Chennai Court November 1972 Judgments
Rajamanicka Mudaliar Vs. Vadivelu Mudaliar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-30-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Mad319; (1973)1MLJ380
ORDER1. The defendant before the Panchayat Court, Chingleput who sought to set aside the decree dated 25-6-1970 passed by the Panchayat Court in case No. 137 of 1969, before the District Munsif, Chingleput, is the petitioner herein. The grounds on which the decree of the Panchayat Court was sought be set aside are:(1) that the Panchayat Court acted with gross partiality,(2) that the decree was arbitrary and perverse(3) that it was illegal and there was material irregularity, and(4) that the decree did not contain any reasons for its decision as required by Section 46 of the Village Courts Act. The respondent before the District Munsif filed a counter, denying all the allegations in the petition.2. The learned District Munsif dismissed the petition holding that there was no material irregularity in the decree, that the gross partiality alleged was not established, that the decree was neither unjust nor without jurisdiction and that the perusal of the decree showed that both the parties ...
Tag this Judgment!Balasubramania Nadalvar Vs. Saraboji Gounder
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-30-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Mad305; (1973)1MLJ248
1. The defendant is the appellant. The suit is for delivery of possession of the suit properties and for recovery of Rs. 1100 being the damages for use and occupation of the suit properties for two years prior to suit.2. The dispute in this case is between the grandsons of one Ramaswami Gounder his first wife Achiammal and his son-in-law who married his daughter by the second wife by name Kanakammal. The suit properties originally belonged to one Natesa Gounder, father of the defendant, and were sold by him under Ex. A-29 dated 19-1-1934 to the father of the plaintiff and was leased back by the purchaser to the father of the defendant under Ex. A-30 dated 20-1-1934. The case of the plaintiff is that the original lessee Kandasami was paying rent to his father regularly, that after the lessee's death the son of the defendant who continued in possession was similarly paying the rent to his maternal uncle during his minority and to him after he attained majority that the defendant committe...
Tag this Judgment!Manjini Mudaliar Vs. Karunanidhi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-30-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Mad399; (1973)1MLJ404
ORDER1. This revision is directed against the order of the lower court granting permission to the first respondent to sue in forma pauperis. In this revision the learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the first respondent has sufficient means to pay the court-fee, and that the lower Court was in error in holding that he has no sufficient means. It is pointed out that one of the items in respect of which partition is claimed is a house property worth Rupees 25,000, that the plaintiff's half share will easily be Rs. 12,500 and that the Court has not taken the value of that item while determining the question of pauperism of the first respondent. The trial Court, in its order, has stated that the first respondent is a clerk in a lorry service drawing a sum of Rs. 200 per month, that he has no properties other than the properties which are the subject-matter of the suit, and that the court-fee payable being Rs. 3169.50 the first respondent should be granted leave to sue in forma ...
Tag this Judgment!The Life Insurance Corporation Higher Grade Assistants Association Vs. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-30-1972
Reported in: (1973)ILLJ87Mad
Ramaprasada, J.1. Writ Petition No. 825 of 1972 is by an association called the Higher Grade Assistants Association, in relation to the employees of the Life Insurance Corporation of India. W.P. No. 826 of 1972 is by one Thomas Mathew, who is a higher grade assistant working in the Southern Zonal Office of the Life Insurance Corporation with headquarters at Madras. He claims that he is not a member of the 2nd petitioner-association during the material period to which the writ petition relates, and was not a member thereof. As an individual in the category of higher grade assistants he is aggrieved. In both the writ petitions, however, common questions arise.2. In W.P. No. 826 of 1972 the request is to direct the National Industrial Tribunal, New Delhi, to hear and determine certain disputes which were left unresolved by it in a reference adjudicated upon under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. There is also the additional prayer that respondents 1 and 2, namely, the Life Insurance Cor...
Tag this Judgment!Dhanalakshmi Ammual and ors. Vs. C.N. Ramaswamy Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-30-1972
Reported in: (1973)1MLJ399
ORDERG. Ramanujam, J.1. The only question that is raised in this revision is as to whether the execution petition filed by the petitioners herein is barred by limitation. There was a decree in favour of the petitioners on 4th March, 1959 in S.C. No. 263 of 1958 on the file of the Sub-Court, Cuddalore. A petition for execution of the said decree was filed, but the same was dismissed on 3rd October, 1961. The present petition for execution has been filed on 1st April, 1972. It has been dismissed by the lower Court on the ground that it is barred by time.2. In this revision, the learned Counsel for the petitioners contends that as the execution of the decree was not barred under the provisions of the old Limitation Act, 1908, on 1st January, 1964, when the new Act, came into force, the decree-holders are entitled to the extended period of limitation contained in the new Limitation Act of 1963. The lower Court accepted the petitioners' contention that they are entitled to the benefit of th...
Tag this Judgment!Umar Lebbai Vs. Ambasamudram Taluk Inam Pottalpudur Mohideen Andavar P ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-30-1972
Reported in: (1973)2MLJ293
K. Veeraswami, C.J.1. This is an appeal under the Letters Patent from the judgment of Venkataraman, J., in Umar Lebbai v. Ambasamudram Pallivasal : (1967)2MLJ218 who, agreeing with the conclusions arrived at by the two Courts below him, dismissed the plaintiff's Second Appeal. The earlier litigations had settled that one Vaka Mahadu Meethi Lebbai was entitled to perform the duties of Lebbai in Mohideen Andavar Pallivasal at Pottalpudur in Tirunelveli district in the Tamil month of Thai, once in two years and to get the corresponding emoluments therefor. In 1948, he died leaving his eldest son, Umar Lebbai the plaintiff, and 3 grandsons, defendants 6 to 8 by his predeceased two other sons, the last two defendants being the sons of the youngest of them. Syed Shah Abdul Latif v. Mohammed Lebbai : (1958)2MLJ199 , had decided that the Lebbais in institution would be entitled to an one-fourth share out of the hundial collections both at the time of the kanthuri and in ordinary times and an o...
Tag this Judgment!Varadappa Naicker Vs. Appavu Alias Ramaswami Gaunder
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-29-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Mad454
1. The defendant is the appellant. The suit is for redemption, declaration and possession of the suit properties, with past and future mesne profits. The plaintiff's case is as follows: The suit properties, among others, belonged to one R. Sengoda Gounder, who died on 30-9-1932, leaving behind him his only son Nattarayan and his junior wife Pappayyee alias Priya Kaliammal. The said Nattarayan is the son of the said junior wife. Sengoda Gounder and his minor son usufructuarily mortgaged items 1 and 2 of the plaint schedule for Rs. 700 and Rs. 600 respectively on 21-9-1932 (Exs. A-1 and A-2). After the death of Sengoda Gounder, his minor son also died on 16-5-1934. Thereafter, Pappayyee became entitled to the properties. The plaintiff was the only nearest reversioner to the estate of the deceased minor Nattarayan. On 7-11-1944. Pappayee sold items 3 and 4 of the plaint schedule to the defendant under two sale deeds. Exs. A-3 and A-4. The plaintiff as reversioner filed O. S. 49 of 1945, S...
Tag this Judgment!Varadappa Naicker Vs. Appavu Alias Ramaswami Gounder
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-29-1972
Reported in: (1973)1MLJ346
V.V. Raghavan, J.1. The defendant is the appellant. The suit is for redemption, declaration and possession of the suit properties with past and future mesne profits. The plaintiff's case is as follows : The suit properties, among others, belonged to one R. Sengoda Gounder, who died on 30th September, 1932, leaving behind him his only minor son Nattarayan and his junior wife Pappayee alias Priya Kaliammal. The said Nattarayan is the son of the said junior wife. Sengoda Gounder and his minor son usufructuarily mortgaged items 1 and 2 of the plaint schedule for Rs. 700 and Rs. 600 respectively on 21st September, 1932 (Exhibits A-1 and A-2). After the death of Sengoda Gounder, his minor son also died on 16th May, 1934. Thereafter, Pappayee became entitled to the properties. The plaintiff was the only nearest reversioner to the estate of the deceased minor Nattarayan. On 7th November, 1944 Pappayee sold items 3 and 4 of the plaint schedule to the defendant under two sale deeds (Exhibits A-3...
Tag this Judgment!The Trustees of the Port or Madras by Its Chairman Vs. Roberts Maclean ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-29-1972
Reported in: (1973)2MLJ455
K.S. Venkataraman, J.1. This appeal has been filed by the Madras Port Trust. It arises out of a claim for Rs. 6,639-58 being the value of one case containing T. 30. mobile metafilter, which was lost while it was in the custody of the Port Trust after landing. The case in question and ten drams methsil were consigned from England on board the ship 's.s. Mohanada'. to Madras, the consignee being the first plaintiff, Messrs. Roberts Maclean & Company Limited. The ship arrived in Madras on 1st Apr 1, 1961. The Port Trust took charge of the consignment in good condition (according to the tally sheet but delivered only the ten drums of mevarsil and not the case in question, namely. T.30. mobile metafilter. They issued a'C' certificate to the first plaintiff on 12th October, 1961. A copy of the 'C' certificate has been marked as Exhibit A-2. The first plaintiff made a claim for Rs. 15,246-01 with the Port Trust under Exhibit A-3 dated 3rd November, 1961. It followed it up by a reminder, Exhib...
Tag this Judgment!Eswari Bai Vs. the Collector of Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-27-1972
Reported in: AIR1974Mad114
1. The plaintiff is the appellant. The suit is for declaration of title and possession and injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the plaintiff's possession. The plaintiff's is refugee from Pakistan. The suit property is a land bearing R.S. 4212/1 measuring 387 sq. ft. in Madras. This land admittedly belongs to the State Government. it was originally lease to the Madras Electric Tramway Co. Ltd., for a period. The tramway company went into liquidation in or about 1955 and its properties came to be sold in auction. The tramway company had put up a superstructure on the demised land. The superstructures were sold in auction and the plaintiff became the purchaser. The said sale was confirmed by this court on 19-8-1955. The plaintiff would appear to have represented to the State of Madras that in purchasing the superstructures she was under the sale, and that she would be put to heavy loss, if she was asked to dismantle the superstructure. The Collector of Madras passed...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »