Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1973Mad453; (1973)2MLJ25
ORDER1. The appellant in C. M. A. 17 of 1971 on the file of the court of the Subordinate Judge (Land Tribunal), Cuddalore, is the petitioner. He filed an objection petition before the authorized officer, Land Reforms, Cuddalore, praying that the land which he purchased from one Papayee Ammal may be included within the ceiling area of the said Papayee Ammal. The petitioner purchased the land from Papayee Ammal on 21-11-1962. The notified date was 2-10-1962. The plea of the petitioner is that so far as the extent of the land purchased by him is concerned it should be included within the ceiling area of Papayee Ammal. The authorized officer held that as the sale in favor of the petitioner was after the notified date, he will not recognize it and that the request of the petitioner that the said extent should be included within the ceiling area of Papayee Ammal has to be rejected.2. Section 8 of the Madras Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act, 1961 requires that a person holding l...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 1973CriLJ1677
ORDERMaharajan, J.1. Nasendra Iyer, who is the petitioner in both these cases, is the husband of Saraswathi Ammal, the first respondent in Cr. R C. No. 1221' of 1970 and the father of Premavathi, the second respondent in Crl. R. C. 1221 of 1970 and the respondent in Cr. R. C. No. 677 of 1970 In M. C. 7 of 1957 on the file of the Additional first Class Magistrate No. 2. Salem, the wife and daughter of the petitioner filed a petition under Section 488 Crl. P. C. in pursuance of which the Court by its order dated ll-4-19o7 directed the petitioner to pay them a monthly maintenance allowance of Rs. 35 for the wife and Rs. 15 for the daughter, whereupon the petitioner instituted a suit in the District Munsif's Court. Salem, craving for a declaration that his wife and daughter were not entitled to maintenance or in the alternative, for fixing the amount of maintenance in accordance with Section 23 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act. This suit was dismissed by the District Munsif. where...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 1973CriLJ1256; (1974)2MLJ474
Maharajan, J.1. This is an appeal against the Judgment of the learned Ninth Presidency Magistrate, Egmore, Madras, convicting the appellant of the offence Under Section 420, Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months and to pay a fine of Rs. 300 and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months. The learned Magistrate also directed that the sum of Rs. 100 be paid to the complainant as compensation out of the fine. The case of the prosecution was that the accused, Murugan offered to the complainant, Ethirajammal for sale of building in door No. 5, Chunnambukalavai Street, Aminjikarai, that the price of the same was fixed at Rs. 19,500 and that though the accused disclosed to the complainant the fact that the property was subject to two prior mortgages, he failed to disclose an attachment of the property which is alleged to have been subsisting on the date of the sale. The suppression of the fact of attachment is, according to the ...
Tag this Judgment!