Chennai Court December 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.
Velayudham Pillai Vs. Sandhosa Nadar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-16-1971
Reported in: AIR1973Mad299; (1973)1MLJ44
1. Theses two appeals arise out of a common judgment rendered by the courts below in two suits filed by the same plaintiff, the appellant herein, against the defendants in each of the suits, seeking a declaration of title and injunction in respect of the properties covered by those suits. The property involved in O. S. 22 of 1966 out of which S. A. 1469 of 1969 arises is 94 cents in S. No. 335/1 and the property involved in O. S. No. 180 of 1966 out of which S. A. 1470 of 1969 arises is 5.47 acres, the western half of S. No. 333 measuring 10.94 acres. The plaintiff's case is that the suit properties and the adjoining properties belonged to him ancestrally, that in any event, he has prescribed title to those properties by adverse possession, and that the defendants have no manner of right or interest in the same but they have chosen to interfere with his possession and enjoyment of the same.2. The defendants in both the suits contended that the suit properties do not belong to the plain...
P.S.N. Motor Pvt. Ltd. Vs. V.C.K. Bus Service Pvt. Ltd. and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-13-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Mad451
ORDER1. The subject-matter of this writ petition is a long drawn affair but concerns a very simple matter in the matter of the grant of an extension of a route permit. Which is inter-State in character.2. The petitioner is a motor vehicle operator having a permit in the Kerala State to operate between Tiruchur and Velanthavalam. It applied to the primary Authority in the State of Kerala for extension of this route beyond Velanthavalam to Coimbatore, inside the State of Madras. The primary authority after following the usual procedure granted the extension in the first instance. I may at once state that the first respondent here, also a bus operator, opposed such a grant before the appropriate transport authorities in the State of Kerala as well as in the High Court of Kerala. The first respondent was unsuccessful. Thereafter, as is required under Section 63(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act. which obliges such a permit holder to obtain the counter signature of the Regional Transport Authori...
Thanthoni Naicker Vs. Kuppammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-13-1971
Reported in: AIR1973Mad274; (1973)1MLJ25
1. The defendant in O. S. No. 39 of 1965, on the file of the court of the District Munsif, Ranipet, who succeeded in part before the trial Court but lost before the first appellate Court, is the appellant herein. The matter in second appeal lies within a very narrow compass. The suit properties admittedly belonged to one Thiruvengada Naicker, brother of the appellant and the respondents herein. The respondents, who are five in number, instituted the suit for partition and separate possession of their five-sixths share in the suit properties. The contention of the appellant was that the respondents were not entitled to five-sixth share and that if at all they were entitled to only one half of the suit properties jointly, the other half belonging to the appellant. The learned District Judge who tried the suit accepted this case of the appellant, while the learned Subordinate Judge, Vellore, on appeal, rejected this case and directed that the respondents and the appellant will divide the ...
Swaminathan Ambalam Vs. P.K. Nagaraja Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-09-1971
Reported in: AIR1973Mad110
1. The defendant is the appellant. The suit is for a declaration of the plaintiff's title to the suit property and for possession. The suit property originally belonged to Ramalingam Pillai and his wife Pattammal. They mortgaged the same to Lakshmi Banking Corporation (P.)Ltd. The mortgagee represented by voluntary liquidator Sri Sundaresa Iyer filed O. S. 106 of 1957 on the file of the District Munsif, Pudukottai on the said mortgage and obtained a decree. In execution of the said decree he purchased the property and took delivery on 9th July 1959. The defendant was in occupation of the shed covered by asbestos at that time as a licensee and when informed about the purchase, he vacated and gave possession to the auction purchaser. Delivery was made with reference to the boundaries and the defendant has signed the delivery receipt. After delivery the liquidator died and Sri A. R. Krishnamurthi Iyer, Advocate, was appointed liquidator in his place. While he has in possession of the prop...
R. Neelakantan Vs. the Collector of Chingleput and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-09-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Mad417
ORDER1. The petitioner was running a race with the second respondent from fasli 1379 till date to get a lease of the sand quarry right in S. Nos. 185 and 363 of Vengathur and Putlur villages. From fasli 1379 the second respondent obtained a lease from the first respondent for a stated consideration, as rent. A third party filed a writ petition stating that an auction ought to have been held and if an auction was so held, he would have paid for a higher amount than that offered by the second respondent. He failed both in the writ petition and in the appeal thereon. For fasli 1380 the second respondent secured a renewal of the lease. It was then the petitioner intervened and sought to interdict such renewal by filing an application for the grant. His request was rejected on the ground that for the fasli in question the lease gad been granted in favour of the second respondent. The petitioner thereafter came to this court under Art. 226 of the Constitution, but was unsuccessful. Fasli 138...
V.P.G. Murugesan Pillai Vs. State of Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-02-1971
Reported in: AIR1973Mad112
1. The plaintiff in O. S. 32 of 1966 on the file of the court of the District Munsif, Nagapattinam, who lost before the courts below is the appellant herein.2. The plaintiff was the owner of the land in T. S. No. 1749/1. In that land an extent of 1 acre and 1609 sq. ft. was sought to be acquired by the Government under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. From Ex. B-9, the copy of the award, it appears that the notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was published in the Fort St. George Gazette dated 27-3-1963 and the declaration under Section 6(1) of the Act was published in the Fort St. George Gazette dated 16-10-1963. Thereafter, the award was passed on 13-8-1964. Admittedly, the declaration under Section 6(1) of the Act referred to the extend of the land sought to be acquired only as 1 acre and 1609 sq. ft. and the award also provides for compensation only for that extent of land. The case of the appellant is that when subsequently in October 1964, he wen...
V.P.G. Murugesan Pillai Alias V.P.G. Murugiah Pillai Vs. State of Madr ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-02-1971
Reported in: (1972)2MLJ272
M.M. Ismail, J.1. The plaintiff in O.S. No. 32 of 1966 on the file of the Court of District Mjnsif, Nagapattiaam, who lost before the Courts below is the appellant herein.2. The plaintiff was the owner of the land in T.S. No. 1741. In that land an extent of 1 acre and 1,609 sq. ft. was sought to be acquired by the Government under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. From Exhibit B-g, the copy of the award, it appears that the notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was pubished in the Fort St. George Gazette, dated 27th March, I9.63 and the declaration under Section 6(1) of the Act was published in the Fort St. George Gazette, dated 16th October, 1963. Thereafter, the award was passed on 13th August, 1964. Admittedly, the declaration under Section 6(1) of the Act referred to the extent of the land sought to be acquired only as 1 acre and 1,609 sq. ft. and the award also provides for compensation only for that extent of land. The case of the appellant is that...
P.V. Gandhi Vs. Gitanjali and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-01-1971
Reported in: AIR1973Mad115
1. Petition under Sections 9(b) and 9(d)(ii) and (iii) and 10 to 13 of the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act. 1909, to adjudge respondents 1 to 4 as insolvents. The 1st respondent Messrs. Gitanjali is a registered partnership, of which the partners were respondents 2 to 4. The petitioner claims to have advanced a sum of Rs. 5,000/- on a promissory note dated 8th June 1971 executed by the second respondent on behalf of the firm. It is alleged in the petition that on 7-8-1971 the debtors issued a cheque for Rs. 5,000/- towards the principal, that the cheque when presented, was returned dishonored, and that debtors failed and neglected to pay the amount. It is also alleged that on 7-8-1971 the debtors transferred the entire business in favor of the fifth respondent who put up his name board at the place of business premises, that the transfer was fraudulent that in spite of the efforts taken to contract the second respondent at his residence and also at his other place of business in No. 3/...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›