Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1966SC1937; [1966]SuppSCR135
Bachawat, J. 1. In 1921, the plaintiff executed in favour of the defendant an otti kuzhikanam deed in respect of the suit property. By this deed, the plaintiff sold to the defendant the building standing on the property for 350 fanams and also transferred to him for 350 fanams the right to possess and enjoy the property for 12 years in kuzhikanam right with liberty to plant coconut trees thereon, expressly reserving for the plaintiff the right to enjoy the fruit-bearing trees then standing on the property. The deed provided that after the expiry of 12 years the defendant would on demand demolish and take away the building and surrender possession of the land on receipt of 350 fanams and the agreed compensation for the coconut trees planted by him. The plaintiff instituted a suit for redemption of the property. During the pendency of the litigation, the plaintiff and the defendant died, and their legal representatives were substituted in their place. On May 31, 1951, the Principal Distr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1966SC1807; [1966]SuppSCR118
Ramaswami, J. 1. This appeal is brought, by special leave, from the judgment and decree of the Madras High Court dated August 9, 1963 in Letters Patent Appeal No. 45 of 1962. 2. The suit which is the subject-matter of this appeal was filed by the Tirunagar Panchayat, hereinafter called the 'Panchayat', against the Madurai Co-operation House Construction Society (hereinafter called the 'Society') in the District Munsif's Court of Tirumangalam. The Tirunagar Colony has been formed by the Society. The Colony consists of about 300 houses and its total population exceeds 1,500. At its inception the colony was within the jurisdiction of the Tirupparakundram Panchayat. On February 21, 1955 the Tirunagar colony was excluded from Tirupparakundram Panchayat and was declared as a separate village and was constituted as a separate Panchayat known as Tirunagar Panchayat. In the formation of the colony the Society has laid out and set apart and formed public roads, parks, play grounds and other publ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1966SC1773; 1966CriLJ1489; 1966MhLJ864; [1966]SuppSCR123
Shah, J. 1. The appellant, Mrs. Menezes, is the owner of a house in Bombay, and the wife of the first respondent Yusuf Khan is a tenant of a part of the first floor in that house. On January 17, 1963 one Robert - a servant of the appellant, called the wife of the first respondent a thief and 'Halkat'. On the next day the first respondent slapped the face of Robert. This was followed by a heated exchange of abusive words between the first respondent and the appellant's husband. The first respondent was annoyed and three at the appellant's husband as 'file' of papers. The file did not hit the appellant's husband, but it hit the elbow of the appellant causing a 'scratch'. The appellant lodged information at the Bandra police station complaining that the first respondent had committed house trespass in order to the committing of an offence punishable with imprisonment, had thrown a shoe at her, had slapped the face of her servant Robert, and had also caused her a 'bleeding incised wound on...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1967SC155; 1967(0)BLJR222; [1966]SuppSCR128
Bachawat, J. 1. The following pedigree shows the relationship of Sivasami Odayar and the members of his family : Chinnayal|-------------------------------------------------| |Sivasami Odayar Meenakshi Kamakshimarried Ayal AyalNeelayadakshi (Plff. No. 1) (Plff. No. 2) 2. Sivasami died issueless in 1927. By his will dated September 14, 1927 he bequeathed items 1 to 4 and one half of items 12 and 13 of the suit properties to his wife, Neelayadakshi absolutely and items 5 to 11 and one half of items 12 and 13 to his mother, Chinnayal absolutely. He also appointed Chinnayal as the trustee of items 14 to 18 for the benefit of the Pillayar temple. Neelayadakshi died in 1931. It is common case that on her death Chinnayal inherited her properties as a limited heir. Defendants 6 and 7 claimed that their father purchased item 4 from one Muthukumaraswami, agent for Chinnayal, under a sale deed dated June 5, 1937. On August 28, 1940, Chinnayal executed a deed of gift in favour of Muthukumaraswami g...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1966SC1908; [1966]SuppSCR114
Shah, J.1. Biswambar Roy - predecessor-interest of the appellants - was granted on February 20, 1928, a lease for ten years 1335 B.S. to 1344 B.S. at an annual rental of Rs. 75/- in respect of a plot of land, part of Dag No. 3615 in the town of Silchar, District Cachar in the State of Assam. Biswambar Roy constructed on the land, buildings, some for residential use, and others as warehouses. On the expiry of the period of the original lease, Biswambar Roy obtained a fresh lease in respect of a part of the land for ten years - Baisakh 1345 B.S. to Chaitra 1354 B.S. - at an annual rental of Rs. 70/- under an instrument dated February 22, 1938. 2. The respondents purchased the interest of the landlords in the land and instituted on August 3, 1951 an action in the Court of the Sadar Munsiff, Silchar against Biswambar Roy for a decree for vacant possession of the land. The suit was decreed by the Munsiff. Biswambar Roy appealed to the Subordinate Judge, Silchar. During the pendency of the a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1966SC1950; 1967(0)BLJR218; [1966]SuppSCR109
Wanchoo, J.1. This is an appeal by special leave against the judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court and arises in the following circumstances. The appellant brought a suit for redemption of certain mortgaged property. A preliminary decree was passed in the suit on February 3, 1954. It specified the amount due as principal and the amount due as interest upto a certain date. It also provided that future interest was to be paid at three per cent per annum on a certain sum from that date till the date of realisation. Parties were to bear their own costs. Further the decree provided for payment of the amount due on or before July 15, 1964 or within such time as might be extended. It also provided that if payment was made within the time limited under O. XXXIV r. 7(1)(c) of the Code of Civil Procedure, final decree would be passed. In the alternative it was provided that if the deposit was not made, the respondent would be entitled to apply for passing of a final decree praying that the r...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1966SC1922; [1966]SuppSCR104
Hidayatullah, J. 1. The appellant Messrs. Nandram Hunatram of Calcutta, a firm consisting of four partners including one Kishan Lal Aggarwal, held a mining lease for coal in respect of Handidhua Colliery for a period of 30 years commencing on April 6, 1959. Under Part VII of the lease, which contained the covenants of the lessee, the firm had undertaken to commence mining operations within one year from the date of the execution of the lease and then to continue the work of searching and winning minerals without voluntary intermission in a skilful and workman-like-manner. The firm had appointed one M. L. Goel as the Manager and Kishan Lal Aggarwal as the occupier of the colliery. It appears (and in fact it is not denied) that the partners fell out among themselves and as none of them was willing to spend money on the colliery, work deteriorated and came to a standstill in May 1962. Goel reported to the State Government that the wages of the labourers had not been paid for weeks, that w...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [1966]SuppSCR81
Ramaswami, J.1.This appeal is brought by certificate against the judgment and decree of the Rajasthan High Court dated January 29, 1963. 2. The appellant firm Bansidhar Premsukhdas brought a suit which is the subject-matter of this appeal against the State of Rajasthan on March 31, 1953 for the recovery of Rs. 86,646/3/- in the Court of District Judge, Bharatpur. The case of the appellant was that the former State of Bharatpur with a view to increase the trade and commerce in the said State decided to establish a Mandi at Bharatpur where at the material time a T.B. Hospital was located. It decided to sell plots for certain fixed amounts and, therefore, issued a notification on May 18, 1946 offering the plots by public advertisement for sale on certain terms and conditions. The notification - Ex. 4 - was published in Bharatpur Rajpatra and one of the concessions proposed to be granted was embodied in clause 3 of the notification which stated : 'If any commodity is imported from outside ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1966SC1892; [1966]SuppSCR92
Subba Rao, J.1. The appellant, Ellerman Bucknall Steamship Company Ltd., hereinafter called the ship owners, are a limited liability company incorporated under the law in the United Kingdom carrying on business as common carriers by sea. They own a ship named 'CITY OF LUCKNOW'. Messrs. Best & Co. Ltd., having their office at Madras, are the local agents of the ship owners. 2. Sha Misrimal Bherajee, the respondent herein, here-in-after called the buyer, entered into two contracts with the British Mercantile Company Limited, New York, herein-after called the seller, for the purchase of Fresh Monsanto Polystyrene Injection Moulding Power (not reground) in granueles manufactured by Monsanto Chemical of New York. In respect of the first contract, the purchaser placed two indents dated December 26, 1950, and December 27, 1950, for the said stuff of value of Rs. 13,500/- and Rs. 6,750/- respectively. The buyer entered into a second contract with the seller for the purchase of 24 drums of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1966SC1820; 1966CriLJ1500; [1966]SuppSCR68
Shah, J. 1. The appellant was charged before a Magistrate, 1st Class, at Varanasi with being, on November 25, 1960, in possession of counterfeit labels which could be used to pass off his 'tobacco tins' as the goods of M/s Nandoo Ram Khedan Lal bearing 'Titli' (butterfly) trade-mark, and with being in possession for sale of 'tobacco tins' bearing counterfeit trade marks of the genuine 'Titli' brand trade-mark of M/s Nandoo Ram Khedan Lal. The Trial Magistrate convicted the appellant and sentenced him to suffer simple imprisonment for three months for offences under s. 78 read with s. 77 and under s. 79 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act 43 of 1958, and directed the two sentences to run consecutively. In appeal to the Court of Session, Varanasi, the order passed by the Trial Magistrate was set aside and the appellant was acquitted principally on the ground that the prosecution was barred because it was not instituted within the period prescribed by s. 92 of the Act. The High Court o...
Tag this Judgment!