Chennai Court September 1965 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.
Krishnamurthi Aiyar Vs. Govindaswami Pillai and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-03-1965
Reported in: AIR1966Mad443; (1966)2MLJ383
(1) This application under Art. 227 of the Constitution has been preferred questioning the legality and regularity of an order passed by the Election Court under the Madras Panchayats Act 1958, pending an Election petition under the Act at the instance of the first respondent herein. By the impugned proceeding, the Election Court has directed the petitioner herein to appear before the Medical Officer, Government Leprosy Subsidiary centre, Vridhachalam, and submit himself for medical examination, for the purpose of ascertaining the fact whether he was suffering from leprosy. The petitioner herein is the first respondent in the Election petition above referred to and the successful candidate as against the first respondent herein in the election held for one seat for the Srinushnam Town Panchayat, South Arcot Dt. The election of the petitioner is challenged inter alia on the ground that he was suffering from leprosy and therefore, disqualified under Section 25(2)(a) of the Panchayat Act...
Perumayammal and anr. Vs. Chinnammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-03-1965
Reported in: AIR1967Mad189
ORDER(1) This revision is filed by the plaintiff questioning the dismissal of the suit filed by her on a promissory note dated 22nd August 1957 executed by the defendant in her favour. This promissory note in admittedly in renewal of an earlier promissory note dated 7th August 1954, executed by the husband of the defendant in favour of the plaintiff. On the date when the suit promissory note was executed, the earlier promissory note executed by the husband of the defendant had got barred and was therefore not enforceable. The plea in defence was that the suit promissory note was supported by consideration. Learned counsel for the plaintiff sought to rely on sub-sec (3) of Section 25 of the Indian Contract Act. But unfortunately for her the finding is that the wife has not been shown to be the agent of the husband. The agency being found against and the wife not being otherwise liable for the amount due under the prior promissory note, the case has to fail on the ground of lack of consi...
Shanmugha Nadar Vs. Sivan Pillai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-03-1965
Reported in: AIR1967Mad418
(1) These three appeals are connected and may be dealt with together. Four suits O.S. 665 of 1123 (M.E.). O.S. 375 of 1950 O.S. 297 of 1124(M.E.). and O.S. 703 of 1950 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Kuzhithurai, relate to portions of S. No. 63-A measuring 2 ac. 94 cents in Arudesam Pakuthi. The trial court after taking evidence disposed of all the four suits together.All the suits were taken on appeal to the District Court of Nagarcoil and the District Court O.S. 665 of 1124 and remanded the other three suits for retrial of the disputes of the parties in one consolidated suit and directed the plaintiff in O.S. 297 of 1124 to implead all persons who claim title and possession under the various mortgages and court sales in O.S. 904 of 1127 and 320 of 1105. It directed the plaintiff in O.S. 297 of 1124 to amend the plaint and convert the suit into one of trill and for partition of his share in the property. It also directed that the rights of the plaintiff in the other thr...
Soosai Arulan and ors. Vs. Irudayammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-02-1965
Reported in: (1969)1MLJ64
P.S. Kailasam, J.1. The defendants are the appellants in this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. The plaintiffs filed a suit in the Court of the District Munsif of Ramanathapuram for redemption of an othi. dated nth October, 1923, executed by one Maria Soosai and his mother Arulayee in favour of Seeni Ahammad Ghani Rowther for Rs. 1,000. The first plaintiff Irudayammal claimed to be the wife and the second plaintiff, Thiresammal as the daughter of the mortgagor, Maria Soosai. Plaintiffs 3 to 6 purchased some of the properties from plaintiffs 1 and 2 by sale deeds, dated 3rd March, 1958 and 10th April, 1958. It was alleged that the mortgagee was enjoying the suit properties during his lifetime, and after him his brother, the fifteenth defendant was in possession and enjoyment. The twelfth defendant is the son of the mortgagee. It was further alleged that the fifteenth defendant handed over possession for consideration to one Esudayan. The first defendant is the wife of Esudayan and defendants ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›