Chennai Court February 1967 Judgments
Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Referring Officer Vs. Rustorn Nus ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-28-1967
Reported in: AIR1968Mad159
M. Anantanarayanan, C.J.(1) The case referred to us under Section 57 of the Indian Stamp Act involves this question whether a particular document is an instrument chargeable as a conveyance under Art 23 of Schedule I (previous Art. 19 of Schedule 1-A) or as release under Art. 55 of Schedule I of the Indian Stamp Act. We have had the benefit of elaborate arguments on this matter, and apart from the facts to which we shall presently refer, and which are explicit and clear, the question also involves the interpretation of what amounts to a release in law as distinguished from a conveyance or transfer of property for value; there are one or two leading authorities available on this aspect to which also we shall make a brief reference.(2) In order to have a clear picture of the preceding facts we might immediately take up the settlement deed dated 5-4-1955 which is among the papers and which involves on N.K. Patel & his two sons K.N. Patel (first son) and R.N. Patel (second son). Under this...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: B. Sharma
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-28-1967
Reported in: (1967)2MLJ487
ORDERK.S. Venkataraman, J.1. M.G. Automobiles, the respondent in this application, obtained a decree against one Sharma in O.S. No. 14 of 1962 on the file of the Civil Court Bellary, for a sum of Rs. 17,000 and odd, and filed E.P. No. 1731of 1963 in the City Civil Court, Madras to execute the decree. The execution petition was filed in l963 itself and sought to attach a sum of one lakh of rupees due to Sharma from Hind Mercantile Corporation. Private Limited under a compromise of October, 1963. An interim prohibitory order was issued on 6th November 1963 Prohibiting Hind Mercantile Corporation Private Limited from paying the amount to Sharma. The order was served on the garnishee, Hind Mercantile Corporation, on 8th November, 1963. The garnishee appeared and pleaded that the amount had been paid to Sharma even on 1st November, 1963. The matter was pending enquiry in the Execution Petition in the City civil Court.2. At that stage, on 4th July, 1966, Sharma presented I.P. No. 31 of 1966 ...
Tag this Judgment!S. Attendrooloo Ghetty's Charities by Its president and trustees, S. V ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-27-1967
Reported in: (1968)2MLJ406
ORDERT. Ramaprasada Rao, J.1. The landlords in the former case and the landlady in the latter case are the petitioners, being dissatisfied with the order of the appellate authority under the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, hereinafter called the Act, in the matter of the fixation of fair rent for the portions in the occupation of their respective tenants, have come up to this Court to revise the order of the appellate authority.2. In C.R.P. No. 551 of 1965, the petitioners are the Board of Trustees in management of S. Attendrooloo Chetti's Charities. The tenant is Sadhana Aushadhalaya, occupying the ground floor of premises No. 17-A, Broadway, Madras. The landlord filed an application under Section 4 of the Act for fixation of fair rent for the portion in its occupation which consists of an office hall and a bathroom-cum-dressing room with other amenities therein. The Rent Controller fixed the rent at Rs. 300. The appeal by the landlords was dismissed by the appell...
Tag this Judgment!M. Shahul Hameed Vs. Kanda Iyer and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-24-1967
Reported in: (1967)2MLJ536
ORDERT. Ramaprasada Rao, J.1. The first defendant is the petitioner in this Civil Revision Petition. The plaintiff filed a suit for a declaration that he is entitled as of right to be in possession of the suit property by virtue of an assignment which he secured under deed dated 33rd September, 1963, from one Chockalinga Chettiar with whom admittedly the first defendant entered into a registered agreement of lease on 5th September, 1963. After entering into such a lease agreement with Chockalinga Chettiar, the first defendant purports to put the second defendant in possession of the property. The plaintiff, who by then has secured a right to obtain possession of the property, files this suit but valued the same for purposes of Court-fee and jurisdiction under Section 43(d) of the Court-fees Act read with Section 25(d) of the said Act. After the written statement was filed, he (the plaintiff) sought to amend the plaint by substituting Section 42(c) instead of Section 43(d) as originally...
Tag this Judgment!K. Govindaswamy and ors. Vs. Kamalammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-23-1967
Reported in: AIR1968Mad89
ORDER(1) The Pauper O.P. No. 133 of 1965 was instituted by the next friend of one Kamalammal. After the filing of the petition by the next friend under Order XXXIII, C.P.C., Kamalammal became a major. She wanted to continue the application filed by the next friend, and on such an attempt, the respondents in the said pauper original petition filed an application, I.A. No. 25 of 1966, before the learned Subordinate Judge, Chingleput, stating that Kamalammal could not continue the said application and that she should file a fresh original petition for leave to sue in forma pauperis under Order XXXIII, C.P.C. The learned Subordinate Judge overruled this objection and dismissed the application. Against this order, the present civil revision has been filed.(2) The petitioners before me are the petitioners who filed the above interlocutory application raising the preliminary objection about the continuance of the original petition in forma pauperis by Kamalammal.(3) Order XXXIII, under the ca...
Tag this Judgment!Syed Azadulla Vs. Syed Roshan Sahib and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-23-1967
Reported in: AIR1968Mad86
ORDER1. The plaintiff filed a suit in the lower Court for a declaration that he is the sole owner of the suit property to the exclusion of the defendant. He based his claim on Ex. A-1, a gift deed executed by his father on 20-5-1959. The first defendant who is the brother of the plaintiff also rested his claim to the suit property on a gift deed Ex. B-1 dated 20-3-1964. The defendant's case is that no possession was handed over by the father to the plaintiff pursuant to the gift deed Ex. A-1 and that, therefore, it was not acted upon the there later gift under Ex. B-1 is valid and operative and, therefore, he is entitled to the suit property to the exclusion of the plaintiff. Whilst the suit was pending, the plaintiff filed an application for the appointment of a Receiver of the suit properties which are admittedly in the possession of the defendant. His only ground is that the defendant is not possessed of considerable properties and the plaintiff's apprehension is that in case he suc...
Tag this Judgment!K. Govindaswami and ors. Vs. Kamalammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-23-1967
Reported in: (1967)2MLJ396
ORDERRamaprasada Rao, J.1. The Pauper Original Petition No. 133 of 1965 was instituted by the next friend of one Kamalammal. After the filing of the petition by the next friend under Order 33 of the Civil Procedure Code, Kamalammal became a major. She wanted to continue the application filed by the next friend, and on such an attempt, the respondents in the said pauper original petition filed an application, I.A. No. 25 of 1966, before the learned Subordinate Judge of Chingleput stating that Kamalammal could not continue the said application and that she should file a fresh original petition for leave to sue in forma pauperis under Order 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The learned Subordinate Judge overruled this objection and dismissed the application. Against this order, the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed.2. The Petitioners before me are the petitioners who filed the above interlocutory application raising the preliminary objection about the continuance of the orig...
Tag this Judgment!Syed Azzdulla Vs. Syed Roshan Sahib and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-23-1967
Reported in: (1967)2MLJ296
ORDERT. Ramaprasada Rao, J.1. The plaintiff filed a suit in the lower Court for a declaration that he is, the sole owner of the suit property to the exclusion of the defendant. He based his claim on Exhibit A-l, a gift deed executed by his father on 20th May, 1959. The first defendant who is the brother of the plaintiff also rested his claim to the suit property on a gift deed Exhibit B-l dated 20th March, 1964. The defendant's case is that no possession was handed over by the father to the plaintiff pursuant to the gift deed Exhibit A-l and that, therefore, it was not acted upon and the later gift under Exhibit B-l is valid and operative and, therefore, he is entitled to the suit property to the exclusion of the plaintiff. Whilst the suit was pending the plaintiff filed an application for the appointment of a Receiver of the suit properties which are admittedly in the possession of the defendant. His only ground is that the defendant is not possessed of considerable properties and the...
Tag this Judgment!Mutharasu thevar Vs. Mayandi thevar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-22-1967
Reported in: AIR1968Mad333
ORDER(1) The respondent in the lower Court is the petitioner before me. During the pendency of an appeal in the District Court, Ramanathapuram, respondents 1 to 7 and 9 in the said appeal filed an application under O. 3, R. 4, Civil P. C., to revoke the vakalat given by their power-of-attorney agent Muthuraja Thevar, tot he advocate now on record in the Court as above are hereinafter referred to by me as principals. Muthuraja Thevar will be referred to as the agent. The principals under Ex. A-1, dated 29-7-1961, appointed an against to be in charge of their family litigation. Even by the time Ex. A-1 was executed, the agent incurred certain expenses on behalf of the principals to conduct certain proceedings under S. 145, Crl. P. C., before the Revenue Divisional Officer. In consideration of such services in the past and the initiate further legal proceedings in connection with the family and its properties, the principals appointed the agent under a general power-of-attorney dated 29-7...
Tag this Judgment!K. Raghavan Vs. K. Venktarama Iyer and ors
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-21-1967
Reported in: AIR1968Mad318
(1) This civil revision petition raised important question of law as to whether a receiver can claim from the estate amounts advanced and paid by him during the course of his administration, and claim contemporaneously a lien over the liquid assets of the estate, so as to take preference over the mortgage decree-holder at whose instance the estate was being administered by him, and whether by necessity the receiver should file a suit to realise such amounts advanced by him, even though the advancement of such moneys is not in question, and incidentally whether the claim would be barred by limitation.(2) The petitioner who is the receiver appointed in the lower court, was so appointed at the instance of the plaintiff in the suit who had a mortgage security over a press known as the Rajah Power Press, Royapettah. The receiver was allowed certain remuneration for his management and running of the press. He was in actual management of the same between 15-4-1961 till 31-12-1963, and the fin...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »