Chennai Court August 1967 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Sinnaraj Pillai and ors. Vs. Ramayee Ammal and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-24-1967
Reported in: AIR1969Mad96; (1967)2MLJ639
1. This is a Letters Patent Appeal from the decision of our learned brother Srinivasar, J., and is preferred by the defenants in a suit relating to certain landed properties praying for permanent injunction or in the alternative for possession with future profits. The claim of the plaintiffs is rested on two wills, one dated 7th April, 1934, and the other dated 5th March, 1940, the latter by the person claiming the entirety of the properties under the earlier will. The decree of the trial Court accepting the plaintiffs' claim and giving them possession, was confirmed on appeal by the learned Subordinate Judge, Dindigul, and has been affirmed in Second Appeal in this Court. The plaintiffs have been awarded future mesne profits to be determined under Order 20, Rule 12, Civil Procedure Code.2. The principal questions that arise for consideration are the interpretation of the will dated 7th April, 1934, and the true scope and effect, if any, of Sections 106 and 107 of the Indian Succession...
Amaravathi Ammal Vs. Periyanayagammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-24-1967
Reported in: (1968)1MLJ272
K. Veeraswami, J.1. This Civil Revision Petition comes before us, as Venkatadri, J.; thought there was divergence of authority on a certain point relevant to the case.2. The petitioner had executed a promissory note in favour of the respondent who assigned it to a third party. In the suit instituted by the assignee of the promissory note, the petitioner challenged the respondent who figured as a witness to take oath and deny that the debt under the promissory note had been discharged. The respondent took oath to that effect which the Court naturally accepted, with the result the suit was decreed. The present Suit, out of which the Civil Revision Petition arises, has been instituted by the petitioner against the respondent to recover from him the amount covered by the earlier decree. The suit was resisted on the ground that it was barred by res judicata, in view of the oath taken in the previous proceeding. This ground was accepted and the suit was dismissed. When the Civil Revision Pet...
Unnamalai Achi and anr. Vs. Umayal Achi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-24-1967
Reported in: (1968)2MLJ544
ORDERK.S. Venkataraman, J.1. One Unnamalai Achi filed a suit Original Suit No. 44 of 1966 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Devokattai, againstone Murugappa Chetty for recovery of a sum of Rs. 26,560 on the basis that she had deposited a sum of Rs 21,136-50 with Murugappa Chetty repayable with compound interest. Murugappa Chetty died during the suit and defendants 2 to 5 were impleaded as his legal representatives. Defendants 3 and 4 allowed the suit to be decreed ex parte. The other two merely put the plaintiff to proof of the claim. The learned Subordinate Judge who tried the suit held against the plaintiff and dismissed the suit. Appeal Suit No. 416 of 1967 has been preferred by the plaintiff Unnamalai Achi against the four legal representatives.2. In the meantime, one Ramaswami Chetty who obtained a decree in Original Suit No. 3 of 1965 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Devakottai against the said Murugappa Chetty for a sum of over Rs. 25,000 on ...
Sinnaraj Pillai and ors. Vs. Ramayee Ammal and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-24-1967
Reported in: (1968)2MLJ639
ORDER1. This is a Letters Patent Appeal from the decision of our learned brother Srinivasar, J., and is preferred by the defenants in a suit relating to certain landed properties praying for permanent injunction or in the alternative for possession with future profits. The claim of the plaintiffs is rested on two wills, one dated 7th April, 1934, and the other dated 5th March, 1940, the latter by the person claiming the entirety of the properties under the earlier will. The decree of the trial Court accepting the plaintiffs' claim and giving them possession, was confirmed on appeal by the learned Subordinate Judge, Dindigul, and has been affirmed in Second Appeal in this Court. The plaintiffs have been awarded future mesne profits to be determined under Order 20, Rule 12, Civil Procedure Code.2. The principal questions that arise for consideration are the interpretation of the will dated 7th April, 1934, and the true scope and effect, if any, of Sections 106 and 107 of the Indian Succe...
Ayya Nadar and ors. Vs. Sri Vaidyanathaswami Koil Devasthanam Through ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-24-1967
Reported in: (1970)2MLJ129
R. Sadasivam, J.1. These Letters Patent Appeals are against the dismissal by a common judgment of Second Appeal Nos. 126 to 133 of 1957, on the file of this Court, and confirming the concurrent judgments of the Courts below that the suit properties covered in the inam title deed No. 503 are service inam lands comprising both the warams and that the resumption of the inams by the Collector for default on the part of the service holders to perform the services is valid. The suits have been filed by the alienees from the original inamdars under Section 35 (2) of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act (XIX of 1951), to set aside the order of the District Collector, Ramanathapuram at Madurai, directing resumption of the inams at the instance of Sri Viadyanathaswami Koil Devasthanam represented by its Executive Officer, who figured as the first defendant in all the suits, the second defendant being the State of Madras, represented by the Collector of Ramanathapuram at Madurai.2. T...
State of Madras Vs. V. Velayutham Thampy.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-24-1967
Reported in: [1968]70ITR629(Mad)
VEERASWAMI J. - The respondent was assessed to agricultural income-tax for the assessment year 1959-60 under the provisions of the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1950. He was allowed rebate on insurance premia of Rs. 3,135.14 nP. On that basis, the net tax payable by him was determined at Rs. 2,226.97. Subsequently, noticing that the rebate was wrongly allowed in view of the second proviso to section 10(e) (i) of the Act, the Agricultural Income-tax Officer initiated proceedings under section 35 and revised the assessment. The respondents appeal failed but in his further appeal, the Tribunal took the view that this was not a case of income that had escaped assessment or had been assessed at too low at rate. At the instance of the revenue the following question has been referred to us.'Whether an improper allowance of rebate of insurance premium cam be revoked by resort to section 35 of the Travancore-Cochin Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1950 ?'Before we proceed to consider this que...
P. Jagajothi Mudaliar Vs. Gopalaswami Gounder and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-23-1967
Reported in: AIR1969Mad81
Alagiriswami, J.1. The plaintiff is the appellant. He purchased the one-fourth share belonging to defendants 1 and 2 in the properties described in Schedule-A belonging to the joint family of which they were members, from one Abdul Rahiman Rowther. This Abdul Rahiman Rowther purchased the one-fourth share belonging to defendants 1 and 2 in the Court auction sale on 20-11-1944, and he took symbolical delivery of the properties on 19-9-1947. On' 10-12-1958, the plaintiff purchased the suit properties. It appears that subsequently there has been a partition in the family of the defendants, under which the B Schedule properties were allotted to the share of defendants 1 and 2. The plaintiff filed the suit out of which the present appeal arises for partition and possession of one-fourth share in the A Schedule properties, or, in the alternative for the 'B' Schedule properties being allotted to him on 14-7-1959. The trial Court held that the symbolical delivery obtained by the plaintiff's ve...
The Andhra Perfumery Works Joint Family Concerns Vs. Karupakula Suryan ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-23-1967
Reported in: AIR1969Mad126
M. Anantanarayanan, C.J.1. These related appeals involve certain problems of great interest and significance, in the application of the law of Trade Marks to the facts pf the record. It is not so much that the problems involved are bare of authority; indeed, the contrary is true, and we have a plethora of decisions from which to select leading precedents, but that the issue, whether certain of those dicta now require modification or a certain refinement does appear to arise. We might state, at the outset itself, that the authorities that we have examined fall into three main groups: (1) English precedents, many of these dating from the last decades of the 19th Century, (2) expositions, supported by authorities, of the relevant principles, appearing in the Treatises, Halsbury's Laws of England, Third Edition, Volume 38; Kerly on Trade Marks, 8th Edition (R.G. Lloyd), The law on the Trade and Merchandise Marks by Dr. Venkateswaran (1963 Edition) and (3) the enactment itself, and one or t...
Mayilswami Chettiar Vs. Kaliammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-23-1967
Reported in: (1969)1MLJ177
A. Alagiriswami, J.1. The first defendant is the appellant. The defendants' mother executed a mortgage on the foot of which the suit out of which this second appeal arises was filed. The mortgage was for Rs. 1,500 and the lower appellate Court has now found that the mortgage is supported by necessity only to the extent of Rs. 900. The recital in the mortgage is that it was borrowed for family expenses. P.W. I gave evidence that they made enquiries about the debt and necessity of the minors and that only after satisfying themselves they lent the money. P.W. 2 gave evidence that the money was spent for maintenance and education of the defendants and also for carrying out repairs to the well. There is, therefore, no question that, as found by the Courts below, the mortgage is supported by necessity and is binding on the defendants.2. The only other question that arises is whether the mortgage executed by the mother as the de facto guardian of the minors, while the father is alive, is vali...
Bhagavandas Narayandas and Others Vs. Agricultural Income-tax Officer, ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-22-1967
Reported in: [1968]70ITR128(Mad)
These seven writ petitions can be considered in two groups for dealing with common questions which arise out of them. In the first group consisting of Writ Petitions Nos. 2095, 2098 and 2099, the petitioner is Bhagavandas Narayandas who was assessed to agricultural income-tax by the Agricultural Income-tax Officer, Coonoor, respectively for 1958-59, 1959-60 and 1961-62. The common question which arises for decision in these three petitions can be considered first and arises in the following way. Bhagavandas Narayandas, the petitioner, is a partner in the registered firm of Messrs. Ben Gorm Nilgiri Plantations Company. There are as many as nine partners in that firm including the petitioner and his wife. This firm owns 351 and odd acres of tea plantation. It was treated as a registered firm both for computation of the Central income-tax and the agricultural income-tax. It was supplied with a copy of the deed of partnership of this firm. Paragraph 12 of the deed states that Bhagavandas N...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »