Chennai Court November 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.
Rajaram Reddy and anr. Vs. Kesava Reddiar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-11-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Mad461
1. The plaintiff are the appellants. The suit is for partition. The plaintiffs are brothers and sons of one Sundara Reddy and all the three formed a joint Hindu family. The suit A schedule properties were the ancestral properties of the plaintiffs and their father and the case of the plaintiffs is that the father was leading a reckless and immoral life, that there was no legal necessity for him to dispose of suit Items 1 to 6 of the A schedule properties to defendants 1 and 2 for Rs. 2,700 on 20-5-1964 and Items 7 to 9 to the third defendant for Rs. 500 on 29-6-1953 and Items 10 to 13 to the fourth defendant on 16-4-1941 for Rs. 100 and Items 14 to 16 to one Muthulakshmi Ammal on 11-8-1942 for Rs. 462/-. The plaintiff's case is that all the sales were made for very low prices that their father Sundara Reddiar died in 1957 that the sales were not for family necessity and therefore not binding on them. the plaint gave the date of birth of the first plaintiff as 12-7-1941 and of the secon...
Minor V. Shoroop Sundar by Mother and Guardian Smt. V. Vimala Devi and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-11-1971
Reported in: (1972)2MLJ28
ORDERT. Ramaprasada Rao, J.1. (1) These civil revision petitions are directed against the order of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal who refused to entertain an appeal filed by the petitioners against the order of the Regional Transport Authority who in turn acted under Section 47(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act and directed the opening of a new route with one vehicle on it. The petitioners case is that even before the amending Act No. 16 of 1971 of the Tamil Nadu Legislature, their right of appeal to the State Transport Appellate Authority against orders passed by the Regional Transport Authority under Section 47(3) read with Section 64 (1)(i) is preserved by Rule 147(2)(ii). The argument proceeds that notwithstanding the, amending Act, the right to present an appeal against an order passed under Section 47(3) by the appropriate authority not having been expressly taken away, as was attempted to be done by Section 9 of the amending Act by which the right of revision against such ord...
M.C. Mannaier and anr. Vs. P.G. Gopal and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-11-1971
Reported in: (1972)2MLJ415
M.M. Ismail, J.1. Defendants 1 and 2 in O.S. No. 543 of 1964 on the file of the Court of the District Munsif of Salem, who failed before the Courts below, are the appellants herein. The first defendant is the husband; the second defendant is the wife. The plaintiff in the suit is the brother of the second defendant. The second defendant has a sister by name Yasodai Ammal. There was some dispute between defendants 1 and 2 and the second defendant's sister and her husband with, regard to the properties of their parents. Consequently, they entrusted the matter to 11 arbitrators for mediation, and they executed on 13th January, 1963 a muchilika Exhibit A-13, for that purpose. Subsequently, on 21st January, 1963 the plaintiff in the suit executed another muchilika, Exhibit A-9. After hearing the parties, the arbitrators passed an award, marked as Exhibit A-10 dated 23rd January, 1963. This award has been signed by the appellants and the second defendant's sister and her husband, as well as ...
S.K. Sundaram Vs. M. Joshi Rajamannar Chettiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-08-1971
Reported in: AIR1973Mad166
ORDER1. This revision petition has been filed by one of the alleged creditors of the judgment-debtors in O. S. 69 of 1969 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Tiruchirapalli, but he was not a party to that suit. In execution of the decree certain properties of the judgment-debtors was sold on 17-3-1971. The petitioner herein filed an application under Order XXI, Rule 90, Civil Procedure Code to set aside the sale on the ground of material irregularity and fraud, contending that the price fetched was low. The learned Subordinate Judge, following the decision in Official Receiver, Ramnad v. Veerappa Chettiar AIR 1943 Mad 199 ILR (1943) Mad 577, held that the petitioner could not be said to be a person whose interests were affected by the sale within the meaning of Order XXI, Rule 90, Civil Procedure Code and therefore had locus standi to maintain the application. This petition has been filed against that order.2. Order XXI, Rule 90, Civil Procedure Code describes the pers...
S.K. Sundaram Vs. M. Jothi Rajamannar Chettiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-08-1971
Reported in: (1972)2MLJ433
ORDERK.S. Venkataraman, J.1. This revision petition has been filed by one of the alleged creditors of the judgment-debtors in O.S. No. 69 of 1969 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Tiruchirapalli, but he was not a party to that suit. In execution of the decree certain properties of the judgment-debtors were sold on 17th March, 1971-The petitioner herein filed an application under Order 21, Rule 90 of the Civil Procedure Code, to set aside the sale on the ground of material irregularity and fraud, contending that the price letched was low. The learned Subordinate Judge, following the decision in Official Receiver of Ramnad v. Veerappa Chettiar (1943) 1 M.L.J. 449 : I.L.R. (1943) Mad. 577 : A.I.R. 1943 Mad. 199 held that the petitioner could not be said to be a person whose interests were affected by the sale within the meaning of Order 21, Rule 90, Civil Procedure Code, and therefore had no locus standi to maintain the application. This petition has been filed against ...
T.A. Sankunni Vs. B.J. Philips and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-05-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Mad272
1. The respondents-plaintiffs entered into an agreement on 4-7-1962 with the defendant agreeing to sell the 'standing and fallen trees' in their estate known as 'Shanti Plantations' in Melur Village of Coonoor taluk. The dispute in the suit, out of which this second appeal arises, related mainly to the question whether the mango and jack fruit trees were also sold to the defendant (appellant) under the said agreement dated 4-7-1962. The relevant portion of the clause in the agreement reads as follows:'......... it is agreed that the sellers will sell and the purchaser will purchase all standing and fallen trees (excluding sandal-wood, coconut, arecanut and all specified fruit trees and tamarind trees and 10 or 15 silver oak trees of below 36' girth) grown and standing in...... Sember estate (now known as Shanti Plantations)..........'It is the case of the plaintiff that the mango and jack fruit trees were not sold under this clause while the defendant contended that they were sold. Bot...
N. Mohamed HussaIn Vs. the Chartered Bank, Madras and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-03-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Mad275
Raghavan, J.1. The plaintiff is the appellant. The appeal arises out of a suit for recovery of Rupees twelve lakhs as damages for the alleged loss sustained by the plaintiff in his business, social position, credit and reputation by reason of the wrongful action of the first defendant in dishonouring the cheques drawn by him on the first defendant-Bank. The case of the plaintiff is that he was a leading merchant in hides and skins in Madras with an average annual turnover of nearly five lakhs of rupees, that he possessed a very valuable, well-mechanised tannery at Vaniyambadi, that he had built up a reputation for his goods both in Indian and abroad, that he was a customer of the first defendant-bank with whom he had an overdraft account, that an amount of 13,599-8s. was lying to his credit in the first defendant's head office in London, that in or about February 1948, the plaintiff requested the first defendant to get back the said amount from the had office at London to its branch of...
K.R. Venugopala Sarma Vs. Sangu Ganesan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-03-1971
Reported in: 1972CriLJ1098
Somasundaram, J.1.These two appeals arise out of the acquittal of the respondents in two cirminal cases, which were filed by the appellant under Section 63 of the Copyright Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act), for infringement of certain copyrights which he had in a picture of Tiruvalluvar.2. The complaint of the appellant was as below: He had drawn a picture of Saint Tiruvalluvar, from his own imagination on the basis of his intensive study of Thirukkural for over thirty years. He had registered this picture under the Copyright Act. He had also published in the papers that he had the copyright of the portrait of Thiruvalluvar as published in the several dailies. Sangu Ganesan. the respondent in C. A 913 of 1969 who is the proprietor of Srimagal Company, had printed pictures of Thiruvalluvar and used it for the calenders. He had fixed the price of thousand calendars at Rs. 1330. These pictures were similar to the picture the appellant had drawn and registered. Khanna and Ashok (fa...
M. Ct. Muthiah Chettiar Family Trust Vs. Income-tax Officer, City Circ ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-03-1971
Reported in: [1972]86ITR282(Mad)
RAMAPRASADA RAO J. - These writ petition are connected. It is agreed that it is sufficient if the facts in W.P. No. 3445 of 1967 are noticed. The petitioner is a public and charitable trust called M. CT. Trust. The trust was constituted under a duly drawn up instrument dated dated 4th June, 1951, and its income prior to 1952 was exempt from income-tax, as that was the provision at that time. But later, certain amendment which I shall presently refer to resulting in the change of the situation in 1952, enabled the petitioner to acquire an exemption from payment of income-tax only if they satisfied certain prescribed statutory conditions. It is not in dispute that, till the assessment year 1961-62, the petitioner secured such exemption. But, for the year 1962-63, the petitioner was faced with certain difficulties, as according to the revenue the non-observance of certain statutory formalities and prescriptions would not enable the petitioner to seek and obtain relief in tax for the asses...
Ramaswami Jadaya Gounder (Died) and anr. Vs. V.T. Elaiya Pillai and an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-01-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Mad336
ORDER1. This revision petition is filed by the plaintiff against the order of the lower Court holding that the burden of proof that the document was not properly executed is on the defendant. According to the petitioner defendant, the first respondent entered into an agreement on 9-10-1952 according to which the parties adjusted their rights inter se under the compromise decree. The plea of the first respondent is that he only knows to sign his name and he had no knowledge of the contents of the documents to which his signatures are taken; and he was not informed of the contents of the documents as the documents were not read over or explained to him. The lower court, holding that it was not the first respondent's case that his signatures were taken in blank sheets and that he had signed the completed documents, held that the burden of proof is on the first respondent and he had to begin. Reliance was placed for this view on Natesa Gounder v. Ramayya gounder, (1966) 79 MLW (SN) 16, whe...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »