Chennai Court March 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.
Chellammal Vs. Nallammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-03-1971
Reported in: (1971)1MLJ439
K.S. Ramamurti, J.1. These two second appeals arise out of two suits tried together and disposed of by a common judgment in the trial Court and by a common judgment by the lower appellate Court. The only point which survives for decision relates to the question whether the first plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit properties or in any event whether her rights in the properties have become enlarged into an absolute estate by reason of Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act (XXX of 1956) (hereinafter referred to as the Act).2. The facts of the case are as follows: (Note : For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to in the judgment as they are arrayed in the suit O.S. No. 366 of 1963). The first plaintiff is Nallammal, and her husband Palanisami Gounder and one Nallasamy Gounder (senior) were step-brothers. The first plaintiff's husband died in 1936, leaving behind him his widow, Nallammal (first plaintiff) and a child called Nallaswamy Gounder (junior) who died in...
T.W. Ranganathan Vs. T.K. Subramaniam and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-02-1971
Reported in: AIR1971Mad477
ORDER1. The petitioner herein file a suit, O. S. No. 982 of 1966 on the file of the District Munsif's Court, Salem, for declaration that the suit wall is common both to the plaintiff and the defendant and for consequential reliefs. It appears that the petitioner obtained an interim order of injunction at the first instance but it was later on vacated at the instance of the respondents herein. After the interim injunction was vacated the petitioner filed an application in I. A. No. 919 of 1968 for permission to withdraw the suit with liberty to file a fresh suit under O. 23, R. 1, Civil P. C. The said application was opposed by the respondent on the ground that the petitioner was not entitled to have liberty to file a fresh suit on the same cause of action. The application was considered by the lower court and it felt that the petitioner has not made out a case for the grant of liberty to file a fresh suit on the same cause of action. But at the same time the lower court granted permiss...
Arjundoss Vs. P. Janakiram and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-02-1971
Reported in: [1971]41CompCas731(Mad)
Ganesan, J. 1. Sri Arjundoss has preferred this appeal against the award of a sum of Rs. 2,400 as compensation by the Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Madras, to one Sri P. Janakiram for the injuries sustained by the latter in an accident which took place at about 10 a.m. on June 27, 1965, in Telegraph Abbay Naidu Lane, Madras. 2. Sri Janakiram was walking along the said lane, east to west and a private car, Standard-10, which belongs to the second respondent herein, Mrs. Kailash Rani, and which was then driven by the appellant herein hit and injured the said Janakiram. The appellant had borrowed the car from the second respondent for about half an hour for the purpose of taking hisfamily to Mambalam for a marriage. The second respondent's husband, Roshanlal, was sitting by the side of the appellant in the front seat. 3. The first question which arises for consideration in the appeal is whether the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving by the appellant. Sri Jana...
Thayammal (Died) and anr. Vs. Salammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-02-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Mad83; (1971)IIMLJ286
1. The 7th defendant is the appellant. The suit was filed by the plaintiffs for partition and separate possession of their share in the suit properties. In order to appreciate the point that arises in the appeal it is necessary to set out the relationship of parties to the suit. One Kuppu Naidu had four sons by name Balakrishna Naidu, Kesava Naidu, and Rangaswami Naidu died issueless. The 7th defendant is the widow of Kesava Naidu. Balakrishna Naidu died leaving two sons Venkatachala Naidu and Sami Naidu. Venkatachala Naidu died in 1948. The first plaintiff is the widow of Venkatachala and the second plaintiff is the daughter by another wife of Venkatachala. Sami Naidu is the first defendant in the suit, and his son through the first wife is the second defendant, and his second wife is the sixth defendant. Krishnaswami Naidu died leaving his son, the third defendant and grandsons, the fourth and fifth defendants. In the suit the first plaintiff claimed one-fourth share in the plaint B ...
K. Venkataraman and Company and ors. Vs. Deputy Commercial Tax Officer ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-02-1971
Reported in: [1973]30STC57(Mad)
Sadasivam, J.1. Writ Appeal No. 116 of 1965 has been preferred by one M. Varadarajulu Naidu, a dealer in cinder, against the decision of Veeraswami, J., as he then was, in Writ Petition No. 1774 of 1964 (M. Varadarajulu Naidu v. State of Madras and Anr. [1965] 16 S.T.C. 684), negativing his contention that cinder is coal, or is a form of coke, falling within entry 1 of Schedule II of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Tax Case No. 267 of 1966 has been filed by the same Varadarajulu Naidu to revise the order of the Board of Revenue holding the same view for the subsequent period. Writ Appeals Nos. 45 and 46 of 1966 have been filed by K. Venkataraman and Company against the judgment of Veeraswami, J., as he then was, in Writ Petitions Nos. 320 and 321 of 1966, dismissing the petitions on the ground that they are covered by his decision in Varadarajulu Naidu v. State of Madras [1965] 16 S.T.C. 684. In Tax Case No. 10 of 1964, petitioners Karpagam ...
In Re: E. Elumalai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-02-1971
Reported in: 1971CriLJ1396
ORDERK.N. Mudaliyar, J.1. The Reserve Sub-Inspector of Police, R-l, Traffic Madras filed a complaint against one E. Elumalai, the petitioner herein, for an offence Under Section 115 of the Motor Vehicles Act. From the record, it is seen that the accused was present on the 15th day of June 1970, but the complainant and his witnesses were absent. Undoubtedly, proceedings Under Section 115 of the Motor Vehicles Act are non-cognisable. Therefore, in my view, the complaint filed by the respondent against the petitioner is a complaint within the meaning of Section 4 (1) (h) of the Criminal Procedure Code. Such a complaint would fall within the ambit of Section 190 (1) (a) of the Criminal Procedure Code and therefore the only section that would inevitably come into play is Section 247. Undoubtedly, on the 15th day of June 1970 the complainant did not appear. Therefore, the Magistrate ought to have acquitted the accused for the section speaks about the mandatory duty laid on the Magistrate tha...
T.N. Ranganathan Vs. T.K. Subramaniam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-02-1971
Reported in: (1971)2MLJ126
G. Ramanujam, J.1. The petitioner herein filed a suit, O.S. No. 982 of 1966 on the file of the District Munsif's Court, Salem, for declaration that the suit wall is common both to the plaintiff and the defendant and for consequential reliefs. It appears that the petitioner obtained an interim order of injunction at the first instance but it was later on vacated at the instance of the respondents herein. After the interim 'injunction was vacated the petitioner filed an application in I.A. No. 919 of 1968 for permission to withdraw the suit with liberty to file a fresh suit under Order 23, Rule 1, Civil Procedure Code. The said application was opposed by the respondent on the ground that the petitioner was not entitled to have liberty to file a fresh suit on the same cause of action. The application was considered by the lower Court and it felt that the petitioner has not made out a case for the grant of liberty to file a fresh suit on the same cause of action. But at the same time the l...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›