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.
Velayudha Konar Vs. Kora Miah Sahib and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-04-1974
Reported in: AIR1974Mad355
1. This appeal under the Letters Patent is against the judgment of Venkataraman J. allowing C. M. S. A. No. 153 of 1966. The appellant before us is a mortgagee-decreeholder. After final decree in the mortgage suit, the judgment-debtor had been adjudged insolvent. In the execution proceedings though the decree-holder through the Official Receiver in whom the equity of redemption had by then vested due to the adjudication, the Official Receiver had both been made a party to the said proceeding. In the court sale held in execution of the decree, the decreeholder himself purchased the property but ignoring the above court sale, the Official Receiver sold the property to a third party. The appellant before us who was the decreeholder auction purchaser was unable to take possession of the property. There were two suits, one filed by the present appellant to set aside a summary order regarding obstruction caused while he attempted to take delivery of a particular item of property, and the oth...
Muthuraman Elementary School Committee and anr. Vs. Noble Raj J. and a ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-04-1974
Reported in: AIR1975Mad19
1. The issue that has been referred to this Full Bench can be very simply stated: It is, whether an order granting leave to sue in forma pauperis by a single Judge of the High Court, is a judgment' within the meaning of Clause 15 of the Letters Patent? Even in this restricted form, the issue involves a conflict of the case law in this Court. In M.R. Ananthanarayana Iyer v. Rarichan, ILR 59 Mad 656 = (AIR 1936 Mad 387), a Division Bench of Beasley C. J. and Stodart J. held that an order of a single Judge of the High Court excusing the delay in the filing of a pauper appeal and admitting the appeal, is not a 'judgment' which can be the subject of an appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent. In P. baba Sah v. Purushottama Sah 47 Mad LJ 932 = (AIR 1925 Mad 167), Spencer C. J. and Srinivasa Aiyangar J. held that an order of a single Judge of the High Court granting permission to the plaintiff to sue in forma paperis amounts to a 'judgment' within the meaning of Clause 15, Letters Patent...
In the Matter of Mohanaprakasam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-03-1974
Reported in: AIR1975Mad30
ORDERPaul, J.1. A petition under Section 370 of the Indian Succession Act has been filed by one Sarojini as guardian of a minor for the grant of succession certificate. It is stated in that petition that one Pachayappa Mudaliar who was ordinarily residing at Chinegleput died intestate at Chingleput on 18-12-1958 leaving behind the property mentioned in the petition and leaving behind as his heirs the petitioner who is the widow of his pre-deceased son, his grandson Mohana Prakasam and his second son Thillai Natarajao and even during the lifetime of the deceased 2 partition suit was filed by the petitioner and her minor son in C. S. No. 109 of 1954 on the file of this court against the late Pachayappa Mudaliar and his wife and Thillai Natarajan and by a decree dated 3-1-1957, this court allotted certain Items to the minor Mohanaprakasam and three life insurance policies which are the subject-matter of this petition, were directed to be assigned by the deceased Pachiappa Mudaliar in favo...
R. Palaniswamy Vs. M. Rasu Chettiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-03-1974
Reported in: 1974CriLJ1209
Krishnaswamy Reddy, J.1. This appeal has been preferred by the complainant against the order of acquittal of the respondents, by the District Magistrate, Thanjavur.2. I have gone through the judgment of the learned District Magistrate and also the evidence, documents and other materials in this case and I do not find any compelling reason to interfere with the order of acquittal, especially when there is a dispute about the paternity, which could ultimately be settled by a competent Civil Court.3. The appellant filed a private complaint against the respondents alleging that though he was the son of the first respondent by his second wife, respondents 2 and 3 who are the sons-in-law of the first respondent, with the connivance of the first respondent had got printed and published an advertisement in the Tamil Daily Newspaper known as 'Malai Murasu', wherein the first respondent had repudiated the paternity of the appellant and his brothers and stated that they were the children of one V...
In Re: Mohanaprakasam (Minor), Represented by Guardian, Sarojini
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-03-1974
Reported in: (1974)2MLJ215
ORDERC.J.R. Paul, J.1. A petition under Section 370 of the Indian Succession Act has been filed by one Sarojini as guardian of a minor for the grant of succession certificate. It is stated in that petition that one Pachayappa Mudaliar who was ordinarily residing at Chingleput died intestate at Chingleput on 18th December, 1958 leaving behind the property mentioned in the petition and leaving behind as his heirs the petitioner who is the widow of his pre-deceased son, his grandson Mohanaprakasam and his second son Thillai Natarajan and that even during the lifetime of the deceased a partition suit was filed by the petitioner and her minor son in C.S. No. 109 of 1954 on the file of this Court against the late Pachayappa Mudaliar and his wife and Thillai Natarajan and in and by a decree, dated 3rd January, 1957 this Court allotted certain items to the minor Mohanaprakasam and three life insurance policies which are the subject-matter of this petition were directed to be assigned by the de...
T.M Abdul Gani Vs. State of Tamil Nadu Represented by the Collector of ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-02-1974
Reported in: (1975)1MLJ67
ORDERM.M. Ismail, J.1. As on and October, 1962, the date relevant for the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act, 1961, the family of the petitioner consisted of himself, his wife, three minor sons and two unmarried daughters, and they together held lands of an extent of 193.93 ordinary acres, corresponding to 131.37 standard acres. The Authorised Officer, Land Reforms, Mayuram, prepared a draft statement under Section 10 (1) of the said Act, and published the same stating that the family consisting of six members was eligible to hold 48.97 ordinary acres equivalent to 35 standard acres and 14.06 ordinary acres, equivalent to 10 standard acres of stridhana. Against the draft statement published under Section 10 (1) of the Act, the land owner filed an objection petition, and after considering the objection, the Authorised Officer passed orders under Section 10 (5) of the Act on 21st April, 1969. Against this order of the Authorised Officer, the petitioner preferred an...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›