Chennai Court July 1970 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.
Ramakrishna Pillai (Deceased) and ors. Vs. Velayudhan Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-20-1970
Reported in: (1971)1MLJ291
M.M. Ismail, J.1. From the mother of the respondent herein, the appellant Du7 chased certain property under Exhibit A-1 dated 5-9-1119 M.E. The very property purchased by the appellant was charged with certain debts in a partition arrangement entered into' between the respondent's mother and certain other persons. On the basis of that charge, O.S. No. 348 of 1121 M.E. was instituted on the file of the Court of the Principal District Munsif, Padmanabhapuram, and a decree was passed therein on 20th March, 1950. Since the appellant was vitally affected by this decree, in order to safeguard his interest and to save the property, he paid the amount due under the decree. Before making the payment, he preferred an appeal against the judgment and decree in O.S. No. 348 of 1121 M.E. itself, but he did not prosecute the appeal, and the same was dismissed for default on 5th August, 1955, and the order in the said appeal has been marked as Exhibit B-6. It is thereafter only that the appellant paid...
State Public Prosecutor Vs. Vilakku Syed Ismail Natchi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-14-1970
Reported in: (1970)2MLJ552
K.N. Mudaliyar, J.1. The State appeals against the order of the District Magistrate (J), Tirunelveli, acquitting the respondent-accused of the offence under Section 82(1)(a) read with Section 181(2)(c) of the Madras Panchayat Act, 1958.2. The respondent Vilakku Syed Ismail Nachi had occupied Panchayat street to the extent of 234 square feet in Kuthukal Street by constructing a portion of the house from 27th April, 1967. P.W. 1 issued notice for the removal of the said encroachment. She did not comply with the notice issued for the removal of the encroachment. P.W. 1 prosecuted her under Section 181 of Madras Panchayat Act. She admitted the offence in the Court of the Sub-Magistrate, Tiruchendur on 17th June, 1967. On 19th August, 1967 P.W. 1 issued through P.W. 3 notice marked Exhibit P-2. But that was refused by the respondent. The original was served on the respondent by affixture attested by the Village Munsif, P.W. 4. Exhibit P-2 is the duplicate copy of the notice served by affixt...
Senthilvel Gounder Vs. Venkitachalam Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-13-1970
Reported in: (1971)1MLJ289
ORDERG. Ramanujam, J.1. The petitioner herein purchased a house property in an auction held by the Official Receiver in insolvency proceedings on 25th October, 1969. He also obtained a sale certificate dated 25th November, 1969. Subsequently he approached the District Munsif of Udumalpet for delivery of possession. The District Munsif ordered delivery without notice to the respondent who was in possession of the property as a lessee from the Official Receiver presumably under Order 21, Rule 96 of the Civil Procedure Code and. the petitioner took possession of the property purchased by him. Admittedly the respondent's lease will expire only on 4th September, 1970. The respondent, the tenant under the receiver and whose tenancy continues up to 4th September, 1970 filed an application before the same District Munsif, under Order 21, rules 100 and 101 of the Code of Civil Procedure for re-delivery of possession of the properties delivered in E.A. No. 1970 of 1969 on 8th December, 1969. The...
State by Public Prosecutor Vs. Govindaraja Naidu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-13-1970
Reported in: (1970)2MLJ459
ORDERB.S. Somasundaram, J.1. 23 persons Mirasdars and members of the Paddy Produce Association in East Thanjavur, were charge-sheeted before the Special Additional First Class Magistrate, Nagpattinam by the Inspector of Police, Crime Branch, Madras, for offence under Sections 147, 148, 323, 324, 325, 326, 307, 302 and 436 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, and also under Section 27 of the Arms Act. The charges arose out of a rioting, following by arson, shooting and murder etc. that occurred in ' Keela Venmani ' a village in Thanjavur District, on the night of 25th December, 1968. The learned Magistrate has discharged the respondent viz., accused Nos. 14, 15, and 16, on the ground that there is no evidence against them. The District Magistrate, who dealt with the matter in revision, has concurred with him, saying that the prosecution evidence disclosed merely the presence of these respondents in the crowd without any overt act. The State challenges the correctness of this ...
State by Public Prosecutor Vs. Murugayyan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-13-1970
Reported in: (1970)2MLJ460
ORDERB.S. Somasundaram, J.1. 22 persons belonging to the Left Communist Party were charge-sheeted by the Inspector of Police, Crime Branch, C.I.D., Madras, before the Court of the Special Additional First Class Magistrate, Nagapattinam, for offences under Sections 147, 148, 323, 324, 426, 307 and 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. These charges arose out of a rioting followed by the murder of one Pakkiriswami, that occurred in ' Keela Venmani ' a village in Thanjavur District, on the 25th of December, 1968. The kisans were demanding higher wages. The Mirasdars were refusing to pay it. During September, 1968, the kisans struck work. One Muthukrishna Naidu engaged outside labour. This was resisted and resented. P.W. 1, Govindarajulu Naidu, commenced the harvesting of the crops that were in his land, with the help of his own pannayals on 23rd December, 1968. On the 24th, some Harijans from Kadalakudi came for work and they were prevented by accused Nos. 16 and 22 and one ...
Subbiah Gounder Vs. Kandaswamy Gounder
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-10-1970
Reported in: AIR1971Mad169; 1971CriLJ478
1. This appeal raises an important question as to whether on the death of the complainant-appellant in an appeal against acquittal, admitted under Section 417, Criminal Procedure Code, there will be an abatement of the appeal whether his legal representatives could be allowed to come on record or substituted to prosecute the appeal further.2. Section 431 of the Criminal Procedure Code which deals with abatement reads thus:--'Every appeal under Section 411-A, sub-section (2), or Section 417, shall finally abate on the death of the accused, and every other appeal under this Chapter (except an appeal from a sentence of fine) shall finally abate on the death of the appellant.' Section 411-A provides for an appeal against the conviction or acquittal of a prisoner, in cases dealt with by the High Court in the exercise of its original criminal jurisdiction. Section 417 provides for appeals in cases of acquittal by other Courts. Where an original or appellate Court other than the High Court, o...
Narasimham Naidu and anr. Vs. S. Ayilu Naidu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-10-1970
Reported in: (1971)1MLJ228
B.S. Somasundaram, J.1. The short question that arises for consideration in this appeal is as to whether a sale deed executed by the natural guardian of minors, without the previous permission of the Court, is void. Sub-section (2) of Section 8 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, (XXXII of 1956), states that the natural guardian shall not, without the previous permission of the Court, (a) mortgage or charge, or transfer by sale, gift, exchange or otherwise, any part of the immoveable property of the minor, or (b) lease any part of such property for a term exceeding five years or for a term extending more than one year beyond the date on which the minor will attain majority. The contention of the appellant that the sale deed, Exhibit A-1, is void, is based on this provision. Sub-section (3) of Section 8 renders such a transaction only voidable and not void ab initio. This rule under Sub-section (2) is enacted for the benefit and protection of the minor, and any transaction canno...
In Re: Poonaikannan Alias Karuppa Valayan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-10-1970
Reported in: (1970)2MLJ675
B.S. Somasundaram, J.1. Poonai Kannan alias Karuppa Valayan, the appellant herein, stands convicted and sentenced by the second Additional sessions Judge, Coimbatore, to suffer rigorous imprisonment under Section 447 and rigorous imprisonment for seven years under Section 392 read with Section 397 of the Indian Penal Code. Briefly the case of the prosecution is as below : P.W. 1, Krishna Goundan, with his sons P.Ws. 2 and 3, is cultivating as a lessee, a garden land by name Nallichettithottam situate at Chinnappachetty Puthur, a village in Coimbatore district. On the night of 23rd April, 1968, he had penned his sheep and goats, hundred in number, in the enclosures marked A and B in the shalai shown in the sketch Exhibit P-17. There was barking of the dog at midnight. The electric light was burning. P.W. 2 woke up and saw the appellant having a goat or sheep covered by a gunny bag on his shoulder. Two other persons, since acquitted viz., accused 2 and 3, were standing near the patti. P....
R. Sundaresa Iyer and Sons Vs. Board of Revenue (C.T.) and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-09-1970
Reported in: [1971]28STC430(Mad)
ORDERVeeraswami, C.J. 1. Certain irregularities were discovered on a surprise inspection in the business premises of the petitioner which amounted to an offence. The petitioner had an option whether to face prosecution or to compound. It chose the latter and paid a fine of Rs. 750. Its explanation had been called for but after a consideration of it, the department declined to accept it. The appellant had the further opportunity of presenting his case in the revision petitions. But they failed. We are unable to see any error. The apprehension of the petitioner is that the findings in the compounding proceedings might prejudice it in the assessment proceedings. We do not think that this will be necessarily so. The facts found in the compounding proceedings may not by themselves be material in the assessment proceedings. The assessing authority will have to rest the assessment in the light of the materials themselves which he will have to judge with a fresh mind.2. On that view, the petit...
M. Pappu Reddiar (Died) and ors. Vs. Amaravathi Ammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-08-1970
Reported in: AIR1971Mad182
K. Veeraswami, C.J. 1. The plaintiff, who has failed in both the Courts below, is the common appellant. He is now dead and is represented by his legal representatives. On a claim that the properties described in the plaint in O. S. 69 of 1960 and in the first schedule to the plaint in O. S. 70 of 1960, from out of which the second appeals arise, were not the subject-matter of O. S. 76 of 1948, and the compromise decree passed therein, though covered those properties, was not registered, he sought in the two suits to recover their possession. The suits were resisted on the ground that the properties did form part of the subject-matter of O. S. 76 of 1948, that therefore, no registration was required, and that, in any case, the plaintiff would not be entitled to recover them, because of the doctrine of part performance. The Courts below concurrently found that although the properties were not in the plaint in O. S. 76 of 1948, they constituted the subject-matter of the suit and that, in ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »