Chennai Court January 1974 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.
Nallammal Vs. Sivani Ammal and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-30-1974
Reported in: AIR1975Mad100
1. This appeal is preferred by the plaintiff in the suit against the judgment of Natesan, J. The suit was filed for redemption and partition of 1/3rd share of 'B' schedule property of an extent of 1 acre and 98 cents of nanja. The short facts are: The property belonged to one Karutha Pichan Ambalam. He had three sons, Periakaruppa, Chockanand and Velu, and two daughters, Peria Karuppayee and Nallammal. Nallammal is the plaintiff. On 22nd October, 1918, under Exhibit B-2, Karutha Pichan Ambalam othied the suit property in favour of one Amir Mia Sahib for Rs. 1,000. Subsequently, Chockanandi, who was entitled to 1/3rd of the suit item, sold his 1/3rd share, to Peria Karuppayee, his sister for Rs. 1,000 under Exhibit A-1 on 18th March., 1936. Subsequently, by Exhibit B-10, dated 26th August, 1942, Velu, another son of Karutha Pichan Ambalam, sold his l/3rd share to his brother Chockanandi for Rs.400. Under Exhibit B-4, dated 26th August, 1942, Periakaruppa, who was entitled to l/3rd share...
Karuppanna thevar (Died) and ors. Vs. Rajagopala thevar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-30-1974
Reported in: AIR1975Mad257
V. Ramaswami, J.1. The first defendant is the appellant. The suit was filed by respondents 1 to 4 for partition and separate possession of their 4/5th share in the plaint schedule properties which consisted of two items. The first item is a pucca house bearing door No. 3/135 and comprised in T. S. 10/2191 of Kattur village in Coimbatore town. The second item is given as vacant site measuring 51 cents forming part of T. S. 1771/1-A and situate in Pankaja Mills Road, Coimbatore. The appellant and respondents 1 to 4 are brothers, the appellant being the eldest. The respondents in their plaint stated that they and the first defendant have been living for a considerable time separately each following his own avocation and calling but they have not divided the joint family properties by metes and bounds. Item 1 in the schedule is the ancestral family house in which the plaintiffs are living separately with their own families in different portions. The first defendant has also retained for hi...
His Holiness Sri Vanamamalai, Ramanuja Jeer Swamigal, Head of the Vana ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-30-1974
Reported in: (1974)2MLJ226
ORDERT. Ramaprasada Rao, J.1. His Holiness Sri Vanamamalai Ramanuja Jeer Swamigal, Head of Sri Vanamamalai Mutt, Nanguneri, Tirunelveli District, is the petitioner. Sri Vanamamalai Mutt is a well-known religious institution. The Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act (XXII of 1959), hereinafter referred to as the Act, enables the Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, hereinafter called the Department, to levy contribution not exceeding seven per cent of the income of the Mutt as may be prescribed in respect of the services rendered by the Government and their officers and for defraying the expenses incurred on account of such services. Rules have been framed in G.O. No. 4920, Revenue, dated 30th November, 1960 and these rules are called the 'Assessment, Levy and Recovery of Contribution, Costs Rules'. Section 93 provides that notwithstanding anything contained in Sub-section (1) of Section 102, all costs, charges and expenses incurred by the Department as a ...
Nallammal Vs. Sivani Ammal Alias Chinnammal and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-30-1974
Reported in: (1974)2MLJ200
P.S. Kailasam, J.1. This appeal is preferred by the plaintiff in the suit against the judgment of Natesan, J. The suit was filed for redemption and partition of 1/3rd share of 'B' schedule property of an extent of 1 acre and 98 cents of nanja. The short facts are: The property belonged to one Karutha Pichan Ambalam. He had three sons, Periakaruppa, Chockanand and Velu, and two daughters, Peria Karuppayee and Nallammal. Nallammal is the plaintiff. On 22nd October, 1918, under Exhibit B-2, Karutha Pichan Ambalam othied the suit property in favour of one Amir Mia Sahib for Rs. 1,000. Subsequently, Chockanandi, who was entitled to 1/3rd of the suit item, sold his 1/3rd share, to Peria Karuppayee, his sister for Rs. 1,000 under Exhibit A-1 on 18th March., 1936. Subsequently, by Exhibit B-10, dated 26th August, 1942, Velu, another son of Karutha Pichan Ambalam, sold his l/3rd share to his brother Chockanandi for Rs. 400. Under Exhibit B-4, dated 26th August, 1942, Periakaruppa, who was entit...
The Sales Tax Officer (Xix), Enforcement Branch Vs. K.M.S. Mari Chetti ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-28-1974
Reported in: [1975]35STC148(Mad)
Veeraswami, C.J.1. This matter has been placed before a Bench of three Judges, because a Division Bench which heard the matter in the first instance felt that the view in Veeri Chettiar v. Sales Tax Officer [1970] 26 S.T.C. 579 required reconsideration. The question is whether Section 19(3) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959, enabled assessment of a defunct firm. Veeri Chettiar v. Sales Tax Officer [1970] 26 S.T.C. 579 decided by this court answered it in the negative, but a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in Roopchand v. Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax : AIR1970Bom351 has answered it in the affirmative. We are of the opinion that the Bombay view is the correct one. The respondent was a firm of dealers in handloom goods and textiles and imported those goods during the period from 1st April, 1960, to 23rd December, 1964. The firm stopped doing business from 2nd June, 1965, and was dissolved with effect from 31st March, 1966. The revenue in the State of Maharashtra served on t...
Ponnuswami Alias Kandasami Vs. State
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-28-1974
Reported in: 1975CriLJ509
Venkataraman, J.1. The appellant Ponnuswami alias Kandasami has been convicted of murder of three persons (on three counts under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code) and sentenced to the extreme penalty of the law, subject to confirmation by this Court, He has also been convicted of an offence wider Section 380 of the I P. C. (theft in a dwelling house) and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year, this sentence to merge with the sentence of death.2. The occurrence took place on the night of Friday, 15-9-1972. in the lonely hut of one Ramasami Goundar, an old man of seventy-six years. The other inmates of the house were his second wife, Elayammal, his twelve-years old grandson Rasan, through his first wife, and his younger brother, Chinnayan, From the evidence it appears that Chin-nayyan was practically an idiot. They were living in a house in a field called Kiluvankadu in Odapalayam limits. There were only fields around and there was no human habitation within three furlongs. ...
Krishnakumar Vs. N. Goverdhana Naidu and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-25-1974
Reported in: AIR1975Mad174
ORDERNatarajan, J.1. The question for consideration in this revision petition is whether the order of the Subordinate Judge, Tirupattur, in I.A. No. 521 of 1972 in O.S. 41 of 1968, on the file of his Court holding that the revision petitioner is not the legal representative of the deceased second defendant is a sustainable order or not.2. Respondents 1 and 2 herein who were arrayed as the plaintiff and first defendant in the suit are brothers and are the grandsons of the deceased second defendant through her daughter. The first respondent as plaintiff filed the suit for partition and separate possession of his one-fourth share in the A schedule property and half share in the B schedule property. It is not disputed that the first defendant is entitled to the remaining half share in the B schedule property and one-fourth share in the A schedule property. It is also the common case of parties that the second defendant was solely entitled to the remaining half share of the A schedule prope...
The Employees' State Insurance Corporation Vs. Balaji Weaving Mills an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-25-1974
Reported in: (1975)IILLJ405Mad
ORDERNatarajan, J.1. Both these appeals arising from a common judgment passed by the Court of the Employees' State Insurance, Salem (District Judge, Salem) in E.I.A. Nos. 3 of 1968 and 5 of 1968 have been preferred by the Employees' State Insurance Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the E.S.I. Corporation).2. Messrs. Balaji Weaving Mills, Salem (hereinafter referred to as the Mills), the respondent in C.M.A. No. 459 of 1971, is a partnership concern having as its partners, five brothers who are respondents 1 to 5 in C.M.A. No. 457 of 1971. The partnership firm was engaged in the manufacture of cloth with the aid of power looms installed in the Mills. An Inspector of the E.S.I. Corporation inspected the Mills on 30-5-1966 and found on a scrutiny of the records, that nineteen persons had worked in the premises of the Mills on 9-4-1966. Besides the nineteen persons whose names had been entered in the registers, the Manager of the Mills had also to be taken into account and on such re...
Krishnakumar, Minor, Represented by Mother and Guardian Rani Ammal Vs. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-25-1974
Reported in: (1974)2MLJ168
ORDERS. Natarajan, J.1. The question for consideration in this revision petition is whether the order of the Subordinate Judge of Tirupattur in I.A. No. 521 of 1972 in O.S. No. 41 of 1968 on the file of his Court holding that the revision petitioner is not the legal representative of the deceased second defendant is a sustainable order or not.2. Respondents 1 and 2 herein who were arrayed as the plaintiff and first defendant in the suit are brothers and are the grandsons of the deceased 2nd defendant through her daughter. The first respondent as plaintiff filed the suit for partition and separate possession of his l/4th share in the A schedule property and half share in the B schedule property. It is not disputed that the first defendant is entitled to the remaining half share in the B schedule property and 1/4th share in the A schedule property. It is also the common case of parties that the second defendant was solely entitled to the remaining half share of the A schedule property in...
In Re Govindan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-24-1974
Reported in: 1975CriLJ114
Venkataraman, J.1. Govindan has filed this appeal against his conviction of the murder of his brother Gopal. He is alleged to have inflicted injuries on his brother on 23-10-1972 (Monday) about 5 A.M. near a hut in Athipattu village in Jnw-athi hills. The victim succumbed to the injuries on 4-11-1972, at 12-55 P.M.2. Even the prosecution case is that Gopal, the younger brother, was having sexual intimacy with P.W. 1, the wife of the accused and that it is because the accused discovered them lying together, he inflicted the cuts on Gopal.3. We must say that the prosecution has been quite fair to the accused. On these facts themselves, accepting the Drosecution case, Exception 1 to Section 300, I.P.C. should have been applied and the conviction should have been under Section 304, Part I. I.P.C. Somehow, even the learned Public Prosecutor, at the end of the case, seems to have told the learned Sessions Judge (vide para 21 of the lower Court's judgment) that the accused followed Gopal chas...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »