Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: mediation Court: chennai Year: 1956 Page 1 of about 48 results (0.026 seconds)

Apr 11 1956 (HC)

P. Murugayya Pillai and ors. Vs. S. Somasundaram Pillai and ors.

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Apr-11-1956

Reported in : AIR1957Mad100

..... that the lands of the family in narasingam-pettai and other lands taken on lease by them were not put in the possession of the mediators, in this mediation a strenuous attempt was made to draw up lists of the assets of the family. d. w. 3 krishnas-awmi ayyangar collected data with ..... the learned subordinate judge was constrained to agree. no doubt, the idea of settling matters by administering oaths appears to have been entertained at the mediation : see paragraph 34 of his judgment.in the face of the large volume of evidence about this taking of oaths which could not be a ..... 17 but i cannot say even approximately how long prior to ex. a-17 this arrangement took place. the arrangement was come to in the presence of mediator narayanaswami padayachi. he and krishnaswami ayyangar alone know about it'. .this narayanaswami padayachi referred to is not a witness. as reagrds krishnaswami ayyangar examined as ..... deed written in 1938 by d. w. 10. but this draft did not result in a partition deed being executed. in 1939 the parties sought a mediation by an influential ryot of tirukkodikaval by name narayanasami padayachi, krishnaswami ay-yangar, examined as d. w. 3, and one doraisami. padayachi. to these three ..... an extra share as the eldest son, which the other brothers were unwilling to concede.in the same year there was another attempt at partition by the mediation of panchapakesa ayyar, the karnam of tuhili, doraisami mudaliar and tuhili / muthiah pillai. exs. b-6 to rule 10 and a-8 relate to .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 18 1956 (HC)

Rajamma Vs. Varadarajulu Chetti and ors.

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Jul-18-1956

Reported in : AIR1957Mad198

..... chetti, the plaintiff's father is said to have settled the maintenance claim of his daughter by executing ex. b-3 in pursuance of the arbitration award ex. b-2 mediated under the muchalika ex, b-l. the plaintiff has always been residing with her lather, because she has not joined her husband, this being a pre-puberty marriage. in 1950 .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 27 1956 (HC)

Palwanna Nadar and ors. Vs. Annamalai Ammal

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Sep-27-1956

Reported in : AIR1957Mad330

..... have up till now a female child by name annamalai ammal aged six years. as regarding to my promise given at the time of your marriage in the presence of mediators that i should give you immovable pioljerlies. i have by this deed given you the properties shown in schedule hereto valued at rs. 600 and now itself placed you in .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 31 1956 (HC)

V. Sundaram Iyer Vs. Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies and or ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Jul-31-1956

Reported in : (1956)2MLJ613

rajagopala ayyangar, j.1. these writ petitions are for the issue of writs of prohibition restraining the deputy registrar of co-operative societies from proceeding with certain plaints filed before him under section 51 of the co-operative societies act, and they raise for consideration mainly the proper construction of certain sections of that enactment to which we shall advert presently. these petitions fall into two major divisions and each relates to two co-operative societies which have now been superseded and whose management has now been vested in special officers appointed by the registrar of co-operative societies. w.p. nos. 853, 914, 915 and 920 of 1955 arise out of claims made on behalf of the sivaganga co-operative urban bank, ltd., while w.p. nos. 258 to 263 of 1955 relate to claims preferred on account of the karaikudi co-operative stores, ltd.2. it will be necessary to set out in brief outline the facts and the allegations on the basis of which claims have been made against the petitioners in the several writ petitions, who are ex-directors of these societies, in order to appreciate the point raised on their behalf.3. w.p. no. 853 of 1955 and 920 of 1955 seek the issue of writs of prohibition restraining the deputy registrars of co-operative societies, who have been impleaded as the first respondent, from proceeding with the enquiry in a.r.c. no. 6239 of 1953-54 filed by the special officer appointed to manage the affairs of the sivaganga co-operative urban bank .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 11 1956 (HC)

K. Panchapagesa Ayyar and anr. Vs. K. Kalyanasundaram Ayyar and ors.

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Apr-11-1956

Reported in : AIR1957Mad472

ramaswami, j. 1. this is an appeal preferred against the decree and judgment of the learned subordinate judge of tanjore in o. s. no. 15 of 1947. 2. the facts are:-- the plaintiff and defendants 1 to 3 are brothers. defendants 4 to 11 aretheir sons. defendants 12 to 17 are alienees. thisfamily of four brothers was a leading mirasdar family of kunniyur. they own lands in several villages.the plaintiff was residing at kunniyur andkumbakonam. the first defendant wasmanaging the lands at perugavazhanthan.the second defendant was managing the landsin kunniyur, periakudi and tiruventhurai. thethird defendant was managing the lands at agaram,palayangudi, manakud and vikrapandiam. theyused to send the net realisations to kunniyur andinvest them in banks at kumbakonam and they visedto lend out moneys also. this family was also assessed to income-tax. these brothers were living amicably till 1940 and improving the patrimony left by their father and came to own 112 velis of land. in november 1940 on account of differences between the womenfolk, they agreed to become divided and prepared four lists. but as they could not proceed further as to how the allotment was to be made and they had also certain differences, they gave a muchalika to their sister's husband sri p. s. sivarama ayyar, who was then aged about 60 and who was the president of the bar association, negapattinam till 1930. 3. this muchalika ex. b 102 runs as follows:-- 'whereas there is-no unity amongst us and we have decided .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 05 1956 (HC)

The State of Madras Vs. Ramalingam and Co.

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Mar-05-1956

Reported in : [1957]8STC77(Mad)

govinda menon, j.1. this appeal arises out of a suit for the recovery of a sum of rs. 10,485-3-4 collected by the government of madras as sales tax from the plaintiff for the year 1945-46, on the ground that such collection was ultra vires and illegal, because the export trade of the plaintiff during that period was not assessable to any sales tax prior to the amendment by act xxv of 1947.2. in the plaint, a list of several exports giving the names of the constituents and the net turnover deducting the freight, and the nature of the contracts have been given, and it is stated that the order of assessment on exports detailed there was wholly ultra vires and beyond the powers of the government. the lower court agreed with the contentions raised by the plaintiff with regard to a refund of the sum of rs. 10,325 and decreed the suit to that extent. the state of madras, through the district. collector, tirunelveli, is the appellant herein.3. exhibit a-7 contains a list of exports to various foreign countries and the amount of money for which each transaction was entered into. there are 17 transactions listed therein to the total tune of over rs. 10 lakhs. items 1 to 5 in that document deal with contracts for selling fibre to firms in london and exhibits a-8 to a-i2 also relate to these contracts. items 6 to 8 are with respect to the sale of goods to firms in australia and exhibits a-i3 to a-i5 deal with them. items 9 and 10 are purchases by egyptian firms and 'exhibits a-16 and a- .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 12 1956 (HC)

Syed Shah Abdul Latif Mohideen Kadiri Sujjatha Shibahadulla Sahib Vs. ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Mar-12-1956

Reported in : (1958)2MLJ199

ramaswami, j.1. this is an appeal preferred against the decree and judgment of the learned subordinate judge of tirunelveli in o.s. no. 26 of 1948.2. the suit was under section 92 of the code of civil procedure: (1) for removing the first defendant from the trusteeship of the suit pallivasal and from the possession and management of the trust properties; (2) for framing and settling a scheme suitable for the administration of the pallivasal; (3) for declaring the alienations made by defendants 1 to 5 of the trust properties invalid and void and (4) for a permanent injunction restraining defendants 1 to 5 or anybody on their behalf from interfering in any manner with the trust and its management and its properties.3. the suit pallivasal known as the mohideen andavar pallivasal is a famous dharga in tirunelveli district. it is said that it owes its sanctity to a great moham-madan fakir by name mohideen jelani coming and performing his penance there. the first defendant is a descendant of that jelani.4. in the tirunelveli gazetteer compiled by mr. pate, i.c.s. at page 360 the following description of this dharga is given:the mosque which is an old one (said to have been founded in 1674) is built on an ample scale, strongly suggesting in its design the plan of a hindu temple. it has its annual festival (qanthuri); but throughout the year, it is a popular resort of not only muhammadans but also hindu and christian pilgrims. in the way usual amongst hindus, vows are made by all .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 28 1956 (HC)

General Papers Limited Vs. A.P.A. Pakkir Mohideen and Brothers

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Nov-28-1956

Reported in : (1958)1MLJ294

panchapakesa iyer, j.1. this is an appeal by the general papers limited, madras, defendants in o.s. no. 43 of 1951 on the file of the principal subordinate judge of tirunelveli, against the judgment and decree therein.2. that was a suit filed against them by one pakir mohideen and others of kadianallur for recovering from them rs. 6,781-12-0 with subsequent interests and costs. the story of the plaintiffs was briefly this.3. on 1st march, 1950, the plaintiffs' agent, annamalai nadar, placed an order exhibit b-1 with the defendants for 7 bales 308 reams of imitation glassine paper worth rs. 4,499-11-o. on 6th march, 1950, he placed an order for 3 bales of coloured transparent paper worth rs. 1,454-11-0, under exhibit b-2. both these orders were placed by him after inspecting the stock of such paper with defendants, and approving of their quality but without separating the bales covered by the two contracts from the general stock with the defendants. the prices were ex-godown madras, and the goods were to be despatched by railway to sattur railway station. the packing and forwarding charges and sales tax were to be paid extra by the buyers. the entire price and charges were to be paid by the plaintiffs at tenkasi within the jurisdiction of the lower court, through the south india bank, ltd., the appellants sent both the consignments together by railway to sattur consigned to self, and not to the plaintiffs, on 7th march, 1950, as per exhibit a-2. the invoice for the goods came .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 03 1956 (HC)

Swaminatha Udayar Vs. Mottaya Padayachi and ors.

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Jul-03-1956

Reported in : AIR1957Mad209

rajagopala ayyangar, j.1. the relevant facts in this miscellaneous appeal against an order of remand lie within a narrow compass. one subramania was the original owner of the property in dispute for the recovery of which the suit out of which this appeal arises has been filed. he had usufructuarily mortgaged the property to one marudamuthu padayachi on 4-12-1893 for rs. 40. the plaintiff claims title from the heirs of subramania, he having purchased the suit property from them by a registered sale deed dated 25-2-1948.these heirs claimed that the usufructuary mortgage had become extinguished by reason of the provisions of madras act iv of 1938 and that consequently they were entitled to recover possession of the property, and they transferred their title in the property to the plaintiff. on the other hand the case of the contesting defendants who claim under the usufructuary mortgagee marudamuthu was two-fold.first they pleaded that the property sold to the plaintiff under the deed of sale dated 25-2-1948 was not the property mortgaged to them and of which they were in possession secondly they contended that subramania had by an unregistered deed dated 18-8-1900 sold the property to marudamuthu, the consideration being discharge of the usufructuary mortgage, viz. rs. 40 and an extra sum of rs. 10 paid at the time of the sale. on this ground they pleaded that the title of subramania got extinguished both by reason of the sale as well as by marudamuthu and those claiming under .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 20 1956 (HC)

Thozhukkat Pathan Veettil Tavazhi Lakshmi Tarwad Karnavasthri Lakshmi ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Jul-20-1956

Reported in : (1956)2MLJ542

ramaswami, j.1. this appeal is directed against the decree and judgment of the learned district judge of south malabar in a.s. no. 229 of 1951 confirming the order and decree of the learned subordinate judge of ottapalam, in o.p. no. 34 of 1949.2. the case for appellants : the 5 items mentioned in the schedule to the petition belong to the tavazhi tarwad of the petitioners. achutha menon, the then karnavan of the tarwad, personally executed a mortgage in favour of konthi menon, the karnavan of the respondents' tarwad for rs. 1,000 on the 23rd medom 1049 (4th august, 1874), under exhibit b-2. on the same day another possessory mortgage exhibit b-1 was executed to the same konthi menon for a sum of rs. 400. on the 13th of medom 1052 (24th april, 1877) another mortgage for rs. 1,376 was executed (exhibit b-4.) then exhibit b-5 was executed for rs. 143-12-1 on 8th of meenam 1053 (19th march, 1878). exhibit b-6 was another possessory mortgage document executed on the 28th mithunam 1054 (7th july, 1879) for a consideration of rs. 831. subsequently there was a partition in the tarwad of the respondents in 1070 (1894-1895). on 8th june, 1898 a possessory mortgage document for rs. 4,228 was executed in the names of one gopala menon and others for and on behalf of the respondents' tarwad. the persons in whose name that document was executed really took it on behalf of their tarwad. the properties in the petition have thereafter been remaining in the possession of the respondents' .....

Tag this Judgment!


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //