Chennai Court January 1971 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.
The Government of Madras and anr. Vs. Mangayarakarsi Ammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-21-1971
Reported in: AIR1971Mad456
ORDER1. The Authorised Officer (Land Reforms) Tiruchirapalli fixed the ceiling area of the first respondent's family and declared 7-547 standard acres as surplus. Before the authorised officer the first respondent put forward objections regarding the inclusion of three items of properties within her holding. It was claimed that the lands obtained by virtue of two settlement deeds dated 19-1-1930 and 29-5-1958 covering an aggregate extent of 7.817 standard acres after the death of one Jagadambal on 13-12-1963 cannot be brought under Section 21 of Madras Act 58 of 1961. It was also urged that an extent of 1.474 standard acres obtained by the first respondent under the will of Jagadambal dated 19-11-1963 cannot also be brought under S. 21. The Authorised Officer took the view that the settlement deed of the year 1930 provided that the properties will have to be enjoyed by Jagadambal during her lifetime without any power of alienation and thereafter the lands would revert to the family of ...
G. Gopala Chettiar Vs. N. Giriappa Gowder
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-19-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Mad36; (1971)2MLJ481
1. The appeal has been filed by the plaintiff before the learned Subordinate Judge and the cross-objections have been filed by the defendant. The suit arises out of an agreement for sale of the plaintiff's land situate in Mysore State for a sum of Rs. 71,000/-. Under Ex. B-1, dated 19-10-1960, the defendant paid a sum of Rupees 10,000/- and on 26-10-1960, the parties entered into a formal agreement Ex. A-1, Clauses 3, 4 and 5 are as follows:"3. The vendor has received Rupees 10,000........ The remaining sale amount of Rs. 61,000 be paid to the vendor by the purchaser within 90 days from this date.4. The sale deed be executed in the name of the purchaser herein described above or in any other name fixed by the purchaser, by the vendor.5. The purchase shall be completed with 90 days from this day of 26th October, 1960."The plaintiff was residing at Pollachi. The defendant was a resident of Ootacamund. Clause 10 of the agreement provided as follows-"10. The vendor gives possession of the ...
V. Kalyana Rama Iyer Etc. Vs. the State of Madras Represented by the C ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-19-1971
Reported in: (1972)1MLJ81
ORDERG. Ramanujam, J.1. As both the civil revision petitions raise common questions of law, they are dealt with together.2. The petitioner in C.R.P. No. 2079 of 1965, his wife Sivakamasundari and two minor sons Rajaraman and Venkataramani constituted a family as defined in Section 3(14) of Madras Act LVIII of 1961. The petitioner had obtained extensive properties from his father out of which, he settled an extent of 49.76 acres in favour of his wife, Sivakamasundari by document dated 16th November, 1954, absolutely as an ante-nuptial arrangement. She in her turn sold some of the lands so settled on her by her husband and settled the rest of the properties an extent of 27-7 acres in favour of her minor son, Rajaraman on 7th November, 1959. Her action in disposing of the lands both by a sale to an outsider and by settlement in favour of her minor son, Rajaraman, was ratified by the petitioner by executing a document styled 'partition release deed' dated 28th April, 1960, under which the ...
The Madurai Municipality Through Its Executive Authority, the Commissi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-12-1971
Reported in: (1972)1MLJ322
P.R. Gokulakrishnan, J.1. The 1st defendant is the appellant. The plaintiff is a tenant in respect of a building door No. 15-A in West Veli Street, Madurai, belonging to the 2nd Respondent. The case of the plaintiff is that the building is an old and partly dilapidated one. In or about 1956, the plaintiff as a tenant took the building on lease under agreement Exhibit A-5, agreeing to pay a rent of Rs. 200 per mensem to the 2nd respondent. A sum of Rs. 1,000 as advance was given for improvements. About two days later it was found that Rs. 1,000 was not enough for improvements of the building. There was then a further fresh agreement on a rent of Rs. 215 per mensem with the tenant advancing Rs. 10,000 for improvements to be made, providing that if any further sum was to be spent over Rs. 10,000 the tenant should alone bear it; out of it Rs. 5,000 was to go in reduction of rent monthly and the balance to be given when the plaintiff vacated. But 2nd respondent contends that it was a gift. ...
Rajamanickam Vs. State
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-08-1971
Reported in: 1971CriLJ1493
ORDERK.N. Mudaliyar, J.1. In this revision petition, the amicus curiae contended that there is absolutely no evidence for conviction of the petitioner of the offence Under Section 457, IPC Her further argument is that the evidence on record does not support the conviction Under Section 380 read with Section 75. IPC2. P.W. 1 is the Assistant Station Master. On the night of 4-7-1968, when he was on duty at Thiruverambur railway station, the lock of the front door of His house was opened and the pad-lock lying, and the trunk boxes were broken open. P.W. 2, the finger print expert, visited the scene of occurrence in the railway quarters and after inspecting 28 articles for discovering the thumb marks therein he seized ultimately the pad-lock M.O. 1. He marked it as Rule 1 in M.O. 1. The thumb impression of the family of P.W. 1 were eliminated on a further examination. His Assistant Swaminathan (P.W. 3) compared the impression in M.O. 1 with the thumb impression of persons available with hi...
Erode Transports (P.) Ltd. Vs. Sadasivam Motor Transports (P.) Ltd. an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-08-1971
Reported in: (1971)2MLJ74
ORDER1. The first respondent sought for a variation of their existing permit from Vellakoil to Erode, by extending the same from Erode to Malayampalayam. The Regional Transport Authority was of the view that as a part of this sector was already notified Under Section 47 (3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, to be constituted: as a town route, it felt that there was no necessity to grant the variation asked for by the first respondent. On appeal by the first respondent, the State Trnasport Appellate Tribunal finally allowed the variation. The matter was taken to this Court and in Writ Petition No. 3546 of 1968, Alagiriswami, J. set aside the order of the Appellate Tribunal observing as follows:It is stated that the distance between Karumandampalayam and Malayampalayam is only six furlongs. As rightly contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, if the Tribunal had taken note of this fact and still considered that there was room for the variation asked for by the first respondent being:...
Chelliah thevar (Died) and ors. Vs. Muthirulappa Kudumban
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-08-1971
Reported in: (1971)2MLJ131
V.V. Raghavan, J.1. The plaintiff is the petitioner. The suit was on a promissory note executed on 6th May, 1965 in favour of the plaintiff by the defendant for a sum of Rs. 400. As the defendant did not pay in spite of demands the suit was filed.2. The defence to the suit was that the suit claim was discharged by payment to the plaintiff's brother who is not the promissee. The trial Court upheld the defence and dismissed the suit. The present revision petition is filed against the said order.3. The promissory note stands in the name of the plaintiff and the discharge by payment made to a person who is not the holder of the promissory note, cannot prevent the holder of the promissory note from suing on the note for recovery of the amount due. Under Section 78 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the promissee alone can maintain a suit and no payment made to a person who is not the holder can be recognised. On this question there is a direct decision in Subba Narayana Vathiar v. Ramaswami...
P. Gopalakrishna Naidu Vs. the State of Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-06-1971
Reported in: AIR1971Mad463
1. This is an appeal from an order of Kunhamed Kutti J. agreeing with the Master that the State was entitled to payment out of court-fee out of the sum lying to the credit of C. S. 84 of 1952. That was a suit instituted by the second and third respondents to enforce a mortgage which had been executed by the appellant. In execution of the mortgage decree, a sum of Rs. 56,000 was realised, and after appropriating the amount towards discharge of the decree, there remained a balance of Rs. 3,979. The appellant's son instituted O. S. No. 1973 of 1956 on the file of the City Civil Court, Madras, for setting aside the mortgage decree and for partition and separate possession of half share in the hypotheca. This suit was decreed on 11-12-1957. That suit has been allowed to be instituted in forma pauperis. On 19-1-1961, the appellant's son died. Thereafter, the appellant, by Appln. No. 1253 of 1964, applied for withdrawal of the amount which stood to the credit of C. S. 84 of 1952. The Master d...
The Radhaswami Charitable Society by Its Secretary and anr. Vs. the Au ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-06-1971
Reported in: (1971)2MLJ35
ORDER1. Both the above revisions are inter-linked and as such they are dealt with together.2. One Venugopal Naidu executed a will dated 5th February, 1943 whereby all his lands were to be enjoyed by his wife, Aparanji Ammal for her lifetime, and after her death one Radhaswami Charitable Society, Dayalbagh, Agra is to enjoy the same with absolute rights. The will had been duly registered. Venugopal Naidu died on 2nd April, 1945. His wife, Aparanji Ammal was in possession and enjoyment of the properties as per the terms of the said will on 6th April, 1960. The Authorised Officer calculated the total extent of the lands in the hands of Aparanji Ammal as 44. 30 standard acres. Though the said Aparanji Ammal filed a return on 5th June, 1963 Under Section 8 (1) of the Madras Act LVIII of 1961 furnishing a list of surplus lands, she at a later stage while preferring objections Under Section 10 (5) of the Act, put forward a contention that the entire lands possessed by her under the terms of t...
P. Gopalakrishna Naidu Vs. the State of Madras, Represented by the Col ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-06-1971
Reported in: (1972)1MLJ153
K. Veeraswami, C.J.1. This is an appeal from an Order of Kunhamed Kutti, J., agreeing with the Mister that the State was entitled to payment out of court-fee out of the sum lying to the credit of C.S. No. 84 of 1952. That was a suit instituted by the second and third respondents to enforce a mortgage which had been executed by the appellant. In execution of the mortgage decree, a sum of Rs. 56,000 was realised, and after appropriating the amount towards discharge of the decree, there remained a balance of Rs 3,979. The appellant's son instituted O Section No. 1973 of 1966 on the file of the City Civil Court, Madras, for setting aside the mortgage decree and for partition and separate possession of a half share in the hypotheca. This suit was decreed on nth December, 1957. That suit has been allowed to be instituted in forma pauperis. On 19th January, 1961, the appellant's son died. Thereafter, the appellant, by application No. 1253 of 1964, applied for withdrawal of the amount which st...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »