Chennai Court November 1972 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.
Rajamani Ammal Vs. Bhoorasami Padayachi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-21-1972
Reported in: (1973)1MLJ400
G. Ramanujam, J.1. The plaintiff is the appellant. She filed a suit for a declaration of her title to the suit properties consisting of 8 items and for possession of the same from the defendants with mesne profits. The plaintiff claimed that the suit properties originally belonged to her mother, Alamelu Ammal, she having purchased the same with her own funds from one Venkatachala Padayachi, under a sale deed Exhibit A-2, dated 8th April, 1935,, for a sum of Rs. 500, 'that the plaintiff has become the stridhana heir of her mother, and that as the plaintiff was a minor at the time of her mother's death her father Kannuswami Padayachi and after his death the first defendant, her brother, bad been managing the suit properties on her behalf. The plaintiff alleged that neither her father, Kannuswami Padayachi nor her brother, the first defendant, had any right or interest over the suit properties, but that taking advantage of the fact that the plaintiff had just attained majority the first d...
The State of Tamil Nadu Represented by the Collector of Madras and anr ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-21-1972
Reported in: (1973)2MLJ89
K. Veeraswami, C.J.1. These appeals by the State are directed against a common judgment of Palaniswamy, J., who struck down the Indian Stamp (Madras Amendment) Act, .1967, as unconstitutional. He did so on the view that substitution of ' consideration ' by ' market value ' in the Indian Stamp Act has converted stamp duty into a tax on property, and that it also violated Articles .14 and 19 (1) of the Constitution. In our opinion, this view cannot be sustained.2. We agree with him that stamp duty is a duty on an instrument as defined in the Stamp Act, and that this concept as to the character of the duty is in accordance with the British and Indian Legislative practice, and the scope of Entry 44 in List III of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution 'stamp duties other than the duties or fees collected by means of judicial stamps, but not including rates of stamp duty.' But we cannot agree with him that the substitution made by the Amending Act has altered the character of the duty. Wh...
P.L. Subramania Chettiar Vs. P.L. Uthaman Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-17-1972
Reported in: AIR1974Mad5
ORDERThis petition is filed by the plaintiff against the order of the lower Court directing the plaintiff to value separately the two 5 Horse Power motors and two 7 HP motors and pump sets which are in the land for which the relief of declaration of plaintiff's title to the property is prayed for. In the plaint the particulars of the lands are given to which the relief is asked for. In paragraph 15 it is stated that the suit is laid for declaration of plaintiff's title to the suit property and as a consequential relief thereof for permanent injunction restraining the defendant, his men and agent from in any way interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property. There are ten items of suit property. As regards items 3 and 7, it is stated that in item 3 there is a well with 5 HP electric motor pump set in S. No. 113 and in item 7 there is a well with 5 HP electric motor pump set in S. No. 132. It is further stated that there are thulasi, thotti, veri...
Thirulakshmi Ammal Vs. the Special Tahsildar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-17-1972
Reported in: AIR1974Mad182
1. These two appeals arise out of an order of the Subordinate Judge, Madurai, made in a reference under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. An extent of 2 acres 49 cents in R. S. No.169/1 in Tallakulam village, Madurai taluk, has been acquired for Madurai Neighbourhood Project. Rival claims were put forward for the compensation amount. Hence, the Acquisition Officer made the reference under Section 30. The first claimant, Thirulakshmi Ammal, claimed the entire compensation contending that both warams in the land had been granted in inam to the ancestors of her husband for rendering sthanigam and paricharagam service in Kallalagar temple. The executive officer of the Kallalagar devastanam contended that he inam was granted only in favour of the temple for the performance of the services of sthanigam and paricharagam and that the devastanam alone was entitled to receive the compensation under the provisions of the Minor Inams Abolition Act, 1963. The other claimants claimed the...
Gopal Naidu and Executive Officer Kallalagar Devasthanam Vs. the Speci ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-17-1972
Reported in: (1974)1MLJ124
Palaniswami, J.1. These two appeals arise out of an order of the Subordinate Judge of Madurai made in a reference under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. An extent of 4 acres, 16 cents in R.S. No. 167/1, Tallakulam village, Madurai Taluk has been acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for Madurai Neighbourhood Project. As there were rival claims for the compensation, the Acquisition Officer made the reference under Section 30. The first claimant contended that the land had been granted in inam in favour of his ancestors in both warams for the service of paricharakam in the pagoda of Kallalagar Devasthanam and that he was entitled to the compensation amount in respect of 1 acre 63 cents. He conceded that the second claimant was entitled to compensation in respect of 2 acres 53 cents as alienee. The second claimant supported the case of the first claimant that what was granted consisted of both the Melwaram and Kudiwaram and claimed compensation for the extent of 2 acr...
M. E. Muthirula Mudaliar Vs. M. E. Nataraja Mudaliar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-17-1972
Reported in: (1974)1MLJ129
Palaniswami, J.1. These three appeals arise out of an order of the Subordinate Judge of Madurai made in a reference under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. For the purpose of Madurai Neighbourhood Project, R.S. No. 161/2 measuring 2 acres 98 cents in the Village of Tallakulam in Madurai Taluk was acquired. Rival claims were put forward as regards the compensation. Therefore, the Acquisition Officer referred the matter under Section 30. Claimants 1 to 3 and 5 to 8 contended that the land was granted in inam of both warams to the ancestor of one Periyathambi Velar for the purpose of rendering service of supply of new pots to Kallalagar Devasthanam Temples, that Periyathambi Velar sold away one-half of the property to the first claimant and the other half to the second claimant and that by reason of these purchases, claimants 1 and 2 were entitled to the entire compensation in equal halves. The fourth claimant Audimathiriyar claimed compensation in respect of 75 cents alleging...
P.L. Subramaniam Chettiar Vs. P.L. Uthaman Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-17-1972
Reported in: (1973)1MLJ386
ORDERP.S. Kailasam, J.1. This petition is filed by the plaintiff against the order of the lower Court directing the plaintiff to value separately the two 5-horse-power motors and two 7-horse-power motors and pump-sets which are in the land for which the relief of declaration of plaintiff's title to the property is prayed for. In the plaint the particulars of the lands are given to which the relief is asked for. In paragraph 15 it is stated that the suit is laid for declaration of plaintiff's title to the suit property and as a consequential relief thereof for permanent injunction restraining the defendant, his men and agent from in any way interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property. There are 10 items of suit property. As regards items 3 and 7, it is stated that in item 3 there is a well with 5-horse-power electric motor pumpset in S. No. 113 and in item 7 there is a well with 5-horse-power electric motor pumpset in S. No. 132. It is further...
T.V. Sambandam Chetty Vs. St. Francis Xavier's Church represented by I ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-17-1972
Reported in: (1973)2MLJ2
Ramaswami, J.1. The defendant is the appellant. The suit was filed by the respondent Church for ejectment and the appellant herein filed an application under Section 9 of the Madras City Tenants' Protection Act for purchasing the site. The trial Court held that the site, being appurtenant to the respondent Church, is res extra commercium and therefore, the appellant cannot claim the benefit of Section 9 of the Act. The trial Court held that the respondent is entitled to the possession of the site and granted a decree for possession. The decree directed further that the respondent would be entitled to file a petition for appointment of a Commissioner for valuing the superstructure. On appeal, the learned Principal City Civil Judge confirmed the finding that the suit property is appurtenant to the Church and therefore res extra commercium and regarding such property Section 9 of the City Tenants' Protection Act would not apply. But, he modified the decree so far as the compensation is co...
Thirulakshmi Ammal and Executive Officer Vs. the Special Tahsildar for ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-17-1972
Reported in: (1973)2MLJ317
Palaniswamy, J.1. These two appeals arise out of art order of the Subordinate Judge of Madurai made in a reference under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. An extent of 2 acres 49 cents in R.S. No. 169/1 in Tallakulam village, Madurai Taluk, has been acquired for Madurai-Neighburhood Project. Rival claims were put forward for the compensation amount. Hence, the Acquisition Officer made the reference under Section 30. The first- claimant, Thirulakshmi Ammal, claimed the entire compensation-contending that both warams in the land had been granted in inam to the ancestors-of her husband for rendering Sthanikam and Parichurakam service in Kallalagar Temple. The Executive Officer of the Kallalagar Devasthanam contended that the inam was granted only in favour of the Temple for the performance of the services of Sthanikam and Pancharkam and that the Devasthanam. alone was entitled to receive the compensation under the provisions of the Minor Inams Abolition Act, 1963. The other cl...
Sundardas Harbhagwandas and ors. Vs. the Indian Bank Ltd., Madras and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-14-1972
Reported in: AIR1974Mad119
ORDER1. In all these petitions, the petitioner is the same which is a registered firm of bankers. The facts are similar in all these petitions and the question that arises for determination is also the same. A hundi was executed by a merchant in favour of one or other of the Banks who are respondents in these petitions. The hundi was discounted by the petitioner-2nd defendant. When the hundi became payable, neither the executant of the hundi nor the petitioner paid the amount due to the concerned banks. The banks files suits against the maker of the hundi as well as the petitioner which discounted the hundi. The petitioner filed petitions for impleading certain respondents as defendants to the suit, on the ground that they had executed letters of guarantee undertaking to be liable regarding the promissory notes and other transactions that may be entered into by the petitioner. The courts below dismissed the petitions declining to implead the respondents as defendants to the suit. Hence...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »