Chennai Court April 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.
Venkatammal Vs. Sinna Venkatarama Chettiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-30-1974
Reported in: AIR1975Mad316
1. The plaintiff is the appellant. She filed the suit for redemption of a mortgage and for partition and possession. The suit property S. No. 449 is of an extent of 8.2 acres in Kalingiyam village. The property was owned by one Raman Chetty, who had eight sons. He usufructuarily mortgaged the western half for Rs. 150/- in favour of one Ranganna Gounder under Ex. A-7 dated 10-6-1919. The eastern half was subsequently mortgaged usufructuarily by him, to Narayana Chetty under Ex. A-8 dated 1-10-1923. The plaintiff claims title to 15/42 share under three sale deeds of Ex. A-14 dated 4-5-1951, Ex. A 15 dated 27-11-1950 and Ex A-16 dated 27-3-1961.3. Peria Venkataraman, first son or Raman Chetty sold his l/7th share to Karuppan Chetty under Ex, A-4 dated 20-5-1924, Karuppan, Chetty died leaving his sons Peria Raman and Chinna Raman. Under Ex. A-14 dated 4-8-1961 Peria Raman and Chinna Raman sold their l/7th share to the plaintiff. The first son Peria Venkataraman and another son Narayanan di...
Sadagopa Ramanuja Jeer the Present Madathipathi and Adheenakartha of S ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-30-1974
Reported in: (1974)2MLJ377
ORDERS. Natarajan, J.1. The third respondent in the Court below is the appellant. Srivilliputhur Manavala Mahamuni Mutt is a religious institution controlled and supervised by the Jeer of Vanamamalai Mutt. At one time, a dispute arose between Matathipathi of Manavala Mahamuni Mutt (hereinafter referred to as the Matathipathi) and the Jeer of Vanamamalai Mutt (hereinafter referred to as the Jeer) on the question whether the Matathipathi was subject to control of the Jeer. To establish his rights the Jeer filed a suit, O. S. No. 19 of 1951 on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Ramanathapuram. The then Matathipathi resisted the suit and for the purpose of defending the action, he borrowed moneys from a third-party who is the decree-holder in these proceedings. The trial Court decreed the suit, but on appeal to this Court in A. S. No. 485 of 1955, the judgment of the trial Court was reversed and a decision was rendered in favour of the Matathipathi. Thereupon, the Jeer preferred Le...
P. D. Balasubramaniam Vs. the Corporation of Madras Represented by Its ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-30-1974
Reported in: (1974)2MLJ394
ORDERM. M. Ismail, J.1. The petitioner herein is an assessor in the service of the Corporation of Madras. By an order, dated 7th March, 1974, the Commissioner, Corporation of Madras, directed recovery of a sum of Rs. 4,000-05 from the salary of the petitioner herein at Rs. 50 per mensem, beginning from March, 1974, payable on 31st March, 1974 onwards till the entire amount is recovered from him. This order was passed an the finding that the petitioner was responsible for the time-barred arrears of property tax in Division No. 26 for the second half year 1968-69 and the first half year 1969-70, that he had not accounted for the items contained in the list and that in addition he had failed to submit reports called for, although reminders were issued. It is this order that is sought to be quashed in the present writ petition.2. The solid ground urged in support of this writ petition is the decision of K. N. Mudaliyar, J., dated 29th March, 1973 in W.P. No. 2451 of 1972. The learned Judge...
A.R. Veerappa Gounder Vs. Sengoda Gounder
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-30-1974
Reported in: (1975)1MLJ53
ORDERN.S. Ramaswami, J.1. This revision petition is against the dismissal of an application which is really one under Order 20, Rule 18, Civil Procedure Code, though incorrectly stated as one under Order 20, Rule 12 Civil Procedure Code. The revision petitioner is the plaintiff in O. S. No. 98 of 1967 on the file of the lower Court, in a suit for partition and separate possession. There was a preliminary decree for partition on 16th August, 1969. Later there were final decree proceedings during which the revision petitioner filed an application purporting to be under Order 20, Rule 12, and Section 151, Civil Procedure Code for ascertainment of profits from the suit properties and for allotment of a share therein to him. It appears that according to the case of the revision petitioner the suit properties were in the possession of the respondent (defendant in the suit ) and that therefore the defendant was bound to render an account in respect of the profits from the date of suit up to t...
S. Natarajan Vs. the Superintendent of Police and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-29-1974
Reported in: (1975)IILLJ403Mad
K. Veeraswami, C.J.1. The order sought to he quashed is not in accordance with Rule 54 of the Fundamental Rules. The appellant, on certain charges, under went an enquiry, and, eventually, he was compulsorily retired. But that order was successfully challenged in a writ petition. Consequently, a second enquire was held at which it was found that the appellant was not guilty of the charges. Thereafter, an order was passed as follows:S.I. 899/Tin. (old No. 580/Tin.) Natarajan, who is deemed to be under suspension from 20-2-64, is released from suspension. He should report for duty forthwith2. The period of suspension will be treated as eligible leave.3. If he fails to report for duty within 21 days of receipt of this order, action will be taken to strike him off as a deserter.Apparently, this order was made by a competent authority, namely, the District Superintendent of Police. 'The order was dated 17-4-1969. This order was evidently made on the basis of an order which accepted the findi...
M. Ramachandran and ors. Vs. State of Madras Represented by the Collec ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-29-1974
Reported in: (1974)2MLJ313
ORDERN.S. Ramaswami, J.1. The question that arises is whether in this appeal under Section 11 of the Madras Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immoveable Property Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the Requisitioning Act), ad valorem Court-fee is payable on the difference between the amount awarded and the amount claimed by the appellant as per Section 51 of the Madras Court fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Madras Act), or, whether only fixed Court-fee under Article 3 of Schedule II of the said Act is payable. Agricultural lands belonging to the appellant, whose appeal is yet to be numbered, have been acquired under the Requisitioning Act. Under Section 8 (1) (b) of the Requisitioning Act, the District Judge, Coimbatore, came to be appointed Arbitrator to determine the compensation payable in respect of the said lands. The Arbitrator has fixed the total compensation at Rs. 1,14,324-45 but the appellant claimed a total compensation of Rs. 5,82,222-00....
S. Natarajan Vs. the Superintendent of Police and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-29-1974
Reported in: (1975)1MLJ112
ORDERK. Veeraswami, C.J.1. The order sought to be quashed is not in accordance with Rule 54 of the Fundamental Rules. 'The appellant, on certain charges, underwent on enquiry, and, eventually, he was compulsorily retired. But that order was successfully challenged in a writ petition. Consequently, a second enquiry was held at which it was found that the appellant was not guilty of the charges. Thereafter, an order was passed as follows:S.I. 899/Tin. (Old No. 580/Tin) Natarajan, who is deemed to be under suspension from 20th February, 1964 is released from suspension. He should report for duty forthwith.2. The period of suspension will be treated as eligible leave.3. If he fails to report for duty within 21 days of receipt of this order, action will be taken to strike him off as a deserter.Apparently, this order was made by a competent authority namely, the District Superintendent of Police. The order was, dated 17th April, 1969. This order -was evidently made on the basis of an Border ...
S. Ramamurthi Vs. V. Rangachari and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-29-1974
Reported in: (1975)1MLJ407
ORDERM.M. Ismail, J.1. Though these writ petitions differ with regard to the facts, they are being disposed of together, by a common order, in view of one common point argued in all these writ petitions. In all these writ petitions, against the orders of the Deputy Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments, pasted under the provisions of Chapter V of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 (Tamil Nadu Act XXII of 1959) hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', appeals were preferred to the Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments under Section 69 (1) of the Act and the Commissioner by the impugned orders in the writ petitions remanded the matter for fresh disposal to the Deputy Commissioner. The orders of the Commissioner are challenged in these writ petitions and the common point raised in there petitions is that the Commissioner has not power to remand the matter to the Deputy Commissioner.2. For the purpose of considering this poin...
Muniammal Vs. G. Mohan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-26-1974
Reported in: AIR1975Mad225
Maharajan, J.1. This is an appeal by the claimant against the order of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Madras, dismissing her petition under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, claiming a compensation of Rs. 15,000 for the death of her husband, Munuswami in a lorry accident. The accident took place at about 10.30 a.m. on 3-11-69, at the junction between Wall Tax Road and Basin Water Works Street. The deceased was pulling a hand cart laden with medicines in a northerly direction along the Wall Tax Road (which is a north south road), and was turning in an easterly direction towards the Basin Water Works Street, when a lorry bearing MDU 5802 belonging to the third respondent and insured with the second respondent came at great speed in a southerly direction, knocked against the hand cart, ran over Munuswami killing him on the spot, proceeded to a distance of about 40 ft., then knocked against another cart and stopped short afier travelling a further distance of 20 feet. Ex. P.3 ...
Gopalakrishna Pillai and anr. Vs. Maruthappan Alias Susintharan and or ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-26-1974
Reported in: (1974)2MLJ345
P. R. Gokulakrishnan, J.1. The 7th and 9th defendants are the appellants in Second Appeal No. 360 of 1971. It concerns with item 4 of the suit properties. The 8th and 20th defendants are the appellants in Second Appeal No. 389 of 1971 and it concerns with items 2, 3 and 7 of the suit properties. Defendants 26 and 31 are the appellants in Second Appeal No. 1363 of 1971 and it concerns with items 13, 14 and 18 of the suit properties. The suit is for partition and possession of the plaintiff's 1/5th share of the suit properties and for recovery of future mesne profits from defendants 7 to 31. The plaint allegations are that the suit properties are the properties of the joint family consisting of the first defendant and his sons who are the plaintiff and defendants 2 to 4. They are entitled to a one-fifth share each. The fifth defendant is the daughter and the sixth defendant is the wife of the first defendant. The sixth defendant has got a right of maintenance and fifth defendant has got ...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »