Chennai Court January 1973 Judgments
Narayanaru Vs. Kanniammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-23-1973
Reported in: AIR1973Mad471; (1973)1MLJ448
1. The plaintiff in O. S. No. 137 of 1964 on the file of the court of Principal District Munsif, Padhamanbapuram, who succeeded before the trial Court and lost before the first appellate Court is the appellant herein. The suit was instituted (as seen from the plaint which was finally amended) for redemption of an alleged othi under Ex. A-2 dated 8-6-1094 M. E. The principal question that had to be considered by the courts below was whether the land in question was janmom land coming within the scope of the Travancore Jenmi and Kudiyan Act of 1071 M. E. as amended in 1108 M. E. or is it a Sreepandavaraga land. The consequence of the land being jenmom land will be that the appellant was not entitled to redemption and recovery of possession while if the land was Sreepandavaraga land the appellant would be entitled to recover possession thereof on redemption. The one other question that came to be considered was whether the transaction under Ex. A-2 was an irredeemable one or redeemable on...
Tag this Judgment!Vummitti Subramaniam Chetty Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-23-1973
Reported in: [1974]94ITR239(Mad)
Ramanujam, J. 1. One V. Subramaniam Chetty was carrying on business in yarn in his individual capacity from April, 1956. On March 31, 1961, a sum of Rs. 50,000 was transferred from his account to the account of his son, V. Pandurangan, in the accounts of the business. Later, on April 4, 1961, a deed of partnership came to be executed between himself and his son. At that stage, the son, Pandurangan was aged 19 years. An application was filed for registration of the said firm for the year ending with March 31, 1962. The Income-tax Officer, taking into account Clauses 9 and 10 of the partnership deed, held that there was no relationship of partners between the said Subramaniam Chetty and his son, Pandurangan, inasmuch as Panduragan derived his right and power only by consent of his father. In that view, the Income-tax Officer rejected the application for registration. There was an appeal to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, who, however, held that the two conditions for bringing into ...
Tag this Judgment!C.P. Kandaswamy and ors. Vs. Mariappa Stores and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-22-1973
Reported in: AIR1974Mad178
1. A preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is raised by the contesting respondents and we think that the objection has to be upheld and the appeal dismissed. The appeal arises out of a claim of Rs. 25,000/- made by one Mr. C. P. Kandaswami, an Advocate practising at Coimbatore, for injuries sustained by him in a motor accident that occurred on 1-11-1962 on the Perundurai-Erode Road. He was travelling in a Fiat Taxi bearing registration No. MDE 5747 and proceeding from Perundurai to Erode, when the Ambassador car bearing registration No. MDY 7077 belonging to the 1st respondent to the petition and driven by the 1st respondent's driver Senniappan came in the opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the Fiat Taxi and thereby caused several injuries to Mr. Kandasami, the petitioner. The petitioner claimed in all a sum of Rs. 25,000/- made up of Rs. 1,000/- towards medical expenses, Rs. 4,000/- towards loss of profess...
Tag this Judgment!Guruswami Asari and ors. Vs. Raju Asari and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-22-1973
Reported in: AIR1973Mad473; (1973)2MLJ203
1. The plaintiffs in O. S. No. 339 of 1964 on the file of the court of the District Munsif of Chingleput who succeeded before the trial Court but lost before the first appellate Court are the appellants herein. The suit was instituted by the appellants for partition and separate possession of 1/6th share to each of the suit properties under the following circumstances Ex. A-1 dated 23-3-1958 is an agreement entered into between the appellants and the second defendant and his father. Ganapathi Asari. This document refers to the suit properties as belonging to the second defendant and his father but proceeds to state that the patta in the Zamin estate for the suit properties stood in the name of all the seven persons who were parties to Ex. A-1 and that for arrears of kist for faslis 1361 to 1367, amounting to Rs. 601, the suit properties were sold by the Firka Revenue Inspector Cheyyur on 24-2-1958 and were purchased by one Kittu Iyengar of Maduranthakam. The agreement further states th...
Tag this Judgment!P.G. Ranganatha Padayachi Vs. the Mayavaram Financial Corporation Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-18-1973
Reported in: AIR1974Mad1
1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is against the order of arrest passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Cuddalore in execution of a money decree. There are two judgment-debtors and both were ordered to be arrested by the order dated 19-3-1968. The 2nd judgment-debtor is challenging the said order in this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. The point taken by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the order of the executing Court is one without jurisdiction inasmuch as the Court has not recorded its reasons for ordering arrest after giving an opportunity to the appellant for showing cause as to why he should not be arrested in execution. Reliance is placed on the proviso to Section 51 of the Code of Civil Procedure. But we are of opinion that there is no merit in the point taken by the learned counsel.2. It is no doubt true that the order of the executing Court is a one line order and it says: "No payment made. Arrest D1 and D2 by 9-4-1968. Batta after a week." The executing Court has...
Tag this Judgment!S.D. Asirvatham and anr. Vs. G. Palniraju Mudaliar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-18-1973
Reported in: AIR1973Mad439; (1973)1MLJ443
1. The defendants in O. S. No. 3224 of 1964 on the file of the City Civil Court, Madras are the appellants herein. They executed a promissory note, Ex. A-1, dated 6-4-1960, for a sum of Rs. 5,000 payable with interest at 12 per cent per annum in favor of one Peter Manickam (P.W. 1). The said Peter Manickam endorsed the promissory note in favor of the respondent herein on 10-9-1964 as evidenced by Ex. A-2. It is on the basis of this endorsement, the respondent herein instituted the suit against the appellants for recovery of Rs. 6,800 made up of the principal of Rs. 5,000 and interest of Rs. 1,800 due under the promissory note, but prayed for a decree only against the first appellant-first defendant. In his written statement the first appellant contended that the respondent herein was not a holder in due course under law, since there was no notice of transfer and that the respondent had knowledge of the partial discharge of the suit promissory note to the extent of Rs. 3,000 on 7-8-1961...
Tag this Judgment!M. Nagarajan and anr. Vs. the Tiruchirappalli Co-operative House Const ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-17-1973
Reported in: (1973)2MLJ188
ORDERT. Ramaprasada Rao, J.1. In each of these petitions a common question arises. It is agreed that the facts in Writ Petition No. 2999 of 1972, may be perused for an appreciation of the facts in the other petition. The petitioner is one of the Board of Directors as well as a member of the Tiruchirappalli Cooperative House Construction Society, Tiruchy. It is not in dispute that the writ petitioner, in both the writ petitions, was a Director of the Society and, but for the challenged order, would continue in such capacity till September, 1973. The petitioner in Writ Petition No. 2999 of 1972 borrowed a sum of Rs. 5,835-06 p. and the petitioner in W.P. No. 3002 of 1972 borrowed Rs. 8,000 for constructing a house in the Colony of the Society and, under the terms and by-laws governing the Society as also under the conditions under which the loans were secured, the petitioners were expected to pay the debts in instalments. He paid such instalments ever since the date of the borrowing and ...
Tag this Judgment!R. Kapanipathi Rao and anr. Vs. M.S. Meyyappan and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-11-1973
Reported in: AIR1974Mad57
Raghavan, J.1. The defendants are the appellants. 2. The suit is for recovery of possession of the 'Hotel Oceanic' and its annexe 'Ratnagar' more fully described in Schedules 1 and 2 to the plaint, for recovery of Rupees 22,500/- as and for mesne profits for the period commencing from 12-7-1969 to 26-8-1969 (date of suit) and for future mesne profits at the rate of Rs. 15,000/- per month. The first plaintiff is the son of late M. S. Ramaswami Chettiar and the second plaintiff is the wife of the said Ramaswami Chettiar. The said Ramaswami Chettiar was the owner of the building 'Hotel Oceanic' and his wife, the second plaintiff, is the owner of 'Ratnagar' an annexe of Hotel Oceanic, at Madras. The said Ramaswami Chettiar was himself running a residential high class Hotel and Restaurant in the said Hotel Oceanic and its annexe Ratnagar which were fully furnished with fittings, furniture and equipment ever since the completion of its construction in or about 1954. In or about July, 1959, t...
Tag this Judgment!C.P. Kandaswami Mudaliar and anr. Vs. Palaniammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-11-1973
Reported in: AIR1974Mad352
1. The first defendant is the appellant. The suit is one for redemption of a usufructuary mortgage dated 3-1-1922 and for partition and separate possession of the plaintiff's alleged half shore in the suit properties. The suit was resisted mainly by the appellant as the first defendant, contending that the mortgage had been discharged by him on 30-6-1949, and that as there is no subsisting mortgage, there is no question of its redemption. He also contended that he had become the absolute owner of the suit properties by virtue of his purchase on 30-6-1949 and that in any event, he has perfected title to the suit properties by adverse possession.2. The trial court held that the plaintiff is entitled to redeem the suit mortgage and, therefore, granted a preliminary decree for redemption, partition and separate possession of the plaintiff's half share. The said decision of the trial court has also been affirmed by the lower appellate court.3. In this second appeal by the first defendant it...
Tag this Judgment!C.P. Kandaswami Mudaliar (Deceased) and anr. Vs. Palaniammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-11-1973
Reported in: (1973)2MLJ457
G. Ramanujam, J.1. The first defendant is the appellant. The suit is one for redemption, of a usufructuary mortgage dated 3rd January, 1922 and for partition and separate possession of the plaintiffs' alleged half share in the suit properties. The suit was resisted mainly by the appellant as the first defendant, contending that the mortgage had been discharged by him on 30th June, 1949 and that as there is no subsisting mortgage, there is no question of its redemption. He also contended that he had become the absolute owner of the suit properties by virtue of this purchase on 30th June, 1949 and that, in any event, he had perfected title to the suit properties by adverse possession.2. The trial Court held that the plaintiff is entitled to redeem the suit mortgage and, therefore, granted a preliminary decree for redemption, partition and separate possession of the plaintiff's half share. The said decision of the trial Court has also been affirmed by the lower appellate Court.3. In this ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »