Chennai Court February 1968 Judgments
Ammasai Gounder Vs. Ravala Gounder (Died) by L.Rs.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-29-1968
Reported in: (1968)2MLJ90
M.M. Ismail, J.1. The suit property originally belonged to one Kuppana Goundar who died before 1937. Kulliammal was his widow and he had two sons and four daughters. The respondent herein is the husband of one of the daughters. One of the sons of Kuppana Goundar was Rangappa Goundan who died in 1947 survived by his widow Ayyammal. In view of the fact that the other son of Kuppana Goundar died unmarried even during the lifetime of Rangappa Goundan, Rangappa Goundan became entitled to the entire property of Kuppana Goundar and after his death in 1947 his widow Ayyammal succeeded to the property. O.P. No. 40 of 1948 was filed by Kulliammal for appointment of guardian for the person and property of Ayyammal who was a minor and that O.P. was ordered. On 28th August, 1954, Kulliammal executed a lease deed in favour of the respondent herein in respect of the suit property for a period of ten years and received the entire rent in advance. On 9th March, 1960, Ayyammal sold the suit property to ...
Tag this Judgment!P.P. Krishnan Vs. J. Thailambal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-29-1968
Reported in: (1969)1MLJ328
K.S. Venkataraman, J.1. The facts giving rise to this appeal are these : The appellant Krishnan, and the respondent, Thailambal, were duly married according to Hindu rites. But, unfortunately, differences arose latterly. On 8th December, 1958, the husband filed O.P. No. 39 of 1958 (Sub-Court, Dindigul) under Section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for declaring the marriage a nullity on the ground of alleged impotency of the respondent. During the pendency of the above petition the wife filed an application, LA. No. 31 of 1959, on 2 3rd June, 1959 under Section 24 of the Act for interim maintenance and expenses of the proceeding. Actually even before O.P. No. 39 of 1958 was filed, she had filed M.P. No. 324 of 1958 on 23rd August, 1958 under Section 488, Criminal Procedure Code, before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Usilampatti. After filing O.P. No. 39 of 1958, the husband moved for a stay of the enquiry into that petition pending disposal of O.P. No. 39 of 1958. This application...
Tag this Judgment!Subbae Gounder Vs. Palanathal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-27-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Mad204
Ramaprasada Rao, J.1. The petitioner, the husband, is canvassing in this civil revision petition the correctness or propriety of the order of the lower Court in appointing a Commissioner ex parte under Order 39, Rule 7, C.P.C., in a maintenance action filed by the wife against him. The respondent wife as plaintiff alleges-'Since my separate residence as aforesaid I have been demanding of my husband separate maintenance through my father and other interested persons at the rate of Rs. 500/- per mensem, but my husband is evading to do so. My husband is possessed of first class garden lands of an extent of 7 vallams, worth not less than Rs. 2 lakhs and yielding an annual net income of Rs. 20,000/-. Besides my husband is also having money dealings to the tune of not less than Rs. 1,50,000/- yielding annual interest of Rs. 18,000/-.' In order to ascertain the total value of her husband's business activities, which according to the plaintiff are not correctly reflected in the account books o...
Tag this Judgment!Subba Gounder Vs. Palaniathal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-27-1968
Reported in: (1969)1MLJ188
T. Ramaprasada Rao, J.1. The petitioner, the husband, is canvassing in this civil revision petition the correctness or propriety of the order of the lower Court in appointing a Commissioner ex parte under Order 39, Rule, 7, Civil Procedure Code, in a maintenance action filed by the wife against him. The respondent wife as plaintiffSince my separate residence as aforesaid I have been demanding of my husband separate maintenance through my father and other interested persons at the rate of Rs. 500 per mensem, but my husband is evading to do so.My husband is possessed of first class garden lands of an extent of 7 valams, worth not less than Rs. 2 lakhs and yielding an annual net income of Rs. 20,000.Besides my husband is also having money dealings to the tune of not less than Rs. 1,50,000 yielding annual interest of Rs. 18,000.2. In order to ascertain the total value of her husband's business activities, which according to the plaintiff are not correctly reflected in the account books of ...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Sekharan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-26-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Mad320; 1969CriLJ1056
ORDERKrishnaswamy Reddy, J.1. The point that arises in thisrevision petition is whether a SessionsJudge has got power to alter or add tothe charge framed by the CommittalCourt before the commencement of thetrial. 2. What the petitioner did in this case was, he filed an application before the Additional Sessions Judge, Madras requesting him to alter a charge under Section 307 I. P. C. under which the committal was made, to one under Section 326 I. P. C. The learned Additional Sessions Judge held that he had no jurisdiction to drop a charge under Section 307 I. P. C. and frame a charge under Section 326 instead. He cited a case in Kantilal Keshavlal v. Prabhed-chandra, 1964 2 Crl LJ 87 (Guj) and also a decision of the Supreme Court in Ban-wari v. State of U. P., : AIR1962SC1198 . aS far as I could see there is no reference to either Section 226 or Section 227 Crl. P. C. in the Supreme Court decision In .the earlier decision a single Judee of the Orissa (Gujarat?) High Court held that alt...
Tag this Judgment!The Trivandrum Permanent Fund Vs. K.M.A. Mohamed Mohideen Sahib
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-20-1968
Reported in: (1968)2MLJ377
M.M. Ismail, J.1. O.S. No. 15 of 1951 instituted by the appellant herein was based on a mortgage and a decree therein was passed on 28th October, 1953. The amount for which the decree was passed is said to be over Rs. 50,000. The mortgaged properties were brought to sale on 6th April, 1961, and the decree-holder himself purchased the same for a sum of Rs. 37,450. Thereafter the respondent herein who was the first defendant in the suit and to whose family the property belonged, filed an application to set aside the sale under the provisions of Order 21, Rule 90 of the Civil Procedure Code. On 9th January, 1962, the Court passed an Order directing the respondent herein to furnish security. Against the said order, the respondent preferred A.A.O. No. 154 of 1962 on the file of this Court. On 4th August, 1965 this Court set aside the order of the lower Court dated 9th January, 1962 and directed that ' the lower Court may, if it considers necessary, call upon the appellant to furnish securit...
Tag this Judgment!Syed Ibrahim and ors. Vs. Jalma and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-19-1968
Reported in: (1968)2MLJ83
M.M. Ismail, J.1. The appellants in the above Second Appeal and the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal and the petitioners in the Civil Revision Petitions are the same. Appellants 1 to 3 are the assignees of the fourth appellant (fourth petitioner in the Civil Revision Petitions), who instituted O.S. No. 8l of 1961 on the file of the Court of the Principal District Munsiff, Madurai Town for directing Kader Mohideen Rowther (first defendant) to vacate and put the plaintiff in possession of the suit site after removing the superstructure thereon put up by the first defendant and for directing the first defendant to pay the plaintiff a sum of Rs. 276, the rent arrears for four months and twelve days. The plaint was presented on 18th February, 1961. Summons in the suit were served on the first defendant on 14th March, 1961. On 20th April, 1961, the first defendant filed his written statement. Subsequent to the filing of the written statement, the first defendant died on 17th September, 1961. There...
Tag this Judgment!Workmen of Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd. and ors. Vs. State Government o ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-16-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Mad21; [1968(17)FLR290]; (1969)ILLJ499Mad
ORDERKailasam, J.1.The question that arises in all these Writ Petitions is whether the Government having once declined to refer an industrial dispute for adjudication after consideration of a conciliation report could, by a subsequent order, refer the same dispute for adjudication.2. Writ Petitions Nos. 2900/67 and 2901/67 relate to a dispute between Best and Co. (P.) Ltd. and its workers. M/s Best & Co., was owning seven factories in Madras and each of these factories had its own licence issued under the Factories Act, and workmen had been recruited for each factory separately. One of the factories, namely, Bestonite Factory, had to stop production due to non-availability of sulphuric acid. The factory was closed on 9-1-1966 and thirty-four employees, (29 workers and 5 in the staff section) were given notice and paid closure compensation. Of the thirty-four persons, seventeen persons (12 workers and five staff) received the amount and settled the accounts. The other seventeen put forw...
Tag this Judgment!T.R. Rajagopala Iyer Vs. T.R. Ramachandra Iyer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-16-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Mad144
ORDERVeeraswami, J.1. This petition by the plaintiff is directed against an order of the Second Additional District Judge, Coimbatore, appointing a Commissioner for local inspection. The suit was one for specific performance and for mesne profits which was eventually decreed after the litigation had seen several courts, including the Supreme Court in the enquiry for mesne profits the trial Court found that a sum of Rs. 5,000/- per annum could be fixed as mense profits. It appears 14 acres of single crop wet lands, 3 acres of cocoanut grove and 58 acres of dry lands are the properties involved in the suit. In the Lower Appellate Court in support of the application for Commissioner it was stated that it was necessary to have the properties inspected, because no attention has been paid in the trial Court with reference to the alleged reclamation of jungle lands into cultivable lands and that in such a case, income from such land should be excluded and there were also areas which were rock...
Tag this Judgment!Vathsala Vs. N. Manoharan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-16-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Mad405; (1969)1MLJ402
ORDERVeeraswami, J.1. This is rather a peculiar case. The petitioner instituted an original petition for a declaration that her marriage with the respondent in this court was a nullity because of his impotency. A decree for nullity was eventually granted, but ex parte. The petitioner and her father had given evidence and there was also the report of the Medical examination of the respondent. That was the basis on which the ex parte decree was made. The respondent filed an application to set aside the ex parte decree, and at the same time, also filed an appeal from the order. The appeal had been withdrawn. But the court below has set aside the ex parte decree, it being of opinion that sufficient cause for the absence of the respondent was made out. In the meantime, relying upon the decree declaring the marriage to be a nullity, the petitioner contracted a second marriage. The petitioner pressed before the Court below that the respondent's application for setting aside the ex parte decre...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »