Chennai Court July 1965 Judgments
Avudayappan Chettiar Vs. Kanthimathi Ammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-28-1965
Reported in: AIR1966Mad319; (1965)2MLJ551
(1) This is an appeal by the third defendant in O.S. No. 322 of 1953 against the order of the District Judge, Tirunelveli, in C.M.A. 92 of 1961, directing execution against the third defendant for mesne profits.(2) The properties in dispute originally belonged to one Isakki Perumal. He left a will dated 16-2-1930 by which he gave a life estate in the suit properties to his wife and the remainder to a trust. The widow executed a settlement in favour of the first defendant and another, by deed dated 16-9-1944. The first defendant sold items 1, 2 and 3 to the second defendant on 18-2-1952. The second defendant sold some of the properties to the sixth defendant. The third defendant, who is the appellant herein purchased 85 trees from the second defendant. The trees were on items 1, 2 and 3. Defendants 4 and 5 are the lessees of items 1 to 3. The (Madalayam) trust filed the suit, O.S. 322 of 1953, for recovery of the items of property which Isakki Perumal bequeathed to it by will dated 16-9...
Tag this Judgment!T.A.M. Subramania Chettiar Vs. K.M. Shanmugham and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-27-1965
Reported in: AIR1967Mad300
ORDER(1) This revision petition arises out of an order passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Salem, directing the 5th defendant in the suit. O. S. 64 of 1963 to pay a sum of Rs. 750 as court-fee. The plaintiff filed a suit for partition and separate possession of the share in the suit properties. Defendants 1 to 4 who are members of the family are sailing together. The first defendant had executed a sale deed in favour on the 5th defendant which is attacked on the ground that it is not an out and our sale, but was executed merely to serve as security for a loan transaction. The fifth defendant, alienee, besides contending that the sale deed executed in his favour by the first defendant is a genuine transaction, claimed a sum of Rs. 10,000 by way of moneys spent by him bona fide in the improvements of the suit property, and that if the sale deed should be held to be binding upon the plaintiff and defendants 2 to 4 the amount spent by the fifth defendant for improvements should be hel...
Tag this Judgment!State of Madras Vs. Sri V.P. Ramulu Naidu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-27-1965
Reported in: [1965]16STC865(Mad)
Veeraswami, J.1. For the assessment year 1959-60, the assessee reported a total assessable turnover of Rs. 92,749.27. The audited figures given by the Income-tax Practitioner showed a sales turnover of Rs. 1,48,749.49. The difference in figures was held by the assessing authority to be an omission in the return submitted by the assessee. He, therefore, decided to reject the returns filed as incorrect and incomplete and to assess finally on the turnover reported by the Income-tax Practitioner. To a notice by the assessing authority inviting objection to his proposal, there was no reply from the assessee. The assessing authority, therefore, proceeded to assess on a best judgment basis fixing the taxable turnover at Rs. 1,48,749.30. It appears the assessee was submitting returns and paying tax under Rule 18 of the Tax Rules. For the subsequent year, a different officer happened to reopen the earlier assessment order, referred to the facts on which the assessment was made and concluded tha...
Tag this Judgment!A.K. Sundaram Vs. Government of India
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-23-1965
Reported in: AIR1966Mad52
ORDER(1) This revision is directed against the dismissal in limine in Chamber of an application for leave to appeal in forma pauperis made by the petitioner herein in the District Court, Madurai. The learned District Judge in his order just states that he has perused the judgment of the Subordinate Judge in the lower court and was directing the appellant to pay court fees under O. 44, R. 1, Cl. (2) C. P. Code by 13-6-1962 on pain of the appeal being rejected on default. The counsel who appeared for the petitioner in the lower court has filed an affidavit that he was not heard in the matter and the appeal was not brought to the Bench and he was not given an opportunity to argue; that is, the case for the petitioner before me is that the matter was disposed of without hearing the petitioner or his counsel.(2) Bow O. 44, R. 1(2) of the C. P. Code which applies to pauper appeals provides:'The appellate court after fixing a day for hearing the applicant or his pleader and hearing him accord...
Tag this Judgment!A.S. Sheik Mohamed Maracair Vs. K.T. Mohamed Ibrahim Ummal and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-23-1965
Reported in: AIR1967Mad311
ORDER(1) This is a petition by the plaintiff against the order of the Court below, holding that the plaintiff will not be entitled to a refund of half of the Court-fee paid on the suit claim. The suit was on the basis of a mortgage by deposit of title deeds. It is found from the records that on an earlier occasion the suit had been decreed ex parte. Then the plaintiff had also been examined as a witness, and documents Exs. A-1 to A-17, were marked is evidence. Later, the ex parte decree was set aside, and, the defendants entering appearance, issues were framed and the case was getting adjourned for trial. Before the case was taken up for disposal on the merits on contest, a memorandum of compromise was filed in Court, and with reference to this the endorsement on the plaint by the plaintiffs counsel run thus:-' Compromise memo has been filed. It may be recorded. The suit is reported settled out of Court. Half the Court fee paid on the plaint may be refunded to the plaintiff'.The memo o...
Tag this Judgment!S.V.K.M. Ratnasamy Nadar and Brothers Vs. K. Subbuswami Iyer and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-23-1965
Reported in: AIR1967Mad180
ORDER(1) This revision has been preferred against the order of the learned District Munsif, Tirunelveli, rejecting the application of the petitioner for refund of half the court-fee paid on the plaint under S. 69 of the Court Fees Act. The suit had been filed in February 1960 and on 20-11-1961 the case was taken up for hearing. The two exhibits, Exs. A-1 and A-2, were marked in evidence. However, before any oral evidence was recorded in the suit, it was reported as settled out of Court and it was dismissed.(2) Section 69 of the Madras Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955, which provides for refund of half the court-fees on settlement of the case before hearing, runs thus:S. 69: 'Wherever any suit is dismissed as settled out of Court, any evidence has been recorded on the merits of the claim, half the amount of all fees pain in respect of the claim in the suit shall be ordered by the Court to be refunded to the parties by whom the same have been respectively paid. Explanation: The e...
Tag this Judgment!V.R. Subramaniyam Trading as Manyam and Co., Bangalore Vs. V.N.M.N. Ba ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-23-1965
Reported in: AIR1967Mad186
(1) This is an appeal preferred by the applicant, V. R. Subramanyam, in Application for rectification No. MAS 9 before the Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks, Madras, by removing therefrom the trade mark No. 176062, registered in the names of the respondents consisting of the word 'Roji'. The application was dismissed by the Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks, Madras holding that the trade mark No. 176062 was not made without sufficient cause. This appeal is preferred against that order refusing rectification.(2) The business of the applicant was started by the father and predecessor-in-title of the applicant as V.S. Raju Mudaliar and Sons, in the last decade of the last century and was manufacturing and selling perfumery and allied preparations and the trade mark 'Raja'. The applicant, who established his concern Manyam and Co, in 1920 and acted for sometime as distributors for Raja products of Messrs. V. Raju Mudaliar and Sons, later amalgamated and continued the manufacture and sale...
Tag this Judgment!V.R. Subramaniyam, Trading as Manyam and Co., Raja Snow Buildings Vs. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-23-1965
Reported in: (1966)2MLJ570
P.S. Kailasam, J.1. This is an appeal preferred by the applicant, V.R. Subramanyam in Application for rectification No. MAS. 9 before the Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks, Madras, by removing therefrom the trade mark No. 176062 registered in the names of the respondents consisting of the word 'Roji.' The application was dismissed by the Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks, Madras, holding that the trade mark No. 176062 was not made without sufficient cause. This appeal is preferred against that order refusing rectification.2. The business of the applicant was started by the father and predecessor-in--title of the applicant as V. Raju Mudaliar and Sons, in the last decade of the last century and was manufacturing and selling perfumery and allied preparations under the trade mark 'Raja'. The applicant, who established his concern Manyam & Company in 1920 and acted for sometime as distributors for Raja products of Messrs. V. Raju Mudaliar and Sons, later amalgamated and continued the man...
Tag this Judgment!Narayana Padayachi Vs. Sundaralingam and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-22-1965
Reported in: (1966)2MLJ577
ORDERK. Veeraswami, J.1. This appeal must succeed on the short ground of jurisdiction. Before dealing with it, the material facts may be noticed. The appellant was let into possession by the respondents into an extent of 54 cents of dry land under an agricultural tenancy. The respondents sued in Original Suit No. 244 of 1951 on the file of the Court of the District Munsif at Mayuram in ejectment, which ended in a compromise decree, dated 17th April, 1952. This decree provided that the appellant should vacate and deliver vacant possession after five years, that is, on 17th April, 1957. The respondents filed on 13th December, 1961 the execution petition out of which this appeal arises. Execution of the compromise decree was resisted on the grounds (i) the appellant was a cultivating tenant (ii) he was entitled to protection under the provisions of the Kudiyiruppu Act and (iii) the petition was barred by limitation. The executing Court held on the first point against the appellant, or the...
Tag this Judgment!Mohamed Shareef Sahib and anr. Vs. Abdul Rahiman Sahib
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-19-1965
Reported in: AIR1966Mad50; (1965)1MLJ512
ORDER(1) This revision has been filed by the defendants against whom a decree had been passed in a small cause suit. The claim was made against them for recovery of a sum of Rs. 349-50, the principal and interest, due on an insufficiently stamped promissory note dated 14-2-1959, executed by them in favour of one Jaina Bibi. The plaintiff claims to be as assignee of the promissory note and it being insufficiently stamped, wants to rest his claim as a transferee of the debt. The main defence is that there is no specific transfer of the debt as such as a chose in action.(2) Though no doubt no particular form is required for transfer of a debt, still when there is an endorsement the court has to construe it to find out whether in fact what is transferred is the debt or the promissory note alone. There is a vital distinction between the transfer of a debt and the transfer of the promissory note and a suit on the debt differs in substance from a suit on the promissory note. If there is an as...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »