Chennai Court August 1971 Judgments
The State of Madras Vs. Balamanavala Reddiar and anr
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-31-1971
Reported in: AIR1973Mad14
1. The State of Madras represented by the District Collector of Ramanathapuram at Madurai has preferred these appeals App. Nos. 427 of 1964 and 446 of 1964, against the decrees and judgment in O. S. Nos.26 of 1962 and O. S. No. 13 of 1962 respectively of the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Sivaganga, decreeing the suits for declaration and injunction as prayed for with costs. The properties comprised in these suits are situate in Chittikurichi Village and they are claimed by the plaintiff in the suits as ryoti lands, which were punja from prior to the enactment of Madras Act I of 1908. The Additional Assistant Settlement Officer, Arupppukottai, ordered the issue of ryotwari pattas to the plaintiff in each of the suits under the Madras Act XXVI of 1948. But the Settlement Officer in suo Motu proceedings set aside the orders on the ground that the suit lands are part of tank bed. After unsuccessfully invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court, The respondent-Plaintiff in each of...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: A.K. Ramachandran
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-31-1971
Reported in: 1972CriLJ698
ORDERSomasundaram, J.1. Chandran, the petitioner herein stands convicted and sentenced to undergo R. I. for two months for an offence under Section 408 I. P. C. He was the salesman in Kaveripatnam Cooperative Stores at Kaveripatnam till 30-6-1967. He was entrusted with mill and handloom cloths. The stock was verified on 31-7-1967. There was shortage in the mill cloth to the value of Rs. 107.29 and in the handloom cloth to the value of Rs. 185-94. There was a verification in the cloth section on 30-6-1967. He was in sole charge of this section. There was shortage of cloths to the value of Rs. 4,806-73. He was charged under Section 408 I, P. C, He contended that he was not . responsible for the shortage in the stock. The Sub Magistrate. Krishnagiri convicted and sentenced him to undergo R. I. for two months. On appeal the District Magistrate confirmed this conviction. The petitioner contends that this conviction is not correct. (2) Ex. P-13 is the rate fixing register for the year 1966-6...
Tag this Judgment!S.M. Dawood Bibi (Died) and ors. Vs. Abu Bakker Pulavar (Died) and ors ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-30-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Mad228
Sadasivam, J.1. Appellants are the legal representatives of the first defendant, Dawood Bibi, who dies subsequent to her filing this appeal. This suit was filed by the first respondent. Abubakker Pulavar, Who also died during the pendency of this appeal, for the administration of the estate of the deceased Hanifa Rowther, the husband of the first defendant Dawood Bibi. The first defendant as the widow of Hanifa Rowther, who had no descendants, was admittedly entitled to one fourth share in the estate of remaining three fourths share under the Mohammed an Law doctrine of return, if Hanifa Rowther had no other heir. Respondents 16 to 20 are the legal representatives of the fifth defendant Ibrahimsa Pulavar, the junior paternal uncle's son of the plaintiff. The case of the plaintiff and the fifth defendant is that their paternal grandfather Umarpulavar was the brother of Hanifa Rowther's paternal great grandfather Magadum Batcha Rowther and that they are entitled to succeed as residuaries...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Narayanaswami
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-30-1971
Reported in: 1973CriLJ1295
Ramamurti, J.1. This referred trial and criminal appeal arise out of the judgment of the learned Sessions Judse of East Thanjavur, who found the two appellants (accused 1 and 2) guilty of the offence of murder under Section 302 I. P- C. and sentenced the first accused to the extreme penalty of law subject to confirmation by this court and the second accused to imprisonment for life. Accused 3 to 5 were also charged for the offence of constructive liability for murder under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC and they were acquitted. All the accused were charged for rioting under Section 148 I. P. C, but they were all acquitted of that charge. The main charge against the accused is that on 29-10-1970 at about 7-30 p.m. the deceased Palani-velu was murdered by the party of the accused. Accused 1 and 2 are brothers. The third accused is the son of the second accused. The fourth accused is the nephew (son of the sister) of accused 1 and 2 and the fifth accused is the son of the first acc...
Tag this Judgment!C.V. Cunniah Chetty Vs. P.L. Dharmalingam Chetty (Decd.) and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-27-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Mad233
1. The plaintiff is the appellant. The suit is by the reversioner of the estate of one Collah Venkata Muthurama Chetti on the death of his widow Collah Ramaratnamma on or about 16-11-1956. The plaintiff's case is that Collah Venkata Muthurama Chetti was one of three sons of Colla Venkata Cunniah Chetti, the other two sons being Collah Venkata Ravanappa Chetti, and Collah Venkataraghava Chetti. The father and three sons as a result of a suit for partition filed by C. V. Cunniah Chetti followed by a decree dated 27-4-1905 and a further decree dated 11-4-1906 became divided in interest and estate and distinct properties were allowed to each of the sons thereunder; the father having divested himself of all properties was content with a provision for maintenance of himself and his wife. The said C. V. Muthurama Chetti, the last of the three brothers got for his share various shops and a big dwelling house under the said decree. C. V. Muthurama Chetti died on 1-12-1909, leaving his child-wif...
Tag this Judgment!Modern Housing Construction and Properties Limited, by Director Vs. th ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-27-1971
Reported in: (1972)2MLJ319
K. Veeraswami, C.J.1. The plaintiff is the appellant. The suit is to recover Rs. 90 750 with interest and, in default of payment, for the sale of the properties described in the plaint schedule, and, if the sale proceeds are not sufficient, for a personal decree against defendants 1 and 2 for the balance of the amount due. The first defendant and the second defendant are the wife and daughter of late Dr. R.M. Alagappa Chettiar and the third defendant is a company incorporated in the Kerala State. The ease of the plaintiff is that in the course of the business of the plaintiff, and at the order and account of Dr. Alagappa Chettiar, the plaintiff constructed inter aha, the buildings namely (1) Guest House in Gangadhareswarar Koil Street, Purasawalkam, Madras and (2) a group of buildings known as 'Alagappa Nagar buildings' in Alagappa Nagar, Madras. These constructions were completed in 1948 and, in respect of the former constructions, Dr. Alagappa Chettiar owed the plaintiffs a sum of Rs...
Tag this Judgment!Rajammal Vs. A.T. Krishnaswami Mudaliar (Died) and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-26-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Mad359
V. Ramaswami, J.1. One Ammasiappa Gounder and three others filed the suit O.S. No. 226 of 1946 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore, against the first respondent Krishnaswami Mudaliar and others, claiming a sum of Rs. 1,92,109-10-3 ps. being the value of jaggery supplied to the defendants. The suit was decreed for a sum of Rupees 98,507-13-0 with interest at six per cent, per annum from the date of suit. The defendants preferred A.S. No. 713 of 1947 against the decaree and the plaintiffs filed A.S. No. 537 of 1948 to this court claiming the balance amount of the suit claim. The defendants filed an application for stay of execution of the decree on 16-12-1947. The interim stay of execution of the decree was made absolute on condition of the defendants-appellants depositing the decree amount on or before 20-1-1948. The plaintiff were permitted to withdraw the amount deposited on furnishing security. One Ramaswami Gounder, the husband of the appellant herein, and his first wif...
Tag this Judgment!Arunachala Gounder Vs. S. Alagappa Chettiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-25-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Mad293
1. The plaintiff in O. S. No. 88 of 1964 on the file of the Court of the District Munsif of Tirupur, who failed before the trial Court, as well as the first appellate Court, is the appellant before this Court. It is necessary to refer to a few facts for the purpose of understanding the controversy between the parties. The property belonged to a firm by name P. L. V. R. Subramania Chettiar firm. After the death of Subramania Chettiar, his widow Chinnammal Achi, the third defendant in the suit, along with her sons, defendants 1 and 2, started dealing with the properties belonging to the firm, while the other surviving partner Valliappa Chettiar in his turn started dealing with certain properties. The suit properties were sold by the first defendant and the second defendant represented by his mother the third defendant for a sum of Rs. 1500 on 26-8-1947 under Ex. A-1 in favour of the appellant herein and he was put in possession of the suit properties. Subsequently, the other surviving pa...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Thangarai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-25-1971
Reported in: 1973CriLJ1301
Ramamurti, J.1. The four appellants 1 to 4 in this appeal are accused 1' to 4 respectively in Sessions Case No. 106 of 1971 on the file of the . Sessions Court, Tirunelveli, the Sessions Case arose out of the murder of one Anthonipandian of Tuticorin at about 9-15 A. M. on 29-3-1971' in the Clinic (Manohar Clinic) of one Dr. Krishnamurthi. In the course of the same transaction one Karuppuswami Thevar (examined as P. W. 1 in the case) was stabbed on his back. The four accused along with one Thavidan alias Sudalai-' mani (a iuvenile) were charged for the offence of rioting armed with deadlv weapons, punishablp under Section 148 I. P- C. Accused 1 to 4 were also charged for the offence of murder under Section 302 read with Section 1491. P. C. and the first accused was charged for attempt to murder Karuppuswami Thevar (P. W. 1) punishable under Section 307 IPC All the accused pleaded not euiltv to all the charges; but the Sessions Judge found them guilty in respect of all three charges and...
Tag this Judgment!Jayarama Naidu Vs. Tirupathi and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-23-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Mad183
Veeraswami, C.J.1. First defendants appeals from a reversing judgment of Ramakrishnan, J. He allowed the respondent's suit for recovery of possession of the plaint schedule properties in their capacity that they were sole surviving trustees of a private family trust under which the properties had been endowed. One Srinivasa Naidu purchased in 1881 the plaint schedule properties and constituted the same, as we were told, as a trust or endowment for performance of certain objects. What precisely are the terms of the trust, are yet to be ascertained. The founder nominated his brother's son, Nayeena, to succeed him as a trustee, but made no further provision for devolution. Nayeena died in 1908, Parankusam, the son of Srinivasa Naidu, succeeded to the office and held it between 1922 and 1936. He died in 1936 leaving his widow Govindammal and a will Ex. B-2. He nominated her to be the trustee after his lifetime and provided further that she might, according to her will and pleasure, nominat...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »