiated by the petitioner on the ground that the policy of insurance had become void by reason of the owner of the bus changing the original engine into a new one during the currency of the policy, it was said that it amounted to a...
Tag this Judgment!Nallathambi Nadar Chellakanu Nadar Vs. Ammal Nadachi Chellathankom Nad ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-26-1963
Reported in: (1964)1MLJ181
S. Ramachandra Iyer, C.J.1. This Second Appeal arises out of a suit for redemption brought by one co-mortgagor against another who had earlier redeemed the mortgage and obtained possession of the mortgaged properties. The question which has necessitated a reference to the Full Bench can be formulated thus:Whether in order to constitute a valid acknowledgment of liability under Section 19 of the Indian Limitation Act, it is essential that the person acknowledging should be under a liability in regard to the right in dispute at the time when he made the acknowledgment or whether it would be sufficient if he were liable at the time of the suit or an application in respect of that liability 2. Before considering the question we shall refer to the facts which have given rise to this appeal. Madi Pillai, the original owner of the property which forms the subject-matter of this litigation, created in the year 1869 (14-10-1044 M.E.) an usufructuary mortgage over it in favour of one Raman Kumar...
Tag this Judgment!Haji Mohamed Abdullah and ors. Vs. C. Abdul Rahiman and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-24-1963
Reported in: AIR1964Mad234
Veeraswami, J.1. This second appeal by some of the defendants is directed against a concurring judgment arising out of a suit for declaration of the plaintiffs' share, and partition and separate possession thereof.To the suit, were impleaded some of the heirs of the original owner as defendants. One of the objections to the maintainability of the suit was that the rest of the heirs of the original owner had not been impleaded in the suit. Both the courts below were agreed that this objection could not be upheld. The aggrieved defendants have appealed to this court.Unlike the case of coparcenary under the Hindu law, the Muhammadan heirs inherit their shares in definite fractions. When there are several such heirs and each of them owns a definite fraction, they are all joint co-owners or tenants-in-common. Where a Hindu sues for partition and separate possession of his share in the joint family properties, he cannot ask for partial partition and separate possession of his share alone. Th...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »