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.
In Re: Mrs. Aga Begum
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-08-1970
Reported in: (1971)1MLJ18
ORDERK.N. Mudaliyar, J.1. The petitioner Mrs. Aga Begum seeks to revise the order of the VII-Presidency Magistrate, Egmore, Madras, convicting her for violation of Section 14 of the Foreigners Act, 1946 read with paragraph 7 (2) and 7 (3) of the Foreigners Order, 1948.2. Briefly, the facts proved against her by P.Ws. 1, 2 and 3 are that the petitioner is the daughter of one Mr. Hidayatullah who was a registered Iranian National, his serial number being 1437. Her father was working in the Government Arts College and he died in the year 1962 as an Iranian. The petitioner is his eldest daughter. She was born to him in 1921 in India. She was called upon to get herself registered as a foreigner under Exhibit P-1 dated 29th September, 1961. The petitioner gave a reply Exhibit P-3 requesting her to be treated as of an Indian Origin. In Exhibit P-4 she was intimated that she was the daughter of an Iranian and, therefore, she should get herself registered before 31st October, 1961. The petition...
M. Pappu Reddiar (Died) and ors. Vs. Amaravathi Ammal Alias Avudai Amm ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-08-1970
Reported in: (1971)1MLJ225
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. No. 69 of i960 and in the first schedule to the plaint in O.S. No. 70 of 196O, from out of which the second appeals arise, were not the, subject-matter of O.S. No. 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. No. 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. No. 76 of 1.948, they constituted the subject-matter of the s...
Sethu Ramalinga Menattarayar Vs. Veerawami Chettiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-07-1970
Reported in: AIR1971Mad174
1. The first defendant in O. S. No. 291 of 1964 on the file of the District Munsif Court of Thanjavur is the appellant before this Court. The appellant is the father and the 3rd respondent is the son and they constitute a Hindu undivided family. The 3rd respondent on 18-9-1947 sold a particular item of property belonging to the joint family to the first respondent herein, and that the sale deed has been market as Ex. A. 2 in the case. The first respondent, in turn, sold the property to the second respondent by a document, dated 6-8-1959, market as Ex. A-1, in this case. As a result of these transaction the second respondent came into possession of the property.Thereafter the appellant filed O. S. 256 of 1959 on the file of the Court of the District Munsif, Thanjavur, for recovery of possession of the property contenting that the sale deed dated 18-9-1947 in favour of the first respondent herein was not binding on him, that he was himself the manager of the family and that the third res...
Sethu Ramalinga Menattarayar Vs. Veerasami Chettiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-07-1970
Reported in: (1971)1MLJ329
M.M. Ismail, J.1. The first defendant in O.S. No. 291 of 1964 on the file of the Court of the District Munsif of Thanjavur is the appellant before this Court. The appellant is the father and the third respondent is the son and they constitute a Hindu undivided family. The third respondent on 18th September, 1947, sold a particular item of property belonging to the joint family to the first respondent herein, and that the sale deed has been marked as Exhibit A-2 in the case. The first respondent, in turn, sold the property to the second respondent by a document, dated 6th August, 1959, marked as Exhibit A-1 in this case. As a result of these transactions the second respondent came into possession of the property. Thereafter the appellant filed O.S. No. 256 of 1959 on the file of the Court of the District Munsif of Thanjavur for recovery of possession of the property contending that the sale deed, dated 18th September, 1947, in favour of the first respondent herein was not binding on him...
D.R. Nagarajan Vs. the Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable En ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-06-1970
Reported in: AIR1971Mad295
Veeraswami, C.J. 1. The appellant, as he claims, is a hereditary trustee of Sri Kasiviswanathaswami and Sri Lakshminarayanaswami temples, Agarachai, Nannilam Taluk. By proceedings of the Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (Administration) dated 30-8-1969, he listed certain irregularities and informs the appellant that in view of them, the affairs of the temples were being mismanaged, and that the appellant failed to obtain budget sanction contrary to Section 86 of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, to submit the income and expenditure statements as required by Sections 92 and 94, to get the accounts of the temples audited from faslis 1358 to 1377 and to pay the contribution and audit fees for faslis 1373 to 1377. It was also alleged that he failed to produce the accounts of the temples for check before the Assistant Commissioner on the specified dates. The Commissioner, therefore, appointed, in exercise of his powers under Section 45(1) an executive...
D.R. Nagarajan Vs. the Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable En ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-06-1970
Reported in: (1970)2MLJ599
K. Veeraswami, C.J.1. The appellant, as he claims, is a hereditary trustee of Sr Kasiviswanathaswamy and Sri Lakshminarayanaswamy temples, Agaraohai, Nannilam taluk. By proceedings of the Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (Administration), dated 30th August, 1969, he listed certain irregularities and informed the appellant that in view of them, the affairs of the temples were being mismanaged, and that the appellant failed to obtain budget sanction contrary to Section 86' of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, to submit the income and expenditure statement as required by Sections 9'2 and 94, to get the accounts of the temples audited from faslis l358 to 1377 and to pay the contribution and audit fees for faslis 1373 to 1377. It was also alleged that he failed to produce the accounts of the temples for check before the Assistant Commissioner on the specified dates. The Commissioner, therefore, appointed, in exercise of his powers under Section 45 (1)...
R. Thatha Desika Thathachariar Vs. the Deputy Commissioner, Hindu Reli ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-06-1970
Reported in: (1970)2MLJ475
K. Veeraswami, C.J.1. The appeal is directed against an order of Alagiriswami, J. who dismissed the appellant's petition under Article 226 of the Constitution to forbid the Deputy Commissioner from taking steps under Section 64 (5) of Madras Act (XXII of 1959) in respect of the Devarajaswami Temple at Kancheepuram. The objection that was raised before the Deputy Commissioner as to his jurisdiction to modify the scheme settled by Veeraraghava Thathachariar v. Srinivasa Thathachariar : (1912)23MLJ134 , and modified by Wadsworth and Patanjali Sastri, JJ., in 1941, was overruled and Alagiriswami, J., thought that it was the right view to take.2. The suit which led to the appeal in Veeraraghava Thathachariar v. Srinivasa Thathachariar : (1912)23MLJ134 , was one under Section 539 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1882. But the new Code of 1908 had come into force by the time the scheme was settled by Abdur Rahim and Sundaram Aiyar, JJ., in Veeraraghava Thathachariar v. Srinivasa Thathachariar ...
Maria Rosal De Rose and anr. Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu, Represented ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-03-1970
Reported in: (1970)2MLJ471
ORDERRamaprasada Rao, J.1. The petitioners claiming to be jointly interested in S. Nos. 51/2 and 52/2 in Kila Tiruchendur Village, Tirunelveli District have filed this writ petition stating that the compulsory acquisition of their land as above to the extent of 3.12 acres therein comprised, is illegal and without observance of the prescribed procedure under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act (I of 1894). The case of the petitioners is that they never knew anything about the proposal for the acquisition or the later proceedings pursuant thereto, until they received a notice from the Sub-Court, Tuticorin informing them about a reference having been made to the State Government by the Land Acquisition Officer. The petitioners' further contention is that they made further enquiries thereafter and ascertained that the acquisition was for the purpose of providing house-sites for the Harijans in the village. Their case is that they were not served with any notice either of the proposa...
R. Swaminathan Vs. Annammal Alias Srimathi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-02-1970
Reported in: (1971)1MLJ234
G. Ganesan, J.1. The appellant is the stepson of the respondent Annammal and he is aggrieved that the executing Court had held that he is not entitled, by virtue of the provisions of Section 60(n) of the Civil Procedure Code, to attach any part of the sum of Rs. 1,700 deposited by the respondent's husband in pursuance of an order made by the District Court of Coimbatore in C.M.A. No. 106 of 1963 passed on an application filed by the respondent under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act of 1955, for maintenance during the pendency of the judicial separation proceedings instituted by her husband against her.2. The application filed by the respondent under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act was for a direction that her husband should deposit some sums towards her future maintenance during the proceedings and also for expenses likely to be incurred by her for opposing the application. The trial Court negatived her claim. But, as I have already pointed out, the District Judge of Coimbator...
A. Chinnaswami Gounder Vs. the Director of Settlements and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-02-1970
Reported in: (1971)1MLJ235
ORDERK.S. Palaniswamy, J.1. These petitions have been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution to quash the order of the Board of Revenue, Madras, in its proceedings B.P. Perm. No. 596 of 1968 dated 24th September, 1968. The relevant facts are these. The village of Laddivadi in Namakkal taluk, Salem District, was notified and taken over by the State under the Madras Estates Abolition Act, 1948, in January, 1951. The final settlement was introduced in Pasli 1369. Patta was granted to A. Chinnaswami Gounder in respect of S. Nos. 40/1 and 40/2. There were some proceedings with regard to this issue of patta. It is unnecessary to refer to all those proceedings except the relevant proceedings. The Assistant Settlement Officer, Salem, in his proceedings directed the registry of the fields to be divided into three subdivisions Section Nos. 40/1, 40/2 and and 40/3 and directed the issue of patta in respect of the first two subdivisions in favour of A. Chinnaswami Gounder and directed the reg...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »