Chennai Court February 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.
C. Sundaram Vs. Rukmani Ammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-19-1974
Reported in: AIR1975Mad83
Ramanujam, J. 1. The first defendant in O. S. No. 11124 of 1960 on the file of the City Civil Court Madras, is the appellant. The first respondent herein filed the suit for partition of plaint A and B schedule properties and for separate possession of her one-fourth share there-in and for rendition of accounts of the income derived by the first defendant from the properties from 19-4-1958 Her case was that the properties set out in the plaint A and B schedules belonged to her husband, Chellappa Naicker the father of defendants 1 to 3 and grandfather of defendants 4 to 8, that the said properties were acquired by Chellappa Naicker out of his own earnings, that Chellappa Naicker died on 19-4-1958, that the plaintiff and defendants 1 to 3 have succeeded to his properties each being entitled to a one-fourth share in them, that the first defendant refused to comply with the plaintiff's demand for partition, and separate possession of her one-fourth share, 'that he set up a will, alleged to ...
N. Ramaswamy Padayachi Vs. C. Ramaswami Padayachi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-19-1974
Reported in: AIR1975Mad88
V. Ramaswami, J. 1. In Mayuram, Thanjavur District, there is a Droupathy Amman temple with other subsidiary deities staged to have been founded by the ancestors of the parties to this litigation more than a century and a half ago. In and around this temple, there has been large extent of open ground, which, in the course of time and by reason of its situation abutting the main road, became valuable and is now stated to be fetching a good income. The temple and its affairs were in the management of eight families. One family is stated to have become extinct long long ago. There were disputes and civil proceedings in courts between the families regarding the management of the temple and its properties. By 1894, there were only seven families, which were entitled to the management. Six of the families filed O. S. No. 370 of 1894 on the file of the Court of the (District Mun-sif, Mayuram, against one Kuppuswami Padayachi representing the seventh family to establish their right to turn mana...
A.R. Munuswamy Rajoo Vs. Hamsa Rani
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-15-1974
Reported in: AIR1975Mad15
1. The appellant Munuswami Rajoo is the lawfully wedded husband of Hansa Rani, the respondent. The marriage between the two took place on 6-6-1963. A son was born out of the wedlock on 22-12-1964. The case of the respondent was that the appellant was having illicit intimacy with one Sundarammal and that consequently he treated her (the respondent) cruelly and drove her and her son away from his house on 16-10-1966. The appellant filed a petition, O. P. 206 of 1966, against the respondent, for dissolution of the marriage on the ground of desertion and adultery. This petition was dismissed because the appellant failed to pay the litigation expenses and interim maintenance ordered by the court. Unfortunately, the appellant allowed this order to become final. Meanwhile, the respondent-wife filed O. P. 235 of 1968 against the appellant-husband for restitution of conjugal rights. The appellant filed a counter vehemently contesting the petition on the ground that the respondent had deserted h...
A.R. Munuswamy Rajoo Vs. Hamsa Rani
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-15-1974
Reported in: (1974)2MLJ237
ORDERS. Maharajan, J.1. The appellant Munuswamy Rajoo is the lawfully wedded husband of Hamsa Rani, the respondent. The marriage between the two took place on 6th June, 1963. A son was born out of the wedlock on 22nd December, 1964. The case of the respondent was that the appellant was having illicit intimacy with one Sundarammal and that consequently he treated her (the respondent) cruelly and drove her and her son away from his house on 16th October, 1966. The appellant filed a petition, OP. No. 208 of 1966 against the respondent, for dissolution of the marriage on the ground of desertion and adultery. This petition was dismissed because the appellant failed to pay the litigation expenses and interim maintenance ordered by the Court. Unfortunately, the appellant allowed this order to become final. Meanwhile, the respondent-wife filed O.P. No. 235 of 1968 against the appellant-husband for restitution of conjugal rights. The appellant filed a counter vehemently contesting that petition...
Janakiammal Vs. Rathinam Asari and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-15-1974
Reported in: (1974)2MLJ350
V. Ramaswami, J.1. The third defendant is the appellant. O.S. No. 229 of 1967, out of which this second appeal arises, is a suit for redemption of a usufructuary mortgage dated 9th March, 1955, executed by one Santhanathammal in favour of the fourth defendant in the suit. The plaintiffs are the legal representatives of the mortgagor. The fourth defendant assigned his rights under the mortgage in favour of one Mahalingam, the husband of the first defendant. The second defendant in the suit is the power of attorney agent of the said Mahalingam. Subsequently by a deed, dated 23rd January, 1967, registered on 18th February, 1967, the first defendant and the second defendant, as the power of attorney agent of the first defendant's husband, assigned the mortgage rights to the third defendant. In the meanwhile, on 7th February, 1967, the plaintiffs herein filed O.P. No. 28 of 1967, on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Madurai, under Section 83 of the Transfer of Property Act and depo...
Muniappa Pillai Vs. Periasami and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-15-1974
Reported in: (1975)1MLJ236
P.R. Gokulakrishnan, J.1. Second defendant is the appellant. The first defendant is the son of the second defendant; and he has-remained ex parte throughout.2. The suit was for setting aside the order of the District Munsif, Karur, passed in E.A. No. 388 of 1966 in O.S. No. 5 of 1965. O.S. No. 5 of 1965 was a suit to recover debts due on promissory notes, filed by the first respondent herein against the first defendant in the suit, viz., second respondent herein. On 31st May, 1965 the first respondent obtained a decree for Rs. 781.28. On 22nd March, 1966 he filed E.P. No. 217 of 1966 for attaching the half share of the first defendant in the suit property and for selling the same. On 5th July, 1966, attachment was effected. At that stage, the appellant herein, who is the second defendant, filed E.A. No. 388 of 1966 under Order 21, Rule 58, Civil Procedure Code, for raising the attachment, claiming the property as his own. This claim the appellant put forth on the basis of Exhibit B-1, ...
P.M. Raval and ors. Vs. K.G. Ramachandran, Minor and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-14-1974
Reported in: (1975)1MLJ231
ORDERM.M. Ismail, J.1. The petitioners in the former two writ petitions are one and the same and they are the tenants of premises Nos. 16 and 17 Poonamallee High Road, Madras-3 and respondents 1 to 3 therein are the owners of the said premises. The petitioner in W.P. No. 1154 of 1971 along with his brother owns premises Nos. 40 41 and 42, Irusappa Maistry Street, Madras, while the first respondent in that writ petition is the tenant of the said premises. The prayer in the former two writ petitions is for the issue of a writ of prohibition restraining the fourth respondent in the writ petitions, who is functioning as the Rent Controller, not to proceed with H.R.C. Nos. 2489 of 1966 and 2942 of 1963 respectively, pending on his file. Those rent control petitions were filed under Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, (Tamil Nadu Act XIX of 1960), hereinafter referred to as the Act, for fixation of fair rent in respect of the buildings in question. Simil...
The Indian Overseas Bank Ltd. Vs. R.E.M. Ibrahim and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-12-1974
Reported in: AIR1975Mad92
Ramaprasada Rao, J. 1. The plaintiff in O. S. No. 26 of 1966 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Kumbakonam is the appellant herein. It is a banking company. The first defendant in the course of his business borrowed monies from the plaintiff-bank at Madras, Penang, Malacca and Singapore. Pursuant thereto, large amounts were due and payable by the first defendant to the plaintiff. In order to safeguard the interests of the bank, the first defendant executed an agreement on 10-1-1949 at Madras undertaking to execute a mortgage over all the immovable properties owned by him in India in favour of the plaintiff-bank. He, however, did not respect the covenants in the said agreement. The bank had to file in O. S. No. 25 of 1952 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Kumbakonam for specific performance of the contract to execute a mortgage bond for a sum of Rs. 50,000. On 14-7-1953, the said suit for specific performance was decreed directing the first defendant t...
Yellaya Gounder and anr. Vs. Lakshmi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-12-1974
Reported in: AIR1975Mad253
1. The question raised in this civil revision petition is about the interpretation of Section 18 of the Hindu Succession Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act. O. P. 11 of 1966 on the file of the Additional District Munsif, Salem, is one for the grant of succession certificate in respect of collection of certain debts left by one Ramaswami. The claimants are his sisters, by name Lakshmi and Sellammal, Ramaswami, since deceased. Lakshmi and Sellammal are the children of one Koocha Gounder through the second wife one Ramayee Ammal. The said Koocha Gounder begot theree other children through his first wife Kaveri alias Kapadiammal and they are Vellava Gounder, Chinna Gounder and Veeri Ammal. These three children, through the first wife, who are the half brothers and half sisters of deceased Ramaswami resisted the claim for succession certificate contending that the certificate should be issued not only in favour of the two full sisters of Ramaswami but also in their (half brothers' and ...
Hemchand JaIn Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-12-1974
Reported in: 1975CriLJ1472
Krishnaswamy Reddy, J.1. The appellant Hemchand Jain is Accused-1. He was tried along with Nanakchand Jain (accused-2), by the Chief Presidency Magistrate, Egmore, Madras, for having committed an offence under Section 135 (b) (ii) of the Customs Act and also for having contravened Rules 126-H (2) (d) and 126-I (10) of the Defence of India (Gold Control) Rules, 1962. The appellant alone was convicted under charges 1 to 3 namely under Section 135 (b) (ii) of the Customs Act; Rule 126-H (2) (d) read with Rule 126-P (2) (iv); and Rule 126-I (10) read with Rule 126-P (2) (ii) of the Defence of India (Gold Control) Rules and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- under charge No. 1. Under charges 2 and 3, he was further sentenced to undergo simple imprison-for six months and to pay a fine of Rupees 1,000/- under each charge, the substantive sentence of imprisonment to run concurrently.2. The prosecution case is this : P. W. 2 Kothandabalan, the Preventive Officer attached to Madras Customs H...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »