Chennai Court July 1963 Judgments
K.M. Krishnan Vs. M. Venkatesan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-24-1963
Reported in: AIR1964Mad401
Ramakrishnan, J.1. These appeals are filed under the Letters Patent against the decision of Ramachandra Iyer J. (as he then was) in two connected W. P. Nos. 651 and 1035 of 1958. These two petitions formed two out of a larger batch, all of which were filed for the issue of a writ of certiorari calling for the appropriate records and quashing the order of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Madras, dated 13-8-1958 and made in R. No. 3314/A. 3/58. The learned Judge dismissed the writ petitions, and the two petitioners in the petitions abovementioned have filed these two letters patent appeals.2. The relevant circumstances necessary for a consideration of these appeals are briefly the following. The Regional Transport Authority, South Arcot, acting Under Section 57 (2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, called for applications for the grant of stage carriage permit for a particular route in the South Arcot Dt. There were 36 applications. The Regional Transport authority adopted the marking sy...
Tag this Judgment!Pachiammal Vs. Perumal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-24-1963
Reported in: 1964CriLJ105
ORDERKunhamed Kutti, J.1. This revision case is against the order of the Additional; First Class Magistrate II, Salem, dismissing the petitioner's application M.C. No. 128 of 1960 Under Section 48tt 488 Crl. P.C., for maintenance for herself and her two children. The respondent (husband) contested- the petition on the ground that the petitioner has committed adultery with his father, that is, the petitioner's father-in-law. It would appear that the respondent and his father have not been on goad terms with each other. The evidence is that he had teen driven other from the house by the father along with ms mother, according to the respondent, some three months after his marriage, but according to the petitioner, some sever or eight years after the marriage, which is said to have taken place about 15 years ago. The two children are stated to be aged 13 and 11 and they were said to have been born while the petitioner and respondent lived -in the father's house as husband and wife. Ex. D.I...
Tag this Judgment!Dayanandan and anr. Vs. Venugopal Naidu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-23-1963
Reported in: AIR1964Mad78
Veeraswami, J.1. This second appeal by the defendants arises out of a claim suit instituted by the respondent. He was a creditor of one Bhaktavatsala under a promissory note executed by him and he had obtained a decree on that footing during his lifetime. Bhaktavatsala got divided from his sons and the properties which had been allotted to his share were settled by him on the defendants, of whom the second was his concubine and the first his illegitimate son by her. The lower appellate Court differing from the trial Court has found that the settlement in favour of the defendants comprised the entire properties which Bhaktavatsala owned at the time and that the defendants, therefore, are universal donees.2. The respondent in execution attached one of the properties covered by the settlement but the defendant's claim on the basis of the settlement was allowed. The respondent was, therefore, driven to file a suit out of which this second appeal arises. The trial Court found that the settl...
Tag this Judgment!Eachan Neelakantan and anr. Vs. Kumarasami Nadar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-23-1963
Reported in: AIR1964Mad353
S. Ramachandra Iyer, C.J.1. This appeal which is filed against the judgment of Kailasam J. under Cl. 15 of the Letters Patent, raises a question of limitation. The appellants with their elder brother constituted a Hindu Joint family. They instituted a suit (which has given rise to this appeal for setting aside a sale of_ a joint family property effected by the latter in the year 1942 (28-6-1118 M.E.) in favour of the respondent and for recovery of possession of that property. At the time of the sale, the appellants were minors. Their mother, as their natural guardian joined her eldest son and executed the document.2. On 21-1-1953, admittedly more than three years after' the appellants attained the age of majority, but within 12 years from the date of the alienation, the present' suit was instituted. The alienee pleaded inter alia, that the suit must be held to. be barred by Article 44 of the Limitation Act. Both the courts below without much discussion overruled the plea of limitation....
Tag this Judgment!Rangaswami Naicker Vs. Chinnammal and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-23-1963
Reported in: AIR1964Mad387
S. Ramachandra Iyer, C.J.1. Kariakali Naicken, a resident of Vethilakalipalayam in Coimbatore Dt. who, with his son Sinnamman Naicken, constituted a joint Hindu family, owned the two items of properties, which now form the subject matter of this litigation. The appellant is the son of Sinnamman Naicken. Even before he was born, Sinnamma Naicken appears to have executed a release of his interest in the joint family properties in favour of his father. But that circumstance has little bearing to this case, as it has been admitted that even after such release the father and son, and subsequently they along with the appellant lived as members of a joint Hindu family. The properties, can, therefore, be regarded as coparcenary properties of Kariakali Naicken and his grandson after the death of Sinnamma Naicken who pre-deceased his father. Kariali Naicken died in the year 1951 leaving behind him his widow, Angammal, three daughters (who are the respondents to this appeal) and his grandson, the...
Tag this Judgment!Rangaswami Naicken Vs. Chinnammal and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-23-1963
Reported in: (1964)1MLJ374
S. Ramachandra Iyer, C.J.1. Kariakali Naicken, a resident of Vethilakalipalayam in Coimbatore district, who with his son Sinnamma Naicken, constituted a joint Hindu family, owned the two items of properties, which now form the subject-matter of this litigation. The appellant is the son of Sinnamma Naicken. Even before he was born, Sinn amma Naicken appears to have executed a release of his interest in the joint family properties in favour of his father. But that circumstance has little bearing to this case as it has been admitted that even after such release the father and son and subsequently they along with the appellant lived as members of a joint Hindu family. The properties can therefore be regarded as co parcenary properties of Kariakali Naicken and his grandson after the death of Sinnamma Naicken Who predeceased his father. Kariakalai Naicken died in the year 1951 leaving behind him his widow Angammal, three daughters (who are the respondents to this appeal) and his grandson, th...
Tag this Judgment!The Coffee Board, Bangalore Vs. Famous Coffee and Tea Works, Coimbator ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-19-1963
Reported in: AIR1965Mad14
Ramadchandra Iyer, C.J. (1) The India Coffee Board has filed these appeals against the decree of the Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore, in a batch of suits dismissing its claim for recovery of damages from the respondents in the respective appeals, occasioned by their failure to pay the price of quantities of coffee sold to them. The respondents were the successful bidders at the pool auctions held on 7-10-1952 and 14-11-1952 by the Chief Coffee Marketing officer at Coimbatore. Under the terms of sale they should pay the price and take delivery of the goods within 14 days of the sale; that time could be extended by 3 days by the seller. But soon after the sale, and presumably by reason of the measures adopted by the appellant the price of coffee fell. None of the purchasers honoured their obligations. The coffee was then re-sold on 23-12-1952 and 5-2-1953 and the suits out of which these appeals arise were laid for recovery of the loss ascertained on such re-sale.(2) The substantial defenc...
Tag this Judgment!Chinnammal and ors. Vs. Sri Kannikaparameshwari Deity by Trustees Venk ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-19-1963
Reported in: AIR1964Mad80
Anantanarayanan, J.1. The second appeal is instituted by the defendants in the suit, against the preliminary decree for partition of the suit property into two shares, and for allotment of the western moiety to the plaintiff-temple (respondent). There are only three grounds involved in the appeal, of which the first ground alone need detain us at any length. The facts relating to that ground are as follows.2. The original owner, Angammal, conveyed this property under Ex. A-4, dated 19-9-1938, which is styled as a settlement deed, and which, according to the learned counsel for the appellants, can by no means be characterised as a testamentary disposition. In the relevant Part of this deed, the settlor stipulates the following terms. I am making a free translation here of the Tamil text, which is quoted both by the trial Court and the first appellate Court:'Venkataswami Naidu (my son) and his male heirs are to take and attain one half (moiety) of the property. Chinnasami Naidu (my other...
Tag this Judgment!M.P. Ramanathan Vs. Director of Medical Service, Madras and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-19-1963
Reported in: AIR1965Mad323
(1) The petitioner herein prays for the issue of a writ of Mandamus to direct the Secretary, Selection Committee, Madras Medical College, to consider the application of the petitioner for selection of the Integrated M. B. B. S. course.(2) The selection of candidates for admission to the Government Medical College in the Madras State is made in pursuance of certain executive directions of the Government. In accordance with those directions, the Director of Medical Services; Madras issued that is called a prospectus for the 1963-64 session, in which were set out the minimum qualifications required of the candidates seeking admission. The petitioner submitted his application, but though his application was acknowledged, no interview card was sent to him. The selection of the candidates to be admitted in based on the result of an interview. The interview itself is preceded by weeding out applications of candidates whose qualifications do not conform to those set out in the prospectus. The...
Tag this Judgment!Appavu Velar and ors. Vs. Murugam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-19-1963
Reported in: (1964)1MLJ101
ORDERP. Kunhamed Kutti, J.1. The Petitioners herein were the accused in Preliminary Enquiry Case No. 9 of 1961, the charge against them being one under Section 395, Indian Penal Code. The Second Class Magistrate, Mannargudi, who held the enquiry examined six witnesses on the side of the prosecution and two, on the side of the petitioners. On a consideration of their evidence against certain background, facts of long-standing dispute and animosity between the parties, he found that no prima facie case had been made out against the petitioners and that there were no sufficient grounds for committing them to the Sessions. He therefore, discharged the petitioners under Section 209, Criminal Procedure Code. In Revision the learned District Magistrate set aside this order and directed the records to be forwarded to the Sub-Magistrate, Thanjavur, for enquiry and disposal according to law.2. The point urged by Sri Gopalaswami for the petitioners is that the learned District Magistrate misconce...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »