Chennai Court April 1968 Judgments
K.S. Vaidyanathan and ors. Vs. Buhari and Sons (P.) Ltd. and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-27-1968
Reported in: (1969)1MLJ435
A. Alagiriswami, J.1. The plaintiffs are the appellants. They are the owners of what is called the S.I.R. Ice Factory No. 1, Whannels Road, Madras. They filed the suit for a declaration of their right of way along the red marked road in the plaint plan for access to three buildings marked as No. S-1, 2 and 3 in the plan and also for an injunction restraining the defendants from putting up a transformer, which would have the effect of interfering with the enjoyment by the plaintiffs of light and air for the said buildings. Both the Courts below have held against the plaintiffs.2. The first plaintiff's father purchased No. 1, Whannels Road, Egmore, Madras, in 1911. The first plaintiff purchased No. 2, Whannels Road, Egmore, known as ' Edinboro house ' in 1914. The red marked road leads to Edinboro house from Whannels Road. The plaintiff's claim was that this red marked road was the road for reaching the buildings marked as No. S-1, 2 and 3 in the plaint plan. The first plaintiff executed...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Madras Represented by the Collector of Ramanathapuram Vs. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-27-1968
Reported in: (1969)2MLJ281
1. The State of Madras is the appellant in these second appeals, which came up originally before Natesan, J., who considered it desirable that they should be decided by a Division Bench, in view of the conflicting decisions as to the jurisdiction of civil Courts to give declaration of title in respect of property included in an estate taken over by the Government by virtue of the Madras Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948, hereinafter referred to as ' the Act.'2. It is really unnecessary to deal with the concurrent findings of fact in both these second appeals and, in fact, Natesan, J., has in his orders of reference in these second appeals, observed that there has been no challenge before him with regard to the findings on the merits of the title put forward by the plaintiff in each of the second appeals. It is sufficient to refer to the findings of fact to appreciate the question of jurisdiction raised in these second appeals.3. Ramalinga Swamigal Madam, repres...
Tag this Judgment!T. Babulal and anr. Vs. Drug Inspector I
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-25-1968
Reported in: 1969CriLJ699
ORDERKailasam, J.1. These two petitions are filed for the issue of writs of prohibition directing the Drug Inspector 1, Madras city (respondent in both the petitions) from proceeding against the petitioner in C.C. 8805 of 1968 on the file of the Chief Presidency Magistrate, Egmore, Madras. The Drugs Inspector preferred a complaint against the petitioners in the writ petitions for contravening the provisions of Section 18(a)(ii-a) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act 1940 (Act XXIII of 1940). The case against the petitioners has been taken up on the file by the Chief Presidency Magistrate as C.C. 8805 of 1968 and it is pending. In these writ petitions, it is stated that the provisions of the Drugs Act are violative of the Constitution of India and therefore the respondent should be prohibited from proceeding with the criminal case. In cases, where the validity of any enactment is questioned, the procedure is laid down under Section 432 Criminal P.C. If the petitioner satisfies the Court that ...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Madras Represented by the Secretary to Government, Home D ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-25-1968
Reported in: (1968)2MLJ586
M.M. Ismail, J.1. The 1st defendant in O.S. No. 1945 of 1959 on the file of the City Civil Court at Madras is the appellant before this Court. That suit was instituted by the 2nd respondent (plaintiff) for recovery of 13,500 G.K. Brand flash light lamp bulbs and electric holders taken by the 2nd defendant on 30th September, 1967, from the plaintiff and ordered to be confiscated to the Government or, in the alternative, for recovery of their value of Rs. 1,364-25 together with interest.2. The circumstances under which the suit came to be filed as alleged by the plaintiff himself was that on 30th September, 11967, the 2nd defendant, a Sub-Inspector of Police, raided the plaintiff's shop on the ground that he had information that some goods were stolen and they were sold to the plaintiff by one Mohamed Ibrahim, a broker; that the plaintiff represented to the Sub-Inspector that they were not stolen goods and that whatever he had purchased from the said Mohamed Ibrahim had been sold away by...
Tag this Judgment!T. Babulal, and anr. Vs. the Drug Inspector-i
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-25-1968
Reported in: (1970)1MLJ124
ORDERP.S. Kailasam, J.1. These two petitions are filed for the issue of writs of prohibition directing the Drug Inspector-1, Madras City (respondent in both the petitions) from proceeding against the petitioners in C.C. No. 8805 of 1968 on the file of the Chief Presidency Magistrate, Madras. The Drugs Inspector preferred a complaint against the petitioners in the writ petitions for contravening the provisions of Section 18 (a) (ii) (a) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (Act No. XXIII of 1040). The case against the petitioners has been taken up on the file by the Chief Presidency Magistrate as C.C. No. 8805 of 1968 and it is pending. In these writ petitions, it is stated that the provisions of the Drugs Act are violative of the Constitution of India and therefore the respondent should be prohibited from proceeding with the criminal case. In cases, where the validity of any enactment is questioned, the procedure is laid down under Section 432 of the Criminal Procedure Code. If the pet...
Tag this Judgment!R. Jeeyar Ayyah and ors. Vs. the Idol of Sri Ranganathaswami Srirangam ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-23-1968
Reported in: (1970)1MLJ99
M.M. Ismail, J.1. An extent of 65 1/4 cents of land was granted in inam for the support of a Nandavanam for the use of the pagoda of Sri Ranganathaswami at Srirangam. The Inam Fair Register shows that in 1865 the said inam was in charge of one Vannan Narayanan. There had been litigations between the descendants of Vannan Narayanan and other members of the Vannar Community, wherein the descendants of Vannan Narayanan asserted their personal right to the property, while, the other members of the community contended that the property belonged to them. The result of the series of litigations shows that ultimately the dispute ended in favour of the members of the community displacing the personal right claimed on behalf of the descendants of Vannan Narayanan. Thereafter, on 17th June, 1939, one Arumugha Ekali and another, claiming to be the descendants of Vannan Narayanan, executed a release deed in favour of Sri Ranganathaswami Temple stating that they were not able to maintain the Nandava...
Tag this Judgment!Munikrishna Reddy Vs. S.K. Ramaswami and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-19-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Mad389
Venkataraman, J.1. This was first filed as an appeal (C. M. S. A. No. 65 of 1966) by one Munikrishna Reddy, but on the objection of Sri K. S. Champakesa Iyen-gar, the learned Counsel for the respondents, that an appeal did not He, an application (C. M. P. No. 3505 of 1968) was filed to convert this appeal into a civil revision petition, and. in the interests of justice, I have decided to convert this appeal into a civil revision petition. (C. B. P. 612 of 1968) I shall, therefore, refer to Munikrishna Reddy as the petitioner.2. He was the second defendant In Order S. No. 580 of 1962 on the file of the District Munsif of Vellore, It was a mortgage suit. A final decree for sale, was passed in 1964, and the decree-holder, Ramaswamy Reddy, filed E. P. No. 513 of 1964 and brought the several items of the hypotheca to sale on 15-2-1965. One Sadasiva Reddy became the auction purchaser of some of these items for Rs. 3,765/-. Within thirty days Munikrishna Reddy, the petitioner, filed an applic...
Tag this Judgment!Annavi Moopan and anr. Vs. Munia Moopan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-19-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Mad437
ORDERRamaprasada Rao, J. 1. Though this civil revision petition arises under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, it raises a very interesting and important question of law. It is very unfortunate that the defendant is not represented before me. 2. The plaintiffs as landlords filed a suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 312-50, said to be due by the defendant towards rent, which, according to them, was payable by the defendant, in respect of the occupation of their lands. It is common ground that the defendant is the tenant of the petitioners. The petitioners purchased the property on 9-6-1963. The respondent-defendant was in occupation of the suit lands, long prior to the purchase by the plaintiffs, and he was also a tenant under the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs. It is also common ground that, under Ex. B-2, fair rent was fixed for this tenement in the occupation of the defendant, in or about December 1956. The case of the plaintiffs is that after 1963 the de...
Tag this Judgment!K. Anantha Narayanan Vs. the State of Madras, Represented by the Assis ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-19-1968
Reported in: (1968)2MLJ443
ORDERT. Venkatadri, J.1. This is a writ petition to quash an order, dated 4th February, 1964 of the Assistant Collector, Pudukkottai, removing the petitioner from service as attender.2. The petitioner joined service in 1953 as attender in the Deputy Tahsildar's Office, Pudukottai. He completed his probation in the cadre of attender on 9th September, 1957. He was given a fitness certificate to sit for the Madras Public Service Commission examination held by the Commission in October, 1957., As he failed to come out successful, the petitioner again applied in 1958. But this time, the Commission rejected his application, on the ground that he had unauthorisedly altered his date of birth in the S.S.L.C. book from 6th April, 1931 to 6th April, 1933. He was also directed to show cause as to why he should not be debarred from appearing for the future selections and examinations conducted by the Madras Public Service Commission. The petitioner's S.S.L.C. book was sent to the Commissioner for G...
Tag this Judgment!Murugayya Angurar and anr. Vs. Nataraja Iyer and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-19-1968
Reported in: (1969)1MLJ503
R. Sadasivam, J.1. The appellants in the Second Appear filed the suit for injunction on the ground that they are cultivating tenants of the first defendant-respondent, under Madars Act XXV of 1995 as amended by Act XIV of 1956, and as such they are entitled to remain in possession of the suit properties. The plea of the first defendant is that the plaintiff committed default in payment of rent for fasli 1366 and did not have the means to pay the same when a demand was made by him for arrears of rent and so the first plaintiff surrendered possession of the leasehold lands on 20th April, 1957. Though the suit lands included S. No. 189/2 and S. No. 201/1, the plea of the first defendant is that they do not belong to him and this plea has been accepted by the Courts below and there is no dispute about it. The Courts below have referred to the remaining lands alone as the suit lands. Ever since the alleged surrender, the first defendant claims to have been cultivating the suit lands as pann...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »