Chennai Court October 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.
Chandrasekaran Vs. Kunju Vanniar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-31-1974
Reported in: AIR1975Mad227
1. The Letters Patent Appeal is posted before a Full Bench, because Kailasam, J. and Mahajan, J., differed on the Question whether the tenants under a usufructuary mortgagee are entitled, after redemption of the usufructuary mortgage, to claim protection under the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants Protection Act, 1955, as against the mortgagor. The usufructuary mortgage was created on 2-3-1924. Respondents 1 and 2 were inducted into the land by the usufructuary mortgagee in 1957 as tenants. On 19-6-1964, the mortgage was redeemed. The mortgagor-owner brought the suit for possession and mesne profits. The first two Courts agreed in decreeing the suit. But in second appeal Ramanu-jam, J., reversed the decree relying on Prabhu v. Ramdeo, , and dismissed the suit. But he granted leave. In the Letters Patent Appeal Kaila-sam, J. took the view that the respondents were not entitled to the statutory protection, while Maharaian, J., took the opposite view.2. The Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants Pro...
P.A. Chinnaswamy and ors. Vs. Chandra Rao S. Kathavukar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-31-1974
Reported in: 1975CriLJ1535
ORDERPaul, J.1. The first and second revision petitioners have been convicted of an offence under Section 448, Indian Penal Code by the learned Fourth Presidency Magistrate, Madras and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 25/-, in default to undergo R. I. for two weeks and the third revision petitioner has been convicted of an offence under Section 426, Indian Penal Code and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 25/- in default to undergo R. I. for two weeks.2. The facts are as follows : The Respondent Chandra Rao S Kathavukar filed H. R. C. No. 327/72 before the Rent Controller and obtained an ex parte order of eviction against the first revision petitioner and one Elumalai and in execution of that order, in E, P. No. 558 of 1972, the bailiff P. W. 2 went to No. 1, Rattan Bazar, Madras along with the Complainant's agent P. W. 4 at about 2 p. m. on 27-6-1972 to execute the delivery warrant. In that premises P. W. 1 the complainant is keeping a tailoring shop in the upstairs while in the downstairs ...
Varadarajan Vs. Govindaswamy and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-31-1974
Reported in: (1975)2MLJ17
ORDERP.R. Gokulakrishnan, J.1. The above matter has come up before me upon an office note for orders as to maintainability of the civil revision petition.2. The suit O.S. No. 912 of 1970 was filed for declaration of the plaintiff's four-ninths share in the suit well and for restraining the defendants by means of a permanent injunction from interfering with the right of the plaintiffs to take water from the well through a channel LMN marked in the plaint sketch, passing through the land of the defendants to the first plaintiff's land, and through the LMN channel to the land of the second plaintiff. On the defendants entering appearance and filing their written statement, issues were framed by the trial Court. When the suit came up for trial on 7th February, 1972 the defendants, when called were absent, and they were set ex parte; their Counsel also reporting no instructions. On the first plaintiff proving the claim by examining himself as P.W. 1 the trial Court decreed the suit with cos...
S. Vaithilingam Vs. S. Chandrasekaran
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-30-1974
Reported in: AIR1975Mad186
1. The civil revision petition in the first instance came before Kailasam, J. An election petition, under the Panchayats Act and the Election Rules framed thereunder was filed contesting the election. That petition was dismissed for default of appearance. An application under Order IX, Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure was also dismissed, the Election Commissioner being of the view that the rule was not applicable to Election Court and he could not. therefore, restore the election petition. Two points were urged before Kailasam, J. One was that, in view of Rule 6 of the Election Rules, the Election Court had Power under Order IX, Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure to set aside the order of dismissal for default: Koti Reddi v. Venkavva. decided by the then learned Chief Justice and Somasundaram, J., held that Order IX did not enable the Election Court to restore the election petition. But, there, the disposal of the election petition was on merits. Nata-raian v. State of Madras. ...
Union of India (Uoi) and anr. Vs. Ct. Shentilanathan and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-29-1974
Reported in: [1978]48CompCas640(Mad); [1978]114ITR213(Mad)
Ramaprasada Rao, J.1. The first and the second defendants, the former being the Union of India, represented by the Finance Department dealing with income-tax matters, and the latter being the District Collector of Salem, who were unsuccessful in O.S. No. 146 of 1965 on the file of theSubordinate Judge's Court, Salem, are the appellants. Certain relevant facts which led to the present litigation may be traced. The plaintiff in the action appealed against, on the foot of a hypothecation bond dated August 31, 1960 (exhibit A-1), filed O.S. No. 106 of 1964 on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Salem, for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 69,778.99 with interest and costs by directing the sale of the hypothecated properties mentioned in the plaint and for the passing of the usual charge decree. In the above suit a Commissioner was appointed to take an inventory of the goods over which the plaintiff claimed to have a right of hypothecation, but which were admittedly in the possession of t...
P. Balakrishna Reddy Vs. the Accommodation Controller, Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-29-1974
Reported in: AIR1975Mad235
1. These are two connected appeals referred for disposal by a Full Bench as the correctness of the decision in Stale of Madras v. Amar Singh (1964) 77 L.W. 504, was doubted.2. W.A. No. 3 of 1970 is capable of a summary disposal. All the same, we will set out the facts therein. On 12th April, 1963 the appellant purchased the premises in question. Apparently coming to know of this, the Accommodation Controller on 28th February, 1964 directed him to give a vacancy report. The appellant gave certain particulars regarding his purchase. That was on 7th March, 1964. On 20th March, 1964 further particulars were called for, but by his reply dated 29th March, 1964 the appellant said that it was unnecessary for him to give a vacancy report. He wrote on 1st April, 1964 to the Controller that he would let out the premises. On 7th April, 1964 an order of requisition and allotment was made under Section 3(3) and (5) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960. This order of allotme...
Union of India (Uoi), Represented by the Secretary to the Government, ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-29-1974
Reported in: (1977)2MLJ499
T. Ramaprasada Rao, J.1. The first and the second defendants, the former being the Union of India represented by the Finance Department dealing with income-tax matters and the latter being the District Collector of Salem, who were unsuccessful in O.S. No. 146 of 1965 on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Salem, are the appellants. Certain relevant facts which led to the present litigation may be traced. The plaintiff in the action appealed against, on the foot of a hypothecation bond dated 31st August, 1960 (Exhibit A-1) filed O.S. No. 106 of 1964 on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Salem, for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 69,778.99p. with interest and costs by directing the sale of the hypothecated properties mentioned in the plaint and for the passing of the usual charge decree. In the above suit a commissioner was appointed to take an inventory of the goods which the plaintiff claimed to have a right of hypothecation over, but which were admittedly in the possession...
P. Balakrishna Reddy Vs. the Accommodation Controller
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-29-1974
Reported in: (1977)2MLJ125
K. Veeraswami, C.J.1. These are two connected appeals referred for disposal by a Full Bench as the correctness of the decision in Stale of Madras v. Amar Singh (1964) 77 L.W. 504, was doubted.2. W.A. No. 3 of 1970 is capable of a summary disposal. All the same, we will set out the facts therein. On 12th April, 1963 the appellant purchased the premises in question. Apparently coming to know of this, the Accommodation Controller on 28th February, 1964 directed him to give a vacancy report. The appellant gave certain particulars regarding his purchase. That was on 7th March, 1964. On 20th March, 1964 further particulars were called for, but by his reply dated 29th March, 1964 the appellant said that it was unnecessary for him to give a vacancy report. He wrote on 1st April, 1964 to the Controller that he would let out the premises. On 7th April, 1964 an order of requisition and allotment was made under Section 3(3) and (5) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960. Th...
R. Balakrishnan Vs. S. Pavadaisamy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-29-1974
Reported in: (1975)1MLJ350
ORDERG. Ramanujam, J.1. The petitioner herein was an applicant for the grant of a stage carriage permit for a new short route, Porayar to Sirkazhi. The Regional Transport Authority granted the permit to the petitioner herein on the ground that he has secured higher marks than the respondent herein. When the matter was taken on appeal by the respondent herein before the Tribunal, the Tribunal set aside the grant made by the Regional Transport Authority in favour of the petitioner and granted the permit to the respondent. Aggrieved against the order of the Tribunal, the petitioner has come to this Court.2. Before the Regional Transport Authority, the respondent claimed to be a permanent resident of Sirkazhi which residence entitled him to get two marks. The Regional Transport Authority was not, however, inclined to accept the respondent's case that he is a permanent resident of Sirkazhi. Relying on the report made by the Motor Vehicles Inspector on his personal verification, the Regional...
Periasami and ors.Vs. Kandappan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-28-1974
Reported in: AIR1975Mad239
1. On the view we take of this case, it seems to us that this reference is unnecessary. Apparently, the learned Judge who made this reference thought that there was conflict of decisions on the Question of oublic policy in allowing grant or acquisition, by ores-cription through long immemorial usage or custom, of fishery right in territorial waters in the sea coast of the State. On that Question, in Viresa v. Tatayya, (1885) ILR 8 Mad 467. decided by Turner, C. J. and Muttusami Ayyar, J.. it was held that the right of the public to fish in tidal waters in British India might be curtailed by an exclusive privilege acouired by grant or prescription by certain persons within certain limits, and that such an exclusive privilege being an infringement of the general rights of the public, it could be acquired by a period of enjoyment which would suffice for the acouisition of an easement against the Crown. That was a case of tidal river. In the district of Krishna, there was a lake by name Ko...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »