Chennai Court December 1965 Judgments
Ayi Ammal Vs. Subramania Asari and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-24-1965
Reported in: AIR1966Mad369
(1) The petitioner is the sister of one Kanniammal who died intestate on 7-7-1960. She is the childless widow of one Patta Achari, and Patta Achari's brother's sons are the respondents. This revision arises out of proceedings for the issue of a succession certificate in respect of the outstandings due on three promissory notes to the deceased Kanniammal. The learned District Munsif, on the evidence, finds that Kanniammal had been given properties by her father and that she sold jewels and lent amounts for interest. It is found that the promissory note amounts were her own acquisitions, the nucleus being gifts made to her by her father. It may be taken as uncontested that her husband did not contribute to any acquisition by her. The question in the circumstances is as to who is her heir, who gets the three dispute outstandings of Kanniammal.(2) The learned District Judge, Chingleput has held that the respondents herein, as heirs of the husband of the deceased, are the persons that succ...
Tag this Judgment!Silambani Sri Chidambara Vinayagar Devasthanam, Devakottai Through Its ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-24-1965
Reported in: (1967)2MLJ181
M. Natesan, J.1. This second appeal by the plaintiff Silambani Sri Chidambara Vinayagar Devasthanam, Devakottai, by its Trustees, raises an interesting question of law as to the impact of the Madras Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryot-wari) Act (XXVI of 1948) on the rights of a tenant of land from the landholder for building purposes, where the tenancy commenced prior to 1948, and the building erected by the tenant on the land, continued in the tenant's occupation on the date of the notification of the estate under the Act. The second appeal is connected with three revision petitions also by the appellant as petitioner, under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The cases were heard together both in the trial and appellate Courts. The suits being for arrears of rent, and of small cause nature in view of the value of the claim, three of them have been brought up to this Court in revision. Lease of vacant sites had been granted by the appellant to the several defendants, t...
Tag this Judgment!Mohamed Sulaiman Rowther Vs. N.K.A. Mohamed Ibrahim
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-24-1965
Reported in: (1967)2MLJ483
M. Natesan, J.1. This revision is directed against the decree on appeal in a suit on a. promissory note for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 914-90. The last endorsement on the promissory note is dated 17th February, 1952, and the suit, it is stated, is saved from the bar of limitation under Section 13 of the Limitation Act,1908, by the absence of the defendant from India. The learned District Judge has found that if the period during which the defendant had been outside India are excluded, the suit is within time. The learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that it is not open to the plaintiff to add up the several periods during which the defendant had been outside India, and he can avail himself of the provisions of Section 13 of the Limitation Act only in cases where there is continuous absence. Learned Counsel, contends that once the defendant returns back to India thereafter the time will begin to run and there can be no suspension of the running of limitation even if the defenda...
Tag this Judgment!Unique Motor and General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. M. Kannappa Naicker an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-23-1965
Reported in: [1966]36CompCas556(Mad)
Venkatadri, J.1. This appeal arises out of an order passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (District Judge), Chingleput, awarding compensation in a sum of Rs. 5,000 to the first respondent herein, whose son, a boy aged about 14, studying in VII Standard in the Municipal High School, Kancheepuram, died as a result of having been hit by a passenger bus, M.D.H. 2265, owned by the second respondent-transport company. The appellant was also made a party to the claim petition of the first respondent, as the bus was insured with them. The insurance company has preferred this appeal canvassing the correctness of the decision of the Tribunal in awarding compensation to the first respondent. They have contended that there is no liability to pay compensation, as there was a breach of the conditions incorporated in the insurance policy. The tribunal below has negatived the contention of the insurance company and directed the insurance company to pay the compensation amount. Therefore, the q...
Tag this Judgment!The Unique Motor and General Insurance Co., Ltd. Vs. M. Kannappa Naick ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-23-1965
Reported in: (1966)2MLJ100
ORDERT. Venkatadri, J.1. This appeal arises out of an order passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (District Judge), Chingleput, awarding compensation in a sum of Rs. 5,000 to the first respondent herein, whose son, a boy aged about 14, studying in VII Standard in the Municipal High School, Kancheepuram, died as a result of having been hit by a passanger bus, MDH 2265 owned by the second respondent-transport company. The appellant was also made a party in the claim petition of the first respondent, as the bus was insured with them. The Insurance Company has preferred this appeal canvassing the correctness of the decision of the Tribunal in awarding compensation to the first respondent. They have contended that there is no liability to pay compensation, as there was a breach of the conditions incorporated In the Insurance Policy. The Tribunal below has negatived the contention of the Insurance Company and directed the Insurance Company to pay the compensation amount. Therefore th...
Tag this Judgment!Madras State Wakf Board Represented by Its Secretary Vs. B.A. Jamal Mu ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-20-1965
Reported in: (1966)2MLJ104
P. Chandra Reddy, C.J.1. These two appeals arise out of two suits instituted by the respondents for a declaration that the properties involved in them are not wakf properties. The subject-matter of the litigation are two bits of lands measuring 5 acres 28 cents and 2 acres 26 cents, punja, in Rajagiri Village of Thanjavur District. As required by the provisions of Section 4 of the Wakf Act, 1954, which will hereinafter be referred to as the Act, one of the Assistant Commissioners appointed under the Act enquired into the nature of the several endowments attached to Muslim, institutions in Thanjavur and submitted a report to the State Government of Madras. The State Government, in its turn, forwarded this report to the Wakf' Board. The Wakf Board, after examining it, published a list of wakfs existing in the district of Thanjavur in the Fort St. George Gazette dated 24th December, 1958. This list included the subject-matter of these appeals.2. It may be mentioned here that these propert...
Tag this Judgment!Periathayaa Alias P. Muthu and anr. Vs. L. Narasingha Rao
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-17-1965
Reported in: AIR1966Mad423
(1). This is a petition under S. 115 C.P.C. to revise an order of the Subordinate Judge of Madurai, in an application made under S. 151 of the Code for a direction for refund of the court fee paid on the plaint on the ground that by reason of the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 1960, as amended by Madras Act 11 of 1964, which came into force on 10-6-1964, the suit stood abated and all the rights which had accrued to the plaintiffs prior to the amendment became unenforceable. The suit is stated to be for ejectment of the defendant-tenant. The court below was of the view that inasmuch as there was no provision in the Madras Court-fees Act and Suits Valuation Act 1955, no refund of the court fee could be ordered. It also relied on Tarachand Ghanshyamdas v. State of West Bengal (S) where the view was taken that if in the Act provision was made for refund in particular cases, but not in other cases, the inherent power under Sec. 151 of the Code, could not be invoked and the A...
Tag this Judgment!A. Mohammed Rasheed Hajee Abdul Rahim Vs. A. Mohamed Rasheed Amjat Ibr ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-17-1965
Reported in: AIR1966Mad359
ORDER(1) This revision has been preferred by the plaintiff from the order of the learned District Munsiff of Sirkali, holding that a note relied upon by the plaintiff as a receipt could not be admitted in evidence even on payment of stamp duty and penalty thereon, as it was an acknowledgement falling under Art. 1, Schedule I, of the Indian Stamp Act. The plaintiff had instituted this suit for recovery of a sum of money, which he had advanced to the defendant on a promise of the defendant to execute a mortgage for the amount. It is stated that contemporaneously with the above, the defendant had given this receipt. It is this receipt, which the learned District Munsif, held, as not admissible in evidence. In the view of the learned District Munsif, it not merely acknowledges the receipt of money, but also acknowledges the money as a debt due to the plaintiff. The receipt had been filed along with the plaint and a penalty has been collected as on an instrument falling under S. 2(23) of th...
Tag this Judgment!Srimathi Periathayya Alias P. Muthu Meenakshi Veerakamulu Ammal and an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-17-1965
Reported in: (1966)2MLJ159
ORDERK. Veeraswami, J.1. This is a petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure to revise an order of the Subordinate Judge of Madurai 'in an application made under Section 151 of the Code for a direction for refund of the Court-fee paid on the plaint on the ground that by reason of the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, as amended by Madras Act XI of 1964, which came into force on 10th June, 1964, the suit stood abated and all the rights which had accrued to the plaintiffs prior to the amendment became unenforceable. The suit is stated to be for ejectment of the defendant-tenant. The Court below was of the view that inasmuch as there was no provision in the Madras Court-fees and Suits Valua-tion Act, 1955, no refund of the Court-fee could be ordered. It also relied on Tarachand v. State : AIR1955Cal258 , where the view was taken that if in the Act provision was made for refund in particular cases, but not in the other cases, the inherent, power under Sec...
Tag this Judgment!A.P.K. Narayanaswami Reddiar Vs. Padmanabhan (Minor) and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-16-1965
Reported in: AIR1966Mad394; (1965)2MLJ318
(1) This is an appeal by the first defendant from a decree of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Mayuram, granting maintenance at the rate of Rs. 15 per mensem to each of the first three plaintiffs, at Rs. 30 per mensem to the fourth plaintiff, and a further payment to the plaintiffs of Rs. 10 per mensem towards their residence. The decree also directed the first defendant to pay plaintiffs past maintenance for a period of three years at the said rate. The properties described in the plaint B schedule were charged with the maintenance so decreed. The suit was instituted in forma pauperis for partition and separate possession of the first plaintiffs one fifth share in the suit properties and for right of residence of the fourth plaintiff in item 1 of the plaint A schedule and for maintenance at Rs. 100 per mensem from 1-4-1958, and for past and future maintenance at the same rate for the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs' case was that the first defendant, who had a spouse living, married the ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »