Chennai Court November 1962 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.
Palani Goundar Vs. Palani Goundar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-02-1962
Reported in: (1963)1MLJ231
ORDERGanapatia Pillai, J.1. This is a petition to revise the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer, in O.P. No. 150 of 1961 by which he directed eviction of the present petitioner-tenant on the ground that the arrear of rent due by him. was a sum of Rs. 810. The Officer came to this conclusion on the supposition that the rent payable for 1959-1960 and 1960-1961 was Rs. 530 per annum. This supposition was based upon the order of fixation of fair rent in O.P. No. 1 of 1961 by the Tahsildar of Pollachi. The facts leading upto the present petition are the following:2. There is no written lease deed between the parties. The parties are also not agreed as to what was the rent agreed upon, the tenant saying that it was only Rs. 250 and the landlord contending it was Rs. 450. In O.P. No. 45 of 1960 the landlord filed an application for eviction against the present petitioner on the ground of arrear of rent and contended that the rent due was Rs. 450. The tenant appeared in that proceeding an...
Pappa Ammal Alias Pappayammal Vs. Pandian Bank Ltd., by Its Authorised ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-02-1962
Reported in: (1964)1MLJ160
ORDERS. Ramachandra Iyer, J.1. The learned Subordinate Judge has allowed the widow of the deceased Manicka Chetty to be impleaded as a party to O.S. No. 79 of 1961, and this Civil Revision Petition is directed against that order. Unfortunately, in making the order, the learned Subordinate Judge did not decide the question whether the widow of the deceased Manicka Chetty was either a necessary party or even a proper party. But he contented himself with saying that, if it were to be found in the suit that she was not a necessary party, the suit would have to be dismissed against her. This is a very unsatisfactory way of disposing of the matter. Before a Court impleads a particular person as a party to a suit, it is its duty to find even at that stage whether that party is a necessary party or a proper party. It will be only abdicating its duty If it were to reserve that question to a later stage, impleading the person as a party and exposing him to all the travails of a litigation. It is...
Naina Vs. S. Rajappa and K. Ramaiah, Trustees of Kailasanathar, Etc., ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-01-1962
Reported in: (1963)1MLJ180
Veeraswami, J.1. The Revenue Court at Tiruchirappalli, on the application of the respondent-Devasthanam, passed eviction orders against the petitioners in this Court. But after the orders were passed, it is discovered that the survey numbers and the village relating to the particular blocks of land involved in each of the eviction petitions were wrongly given. For instance, in Petition No. 890 of 1959 before the Revenue Court the extent of the land as well as the boundaries were correctly set out. But the survey field is given as 206 instead of 79/2 and the village was wrongly described as Alangudi, while the proper description should have been Kallikudi. That petition was to evict Kalian who filed a counter-statement in which he never felt any doubt about the identity of the land of which he was a tenant. His plea in defence was based on other facts. The facts were more or less similar in the other petitions before the Revenue Court. On applications filed for the purpose by the respon...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›