Chennai Court March 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.
HussaIn Uduman Vs. Venkatachala Mudaliar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-07-1974
Reported in: AIR1975Mad8
Maharajan, J.1. This Letters Patent Appeal which is directed against the second appellate judgment of V. Ramaswami, J. arises under the following circumstances: Survey No. 60/1. which is the subject-matter of this appeal, and certain other properties originally belonged to two brothers, Viswanatha Chettiar and Palaniandi Chcttiar. Viswanatha Chettiar died on 18-2-1918. Sometime before his death, he executed a partition deed and a will whereby he bequeathed the suit property and other properties to his wife, Gomathiammal. After his death, disputes arose between Gomathi animal and Palaniandi Chettiar. Thereupon, Gomathiammal instituted two suits in the District Munsif Court, Tirunelveli, for enforcement of the partition deed and the will and for direction to register the same. On 6-11-1920 under Ex. A.1, both the suits were compromised by the parties, and a decree was granted in terms thereof, Under the terms of the decree, Gomathiammal was to enjoy the suit property and certain other pr...
The Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments, Madras Vs ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-07-1974
Reported in: AIR1975Mad167
Natarajan, J.1. The Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments. Madras, the first defendant in O.S. 10 of 1965 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Dindigul, is the appellant. The controversy in the suit instituted by the plaintiff related to the office of hereditary trustee of Sri Kaliamman temple situate in Andipatti village in Periakulam taluk. 2. The case of the plaintiff was that the Sri Kaliamman temple which was an ancient institution was always being managed by a hereditary trustee and that it was the family of the plaintiff which was managing the temple and its affairs as hereditary trustee for a long number of years. According to the plaintiff his great-grandfather was originally managing the temple as hereditary trustee and after him the plaintiff's grandfather Perumal Naicker was in management and after his grandfather's time the plaintiff's father Velappa Naicker was managing the affairs of the temple as hereditary trustee for about 40 years. I...
C. Veerabahu Pattar Vs. P. Eswara Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-07-1974
Reported in: AIR1975Mad171
V. Ramaswami, J.1. The plaintiff is the appellant. The suit was filed for redemption of a mortgage dated 12-3-1079 M.E. executed by one Subramania Nambiar, son of Pichan Nambiar, in favour of one Velayudharn Pillai, for a sum of 5.000 Fs. The plaintiff claims to be a successor-in-interest of the eauitv of redemption. In execution of a decree against the mortgagee Velayudham Pillai, his rights as a mortgagee in the suit property were brought to sale and purchased by the decree-holder in 1926 in Court auction. The decree-holder auction purchaser sold his rights under Ex. A-1, on 8-2-1102 M. E. in favour Of one Sakkiamma Pillai, the maternal grandmother of the defendant.2. The only point that survives for consideration in this second appeal is one of limitation. The defendant contended that the mortgage executed on 12-3-1079 M.E. (year 1963) is barred by limitation. The plaintiff contended that Ex. A-l dated 8-2-1102 M. E. executed by the Court auction purchaser in favour of Sakkiarnma Pi...
The Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Vs. V. Kri ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-07-1974
Reported in: (1974)2MLJ306
S. Natarajan, J.1. The Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments, Madras, the 1st defendant in O.S. No. 10 of 1965 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Dindigul, is the appellant. The controversy in the suit instituted by the plaintiff related to the office of hereditary trustee of Sri Kali-amman temple situate in Andipatti village in Periakulam Taluk.2. The case of the plaintiff was that the Sri Kaliamman Temple, which was an ancient institution was always being managed by a hereditary trustee and that it was the family of the plaintiff which was managing the temple and its affairs as hereditary trustee for a long number of years. According to the plaintiff his great-grandfather was originally managing the temple as hereditary trustee and after him the plaintiff's grandfather Perumal Naicker was in management and after his grandfather's time the plaintiff's father Velappa Naicker was managing the affairs of the temple as hereditary trustee for about 40 year...
G. Veerabahu Pattar Vs. P. Eswara Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-07-1974
Reported in: (1975)1MLJ31
V. Ramaswami, J.1. The plaintiff is the appellant. The suit was filed for redemption of a mortgage, dated 12-3-1079 M. E. executed by one Subramania Nambiar, son of Pichan Nambiar, in favour of one Velayudham Pillai, for a sum of 5,000 Fs. The plaintiff claims to' be a successor-in-interest of the equity of redemption. In execution of a decree against the mortgagee Velayudham Pillai, his rights as a mortgagee in the suit property were brought to sale and purchased by the decree-holder in 1926 in Court-auction. The decree-holder-auction-purchaser sold his rights under Exhibit A-1, dated 8-2-M.E. in favour of one Sakkiamma Pillai, maternal grand-mother of the defendant.2. The only point which survives for consideration in this second appeal is one of limitation. The defendant contended that the mortgage executed on 12-3-1079 M.E. (year 1903) is barred by limitation. The plaintiff contended that Exhibit A-1, dated 8-2-1102 M.E. executed by the Court-auction-purchaser in favour of Sakiamma...
Ghousia Begum Vs. the Union Territory of Pondicherry
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-06-1974
Reported in: AIR1975Mad345
1. This appeal is against the judgment and decree dated18-3-1970 of the Additional District Judge. Pondicherry in O. S. No. 160 of 1969. That was a suit filed by one Ghousia Begum, wife of Grochil Jahan Khan alias Kurshid Jan Pasha, the owner of the property acquired in pursuance of a notification made under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, by the Administrator of the Union Territory of Pondicherry on 8-12-1964. The suit was for a permanent injunction restraining the Union Territory of Pondicherry from taking possession of the property in pursuance of the acquisition proceedings. Ghousia Begum claimed that she had a charge, as in a mortgage or "hypothecue legale" on the property for the mahar debt due to her from her husband. She filed the suit on 2-1-1969. nearly four months after the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, was extended or made applicable to the Union Territory of Pondicherry by the Pondicherry (Extension of Laws) Act, 1968, repealing the French Civil Procedure ...
Madras Motor and General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Madathi Ammal and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-01-1974
Reported in: AIR1975Mad250
Maharajan, J.1. This is an appeal by the Insurance Company against the order oi the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. Tirunelveli, awarding a compensation of Rs. 5.000 under Section 110-A (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, to one Madathi Ammal for the death of her husband Paramasiva Konar in a traffic accident. The accident itself took place at 4.30 a. m. on 8-1-1969. While the deceased was driving his single bullock cart in an easterly direction along the Tirunelveli-Tiruchendur main road, west of Vittilapuram vilakku, lorry MDT 7441 belonging to Badrakali Ammal (the first respondent in the Court below) and insured with the appellant and driven by one Ramachandran dashed against the bullock cart, with the result the deceased was thrown off the cart and was killed on the soot.2. After the accident, the driver himself lodged Ex. A-3, the first information report, in which he stated that while driving, he had a nao for a second, with the result his lorry dashed against the bullock cart, and t...
Madras Motor and General Insurance Company Limited, Through Its Head O ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-01-1974
Reported in: (1974)2MLJ204
S. Maharajan, J.1. This is an appeal by the Insurance Company against the order, of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Tirunelveli, awarding a compensation of Rs. 5,000 under Section 110-A (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act to one Madathi Ammal for the death of her husband, Paramasiva Konar in a traffic accident. The accident itself took place at 4-30 A.M. on 8th January, 1969. While the deceased was driving his single bullock cart in an easterly direction along the Tirunelveli-Tiruchendur Main Road, west of Vittilapuram Vilakku, lorry MDT 7441 belonging to Badrakali Ammal (the first respondent in the Court below) and insured with the appellant and driven by one Ramachandran dashed against the bullock cart, with the result the deceased was thrown off the cart and killed on the spot.2. After the accident, the driver himself laid Exhibit A-3, the first information report, in which he stated that while driving, he had a nap for a second, with the result his lorry dashed against the bullock c...
Sarayakaran Alis Muniyan Vs. Perumal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-01-1974
Reported in: (1974)2MLJ208
K. Veeraswami, C. J.1. The matter comes before us on a reference by Ganesan, J. The learned Judge thought that there was a conflict of decisions and therefore it should be resolved. But on the view we are inclined to take there is no conflict of decisions. The question is at what stage an application under Section 3 (1) of the Partition Act of 1893, should be made: is it before an order has been made under Section 2, or can application under Section 3 (1) be made even thereafter, but before the sale is actually held. That is how the question has been propounded by the referring Judge.2. On a plain reading of Sections 2 and 3, it seems to us that the right to apply under Section 3 (1) arises the moment a request has been made under Section 2. If a direction for sale of the property has been given under Section 2, it does not follow that an application under Section 3 (1) cannot be made thereafter. All that is necessary is that in order that an application under Section 3 (1) may be cons...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›