Chennai Court March 1972 Judgments
Arumugha thevar Vs. Palaniammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-30-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Mad426; (1973)1MLJ111
1. It is indeed surprising, on the established facts, that the lower appellate Court upheld the contentions of defendants 1 and 2 and dismissed the suit. O. S. No. 87 of 1964 of the plaintiff who is the appellant in the second appeal. As the several points are concluded by the findings of the Court below against defendants 1 and 2, the point which arises for decision in the second appeal is very narrow and it is sufficient to state the facts which are relevant for the decision of the point arising in the second appeal.The properties, in respect of which a charge decree is asked for by the plaintiff were sold by one Arumugham (the plaintiff) and his brother to one Mari on 20-8-1951. On Mari's death, his wife Kuppakkal and his son Nachimuthu sold the properties purchased by Mari to one Maruda Thevar, the husband of the first defendant and the father of the second defendant for a sum of Rs. 15,000. As this Mari did not pay the balance of the purchase price. Arumugha filed the suit O. S. N...
Tag this Judgment!B. Gopalakrishnan Vs. Meganathan (Died) and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-30-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Mad170
Palaniswamy, J.1. The first defendant in O. S. No. 1513 of 1960 on the file of the Court of the VII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, is the appellant. The relevant facts are these: The plaintiff's father, Krishnappa Naicker, was the elder son of one Govindappa Naicker the second son being Elumalai Naicker who was the father of defendants 1 to 5 and husband of the 6th defendant. The plaint A schedule property was acquired by Govindappa Naicker under Ex. A-1 on 6-6-1894. After his death, the plaint B schedule property was acquired by Krishnappa Naicker under Ex. A-2, dated 30-10-1916. Krishnappa Naicker died in 1922, leaving the plaintiff, his son. Elumalai Naicker died in 1949 leaving defendants 1 to 5 and the widow, the 6th defendant died and thereupon, defendants 1 to 5 were recorded as legal representatives and besides, the seventh defendants, the daughter was brought on record. The suit was laid for partition of the plaint A and B schedule properties and for allotment of the plain...
Tag this Judgment!G. Doraiswamy Vs. the Land Commissioner, Board of Revenue (Land Reform ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-30-1972
Reported in: (1972)2MLJ262
ORDERT. Ramaprasada Rao, J.1. An interesting question is taken up by the petitioner. The petitioner was a member of the Armed Forces. By virtue of his status and prior employment, he was entitled to assignment of surplus lands acquired by the State under the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act, 1961, read with the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Disposal of Surplus Land) Rules, 1965. The second respondent, who was admittedly a person belonging to the class of landless poor, competed with the petitioner for the assignment of such surplus land in Thalan-cheri village, Sirkali Taluk, Thanjavur District. It is not disputed that the petitioner, prior to the application for the assignment of the available surplus land in this village, had already the benefit of a similar assignment on the same ground of entitlement, but in another village. of an extent of 91 cents of land. The second respondent, however, did not secure any such land, though he was also entitled to the same, bu...
Tag this Judgment!E. Gopalakrishnan Vs. Meganathan (Died) and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-30-1972
Reported in: (1972)2MLJ481
K.S. Palaniswami, J.1. The first defendant in O.S. No. 1513 of 1960 on the file of the Court of the Seventh Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, is the appellant. The relevant facts are these : The plaintiff's father, Krishnappa Naicker, was the elder son of one Govindappa Naicker, the second son being Elumalai Naicker who was the father of defendants 1 to 5 and husband of the sixth defendant. The plaint A schedule property was acquired by Naicker under Exhibit A-1 on 6th June, 1894. After his death, the plaint B schedule property was acquired by Krishnappa Naicker under Exhibit A-2, dated 30th October, 1916. Krishnappa Naicker died in 1922, leaving the plaintiff, his son. Elumalai Naicker died in 1949, leaving defendants 1 to 5 and the widow, the sixth defendant. During the pendency of the suit, the sixth defendant died and thereupon, defendants 1 to 5 were recorded as legal representatives and besides, the seventh defendant, the daughter, was brought on record. The suit was laid for pa...
Tag this Judgment!South India Corporation (Agencies) Private Limited Carrying on Busines ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-30-1972
Reported in: (1972)2MLJ617
K. Veeraswami, C.J.1. This appeal is from a decree of Kunhamed Kutti, J., who directed payment to the plaintiff of a sum of Rs. 55,500 by way of damages for use and occupation of the building in question for the period from 1st April, 1962 to 30th April, 1964. It appears that the suit was filed originally in the City Civil Court, but later transferred to the Original Side of this Court. The premises was leased out to the defendant, South Indian Corporation Agencies (P.) Ltd., under a lease deed dated 28th November, 1957. The monthly rent provided was Rs. 750 and the lease was for a period of five years. There was a clause in the lease deed giving an option to renew the lease for a period of five years. But that was conditional or the lessor's consent thereto. The defendant wanted a renewal after expiry of the period of five years. But there was RO agreement on the rent to be paid after renewal. The result was that the suit, out of which this appeal arises was filed by. the respondent. ...
Tag this Judgment!Sundaramurthi Gramani Vs. Kesava Naicker and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-28-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Mad96
1. This appeal arises out of an application, E. A. No. 37 of 1966 in O. S. No. 72 of 1959 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Poonamallee, filed under Section 144. Civil P. C. for restitution. The facts leading up to the application are these: One Kesava Naicker (respondent 1 in the application) had obtained a money decree in O. S. 255 of 1957 against Munuswami Gramani (respondent 2 in the present application) and, in execution of that decree brought to sale the items of properties covered by the present application. The present appellant Sundaramurthi Gramani, who is the younger brother of Munuswami Gramani filed a claim petition. E. A. 1289 of 1958 under Order XXI, Rule 58, Civil P. C. contending that the properties were the joint family properties of himself and his brother Munuswami Gramani, that there had been no division between them, that he (Sundaramurthi) was entitled to an undivided half share and that his undivided half share should be released from attachment. This cl...
Tag this Judgment!E.K. Pattabirama Reddiar Vs. K. Kanniappa Naicker (Died) and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-28-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Mad92
1. The short but important question that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the decision of a District Munsif in a suit in respect of land would operate as res judicata between the same parties in a reference under Section 31 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, regarding the apportionment of the compensation for that land. The trial Court has answered this question in the affirmative, and the correctness of that decision is challenged before us in this appeal. The facts which lie on a narrow compass are briefly these. There are two claimants in this case. The controversy between them was with regard to the compensation in respect of an extent of 8,208 sq. ft. The first claimant contended that the second claimant was entitled only to an extent of 1 acre 16 cents and that the rest of the acquired area belonged to him, whereas the second claimant contended that out of the extent acquired he was entitled to 1 acre 40 cents. It was in those circumstances that the Acquisition ...
Tag this Judgment!Mohammad Sultan Rowther Vs. Naina Mohammad and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-28-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Mad233
1. The plaintiff is the appellant. The suit is to recover Rupees 1,120. The plaintiff's case is that the defendants, who are the owners of S. No. 14/2 measuring 6.70 acres in Valandaravai village, offered to sell to the plaintiff for a sum of Rs. 5,000 and received an advance of Rs. 1,000. Out of the balance it was agreed that Rupees 2,000 could be adjusted towards the othi subsisting on the property and the balance of Rs. 2,000 was payable before the Sub Registrar at the time of the registration of the sale deed. The case of the plaintiff is that in pursuance of the agreement the plaintiff got the stamp papers and wrote out the document and took it to the defendants for their signature and registration. But the defendant refused to complete the transaction and register the document. Thereupon on 28-4-1964 in pursuance of the mediation it was agreed that a release deed from the brothers-in-law of the plaintiff in respect of the suit property should be obtained in the name of the defend...
Tag this Judgment!P.R. Nallathambi Goundan Vs. Vijaya Raghavan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-28-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Mad25
1. The second defendant appeals. The suit out of which the appeal arises were laid in forma pauperis by respondents 1 to 3, who were minors and were represented by their next friend and mother Kamalammal, for partition and a separate possession of their 3/8th share in the suit properties with mesne profits and costs. Sadagopan, who is no other than the father of the plaintiffs (respondents 1 to 3) was impleaded as the first defendant (fourth respondent) herein. Nallathambi Goundan. the appellant, figured as the second defendant in the suit.2. The facts leading to the institution of the suit may be briefly stated: Vijayaraghavan, Venkatesan and Ranganathan, the plaintiffs in the suit, are the three sons of Sadagopan, the first defendant, whose father Venkatesa Iyengar instituted two suits O. S. 2 and 26 of 1945 on the file of the Sub Court Salem, for specific performance of two agreements of sale in respect of the suit properties, One agreement related to a portion of the suit propertie...
Tag this Judgment!Mohammed Sultan Rowther Vs. Naina Mohammed and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-28-1972
Reported in: (1972)2MLJ576
V.V. Raghavan, J.1. The plaintiff is the appellant. The suit is to recover Rs. 1,120. The plaintiff's case is that the defendants, who are the owners of Survey No. 14/2 measuring 6.70 acres in Valandaravai village, offered to sell to the plaintiff for a sum of Rs. 5,000 and received an advance of Rs. 1,000. Out of the balance it was agreed that Rs. 2,000 could be adjusted towards the other subsisting on the property and the balance of Rs. 2,000 Was payable before the Sub-Registrar at the time of the registration of the sale deed. The case of the plaintiff is that in pursuance of the agreement the plaintiff got the stamp papers and wrote out the document and took it to the defendants for their signature1 and registration. But the defendants refused to complete the transaction and register the document-Thereupon on 28th of April, 1964 in pursuance of mediation it was agreed that a release deed from the brothers-in-law of the plaintiff in respect of the suit property should be obtained in...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »