Chennai Court October 1975 Judgments
Kesava Murthy Vs. V. Amurthammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-31-1975
Reported in: (1977)1MLJ464
Kailasam, J.1. These two appeals arise out of a claim petition filed by the widow and minor children of one Veeraswami who died in a traffic accident on 9th May 1971. The first respondent in the O.P. is the driver of the vehicle M.D.S. 7979. The second respondent is the insurance company, viz., Madras Motor and General Insurance Co., Ltd. The third respondent, Safe Service Ltd., is the registered owner of the vehicle. It had by an agreement leased the car to the .fourth respondent in February, 3970. When the car was under the control of the fourth respondent on the date of the occurrence 9th May, 1971, he had hired she car to the fifth respondent who engaged his own driver when the fatal accident occurred.2. The first respondent-driver of the vehicle was given up and the fifth respondent remained ex parte.3. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal found that the accident resulting in the death of Veeraswami was as a result of the rash and negligent driving of the car by the first responden...
Tag this Judgment!Veluswami thevar Vs. Ganesa thevar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-31-1975
Reported in: (1976)2MLJ115
V. Sethuraman, J.1. The first defendant is the appellant. The suit was filed by the plaintiff for declaration of his title and for recovery of possession. The suit property was purchased by one Angammal as guardian for her minor son Muniyandi on 29tfa May, 1907. Muniyandi predeceased his mother and she executed a gift deed over the property on 25th April, 1952 in favour of her daughter-in-law Nachiarammal. In the gift deed there is a reference to a daughter having been born through Muniandi and Nachiyarammal. This daughter is named Rajammal, who was the third defendant in the suit. There can be no dispute about the fact that Nachiyarammal had only a widow's estate in the said land until the coming into force of the Hindu Succession Act, as the gift document by Angammal, who had no rights in the property, could not enlarge Nachiyar Ammal's interest until it was enlarged by the statute. Nachiarammal executed a settlement dfed on 1st June, 1956 in favour of one Veluswami Thevar, who was t...
Tag this Judgment!Kamalammal Vs. A.N. Shanmugham Alias Gurunathan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-30-1975
Reported in: (1976)1MLJ217
M.M. Ismail, J.1. The first defendant in O.S. No. 69 of 1970, on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Kancheepuram, is the appellant herein. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to as they were arrayed in the suit. The first defendant and second defendant are sisters and the second defendant has married the third defendant. The two plaintiffs are the sons of the second and third defendants. One Rajakotilingam Chettiar was the father of defendants 1 and 2, and, therefore, the father-in-law of the third defendant, and the maternal grandfather of the plaintiffs. It is admitted that, after the birth of the first plaintiff on 6th December, 1948, Rajakotilingam Chettiar filed O.P. No. 162 of 1949 on the file of this Court under the Guardians and Wards Act and Was appointed as the guardian of the first plaintiff. Equally, it is admitted that, after the appointment as guardian, Rajakottilingam Chettiar,, as the guardian of the first plaintiff and the third def...
Tag this Judgment!Mrs. Johari Bi Vs. K. Vinayagym (Died) and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-30-1975
Reported in: (1976)1MLJ220
ORDERN.S. Ramaswami, J.1. This appeal is against an order of remand in a suit, in which one of the questions was whether the defendant is a tenant entitled to the benefits of Section 9 of the City Tenants Protection Act, hereinafter referred to as the Parent Act. The trial Court held, on the basis of a particular covenant in the written lease agreement that the proviso to Section 12 of the Parent Act would apply, and that, therefore, he was not entitled to the benefits of Section 9 thereof. So, a decree for possession was granted. The landlord had asked for arrears of rent also. That also been decreed by the trial Court.2. When the appeal filed by the tenant was before the first Appellate Court, Act IV of 1972 had come into force and that Act had deleted the proviso to Section 12. That meant, that inspire of the covenant in the lease deed, the tenant was entitled to file an application under Section 9 of the Parent Act. However, the application had been filed by the tenant in the trial...
Tag this Judgment!Paramasiva Moopan and ors. Vs. Aruppukottai Chockalingapuram Chokkanat ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-29-1975
Reported in: (1976)1MLJ327
A. Varadarajan, J.1. Defendants 2 to 4 and the legal representatives of the first defendant, who succeeded in the trial Court, but failed in the lower appellate Court, are the appellants herein. The first respondent 1st plaintiff is the deity, Aruppukottai Chockalingapuram Chokkanathaswami, and respondents 2 to 4 herein (plaintiffs 3 to 5) are its trustees. The suit was for declaration of the first respondent's title to four items of lands and for possession. The case of the respondents was that all the four items of the suit lands were originally comprised in the Aruppukottai Zamin village. Items 2 and 3 were granted by the Zamindarini to the first respondent in 1803-1804, while items 1 and 4 were granted to the first respondent by a Pathadappu Kararnama document Exhibit A-2, dated. 20th August, 1899 executed in favour of the Zamindar. The first respondent was in possession of all me four items by leasing them out. After the estate was abolished and taken over on 7th April, 1949 under...
Tag this Judgment!Ramaswami Vs. Muthu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-24-1975
Reported in: 1976CriLJ1504
ORDERRatnavel Pandian, J.1. P.W. 1 in S. C. No. 74 of 1974 on the file of the Assistant Sessions Judge of Ramanathapuram at Sivaganga has directed this revision petition challenging the acquittal of respondents 1 to 5 - accused 1 to 5 by the trial court. The respondents were charged under two heads, viz. for offences punishable under Sections 148 and 307 (latter part), I.P.C. The trial Judge, after finding that 'the prosecution does not appear to have come forward with clean hands in bringing home the guilt of the accused' and 'has not sufficiently and satisfactorily shown by any reliable evidence that the accused are the culprits who have inflicted the injuries on PW 1' and 'the accused are entitled to the benefit of doubt,' has found them not guilty of any of the charges with which they were charged and acquitted them of all the offences. Aggrieved by the order of acquittal, the victim PW 1 has come to this Court by way of a revision petition.2. The prosecution case is briefly that o...
Tag this Judgment!Chellammal Vs. Packiam and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-24-1975
Reported in: 1976CriLJ1666
ORDERRatnavel Pandian, J.1. The revision-petitioner herein was P.W. 1 in Sessions Case No. 124 of 1974 on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge, Ramanathapuram at Madurai. She has filed this petition challenging the judgment in the above case acquitting respondents 1 to 3, who were accused 1 to 3 before the trial court. The said case is a double-murder case. These three respondents were charged under three heads, viz., accused 1 and 2 under charge No. 1 for an offence under Section 302 read with Section 34, I.P.C., for having caused the death of Thangaraj; accused-3 under charge No. 2 for an offence under Section 302 read with Section 109 for having abetted the said offence of murder, and then accused-1 under charge-3 for an offence under Section 302 I.P.C. for having committed the murder of one Ramu Nadar, husband of the petitioner. The occurrence in this case is said to have taken place on 7-6-1974 at about 9 a.m. in front of the house of deceased Ramu Nadar.2. The prosecution ca...
Tag this Judgment!Mangalam Pillai and ors. Vs. C.S. Appavoo Udayar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-24-1975
Reported in: (1976)1MLJ414
T. Ramaprasada Rao, J.1. The first to the fourth defendants in. O.S. No. 298 of 1966 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Tiruchirapalli, are the appellants. The plaintiff, one C.S. Appavoo Udayar filed a suit for the specific performance of a contract under which the first defendant purported to convey the suit property for a sum and consideration of Rs. 11,500. The plaintiff also sought for re-delivery of possession of the suit properties and for a direction as against the first defendant to account for the mesne profits ever since the date he was dispossessed of the properties to the date of actual re-delivery of possession. The relevant facts which led to the institution of the suit for specific performance of 3rd October, 1966 are as follows:2. Under Exhibit A-1, dated 2nd May, 1962 the plaintiff mortgaged certain properties not covered by the suit. It was discovered that the plaintiff did not have any title to such properties. Consequent upon such a mis-conduct and mis-repres...
Tag this Judgment!Gnanammal Vs. Elayaperumal Nadar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-24-1975
Reported in: (1976)2MLJ269
S. Natarajan, J.1. The question for debate in the second appeal preferred by the plaintiff is whether the finding of the learned District Munsif, Srivaikuntam in O.S. No. 441 of 1968 which was confirmed by the Subordinate Judge, Tuticorin in A.S. No. 7 of 1971, that item (1) of the suit property did not belong to the predecessor-in-title of the appellant and that item (2) of the suit property was not liable for redemption and recovery of possession on the ground of limitation, is a correct one. In her suit, the appellant sought redemption and recovery of possession of two items of land, survey Nos. 746/2 and 746/1, of 83 cents and 44 cents respectively. Her case was that both the items were originally owned by one Namasivaya Mudaliar who sold them under Exhibit A-3 on 23rd July, 1862 to one Paranjothi Nadar. Under the original of Exhibit A-4 dated 13th May, 1871, Paranjothi Nadar sold the two items to one Yesuvadial. On Yesuvadial's death, her daughter Muthayee succeeded to her propert...
Tag this Judgment!S. Kuppuswamy and anr. Vs. the General Manager, Heavy Vehicles Factory ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-23-1975
Reported in: (1976)2MLJ97
ORDERV. Ramaswami, J.1. These are two writ petitions for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to fix the seniority of the petitioners in respect of lower division clerks working in the Heavy Vehicle Factory, Avadi on the basis of the date of entry into service in the said factory in so far as the petitioners are concerned. The petitioner in Writ Petition No. 1945 of 1974 joined the Heavy Vehicles Factory, Avadi as lower division clerk on the 5th. of February, 1964 and the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 1944 of 1974 joined as such lower division clerk on 4th December, 1963. Ehough this is also an Ordnance Factory, this does not come under the Director-General of Ordnance Factory, Calcutta, but is directly managed. as an independent unit by the General Manager under the control of the Minitry of Defence.2. Promotion to the post of upper division clerk in this unit was to be made purely on the basis of seniority and the post of upper division clerk is a non-selection...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »