Chennai Court December 1971 Judgments
A.K.A. Ct. V. Ct. Alagappa Chettiar and ors. Vs. A. Venkatachalam Chet ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-23-1971
Reported in: AIR1973Mad162
Palaniswamy, J.1. The defendants are the appellants. Defendants 1 to 4 are the sons and the 5th defendant is the widow of one Natesan Chettiar who was carrying on money lending business in Kottaiyur, Ramanathapuram district and in Burma. Sigappi Achi, the late mother of the plaintiff, had deposited her stridhanam funds with Natesan Chettiar for improvement at Thavanai rate of interest. After the death of Natesan Chettiar and Sigappi Achi, the defendants executed a deposit letter in favor of the plaintiff on 13-4-1928. By a notice dated 10-6-1963, the plaintiff made a demand for payment of the amount with interest. The defendants repudiated that claim and issued a reply notice stating that the plaintiff had made a demand for payment of the deposit amount on 19-12-1953 at first orally and subsequently by a document of the same date and that inasmuch as the suit was filed more than three years after that demand, it was barred by limitation. They also alleged that according to the agreemen...
Tag this Judgment!B. Srinivasan Vs. Al. V.R. St. Veerappa Chettiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-23-1971
Reported in: AIR1973Mad165
1. The facts necessary for the disposal of this second appeal are these: The first defendant Ramaswami Iyer, executed four promissory notes in favor of the plaintiff for a total sum of Rs. 5,500/-. He also created an equitable mortgage over certain properties by deposit of title deeds in respect of the amount due under the promissory notes. On 10-2-1951 he filed a petition (I. P. 7 of 1951) to get himself adjudicated an insolvent. He was adjudicated an insolvent on 8-8-1951. In the insolvency proceedings the plaintiff-first respondent herein was the fifth respondent. The debt payable to the plaintiff under the equitable mortgage and the promissory notes was proved in the insolvency on the admission of the first defendant. The adjudication has not been annulled so far. 2. The present suit was filed by the first respondent-plaintiff for the recovery of the amount due under the promissory notes and for enforcement of the equitable mortgage executed by the first defendant. The second defen...
Tag this Judgment!Balammal and ors. Vs. M. Lakshmana Naicker
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-23-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Mad333
1. The plaintiff is the appellant. She died during the pendency of this appeal and her legal representative, appellants 2 and 3 continue the appeal. For the sake of convenience, the plaintiff alone will be referred to in this judgment.2. The suit was for a declaration that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the property described in the plaint Schedule and that the defendant is her tenant of the premises and is not entitled to any rights of a 'tenant' under the Madras Act III of 1922 (as amended) in respect of the plaint schedule property and also for a decree against the defendant for arrears of rent. The suit property is described as house, ground and premises now bearing municipal door No. 34-A, Bangaru Reddy St, Corporation Dn No. 44, Madras bearing R.S. No. 28/4 measuring east to west 83 ft. and north to south 411/2 ft. together with the structures thereon. The defendant contended that he came into occupation of the premises about 44 years ago, that in or about 1940 the defend...
Tag this Judgment!The Citadel Fine Pharmaceuticals Private Limited Vs. the District Reve ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-23-1971
Reported in: (1973)1MLJ99
Raghavan, J.1. These batches of writ petitions are filed for the issue of a writ of Prohibition or any other appropriate writ prohibiting the respondents from taking further proceedings in pursuance of the notices dated 39th January, 1968 and 20th February, 1968, which were issued by the tax collecting authorities on the ground that Rule 12 of the Medicinal and Toilet Preparations (Excise Duties) Rules, 1956 framed under Section 19 of the Medicinal and Toilet. Preparations (Excise Duties) Act 1955, (XVI of 1955) is ultra vires. The petitioners in each of the cases are manufacturers of patent or proprietary medicines carrying on business in the State of Madras.2. We shall take up W.P. No. 1053 of 1968 by way of sample and the allegations in the other petitions are more or less of the same pattern. The petitioner is a partnership concern, which came into existence in July, 1960. During the period 1560 upto May, 1963 the petitioner-firm was running two laboratories one at Madras and the o...
Tag this Judgment!N. Radhakrishna Naidu and ors. Vs. S. Govindaswami Naidu and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-20-1971
Reported in: (1975)1MLJ212
M.M. Ismail, J.1. The question involved in this second appeal is the construction of a will executed by one Venugopala Naidu on 14th December, 1932, a registration copy of which has been marked as Exhibit A-1 in. these proceedings. The said Venugopala Naidu had only a daughter by name Sethulakshmi Ammal and he had no son. However, he adopted one Narayanaswami Naidu as his son. Under the will, he gave one house to the adopted son and another house to the daughter Sethulakshmi Ammal. He also provided for his lands to be divided in the proportion of 2 : 1, the adopted son taking a two-third share and the daughter taking an one-third share; with regard to his movables also, he provided that they should be taken equally by the adopted son and the daughter. In Clauses 4 and 5 of the will, he provided for the manner and the extent of the enjoyment of the properties by the daughter and what should happen to the same after her death. In Clause 4, he provided that the daughter should enjoy the p...
Tag this Judgment!Shanmughasundrathammal Vs. Narayana Konar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-17-1971
Reported in: AIR1973Mad335
1. The plaintiff is the appellant. He sued for declaration of his title to the suit property and for recovery of the same from the three defendants. The case of the plaintiff was that the suit property originally belonged to one Sudalaimuthu Konar, that after his death his widow, Somu Ammal was in enjoyment of the same till her death on 22-3-1966, that Somu Ammal had a daughter Kasamadi who predeceased her leaving no issues and that after her death Somu Ammal sold the properties to her brother the first defendant under a registered sale deed dated 21-6-1935. One Shanmugha Konar and his brother Enasamuthu filed a suit O.S 275 of 1935 on the file of the District Munsif, Srivaikuntam for a declaration that the sale deed executed by Somu Ammal was not binding on them as reversioners and succeeded in obtaining a decree. After the death of Somu Ammal the suit property is claimed by the plaintiff as the nearest heir of Sudalaimuthu as per the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.2. Th...
Tag this Judgment!Aruppukottai Chandra Bus Lines Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-17-1971
Reported in: [1973]87ITR154(Mad)
Ramaswami, J.1. Aruppukottai Chandra Bus Lines and Aruppukottai Chandra Transport is an unregistered partnership firm. On October 1, 1952, a return was submitted by the Aruppukottai Chandra Bus Lines and Aruppukottai Chandra Transport in respect of the accounting period ending on August 16, 1949, relevant for the assessment year 1950-51 showing an income of Rs. 51,528. The status claimed therein was that of an ' association of persons '. In Part III of the return in Form A the following names had been put in : (1) M. M. Palanichami Nadar, (2) N. Seeniammal (wife of No. 1), (3) P. Mathurai Veeraswami Nadar, (4) S. Ponnammal (wife of No. 3), and (5) P. Palanichami Nadar (younger brother of No. 3). But the shares of the above persons had not been noted.2. Notices under Sections 22(4) and 23(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, dated April 14, 1953, were issued to M. M. Palanichami Nadar and the return was disposed of by the Income-tax Officer by noting in his order sheet ' N.A. ' on Jan...
Tag this Judgment!Srivedapuriswaraswami Tiruvedukudi Vs. Sheik Farid
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-17-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Mad448
1. These two second appeals are directed against the judgments and decrees in A.S. Nos. 47 and 56 of 1968 respectively in O.S. Nos. 119/67 and 120/67 respectively. Sri Vedapuriswamy, Thiruvedhukudi is the plaintiff-appellant in these two appeals. The plaintiff-temple instituted two suits, viz. first two out of 4, i.e., O.S. Nos. 119 to 120 of 1967 on the file of the District Munisif Court, Tiruvaiyaru against the persons in possession for recovery of possession and profits. The defendants raised various pleas and resisted the plaintiff's case. The parties have endorsed to the effect that common questions of law and fact arise for determination in the suits. Therefore, these suits were tried together and the evidence recorded in O.S. No. 119/67 was treated as evidence in the other four suits. After the trial, the suits were decreed with costs directing the defendants to deliver possession of the suit lands to the plaintiff, delegating the question of determination of past and future pro...
Tag this Judgment!G. Muthuchami Naicker and ors. Vs. Senniappa Goundar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-17-1971
Reported in: (1972)2MLJ36
K.N. Mudaliyar, J.1. The defendants are the appellants. The Second Appeal is directed against the decree and judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge of Madurai in A.S. No. 562 of 1968 confirming the decree and judgment of the learned District Munsif of Palni in O.S. No. 131 of 1965 on his file.2. The plaintiffs are the residents of the hamlet Nachiappagoundanvalasu in Sindalapatti Village, and they have filed the suit in a representative capacity against the defendants who are Naickers by caste and who are the sole residents of the hamlet Ettimarathupatti which is also the hamlet of Sindalapatti Village. The suit is for a declaration that the plaintiffs and the persons whom they represent are entitled to conduct and perform the annual congregational worship of the Goddess Kaliamman in the suit shrine at Nachiappagoundanvalasu in the manner in which they are accustomed to do in the month of Vaikasi and for restraining the defendants by a permanent injunction from in any way interferin...
Tag this Judgment!Shanmughasundarathammal Vs. Narayana Konar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-17-1971
Reported in: (1972)2MLJ336
G. Ramanujam, J.1. The plaintiff is the appellant. He sued for declaration of his title to the suit property and for recovery of the same from the three defendants. The case of the plaintiff was that the suit property originally belonged to one Sudalaimuthu Konar, that after his death his widow, Somu Ammal was in enjoyment of the same till her death on 22nd March, 1966, that Somu Ammal had a daughter Kasamadi who predeceased her leaving no issues and that after her death Somu Ammal sold the properties to her brother the first defendant under a registered sale deed dated 21st June, 1935. One Shanmuga Konar and his brother Enamuthu filed a suit O.S. No. 275 of 1935 on the file of the District Munsif, Srivaikuntam for a declaration that the sale deed executed by Somu Ammal was not binding on them as reversioners and succeeded in obtaining a decree. After the death of Somu Ammal the suit property is claimed by the plaintiff as 'the nearest heir of Sudalaimuthu as per the provisions of the ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »