Chennai Court December 1975 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.
Kodiketti Nadar Vs. Maria Luis MartIn Fernando and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-09-1975
Reported in: (1977)1MLJ141
Ramaprasada Rao, J.These Letters Patent Appeals arise out of a common judgment rendered by Natarajan, J. in A.A.Os.Nos. 75, 114, 115 and 118 of 1972. These Letters Patent Appeals are inter-connected. We shall state a few facts to appreciate the real dispute between the parties.2. In a previous litigation, to wit, a mortgage suit filed by the respondents in O.S. No. 8 of 1962 on the file of the Subordinate Judge of Nagercoil, the respondents obtained a preliminary decree on 28th October, 1962. In course of time, a final decree was passed on 10th February, 1964. On the judgment-debtor's failure to respect the final decree in accordance with its tenor, the hypotheca was brought to sale, In the public auction held on 17th February 1966 it is claimed, the plaintiffs' counsel on behalf of the plaintiffs, purchased some of the properties which were the subject-matter of such a public sale. The appellant filed an application to set aside that sale but was unsuccessful till the disposal of the ...
A.G.S. Moorthy Vs. Mrs. S. Satyanathan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-09-1975
Reported in: (1976)1MLJ343
S. Mohan, J.1. This revision arises under the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act consequent to the allowing of the application under Section 14 of the said Act by the appellate authority. The tenant is the revision petitioner. The Rent Controller found that there was lack of bona fides, because the landlady, P.W. 1, was not in a position to name the Engineer who prepared Exhibits P-2 and P-3 and also Exhibit P-1 plan. It was further found that she did not have the wherewithal notwithstanding Exhibit P-4 and P-5. Consequently, he dismissed her application. Aggrieved by the same, an appeal was preferred. The appellate authority reversed the findings and ordered eviction. In so doing, he held, that the evidence should not be examined in microscopic detail, nor again the prior proceedings which exhibited some animosity between the landlady and the tenant would be of any relevance. 2. Mr. N. Sivamani, Learned Counsel appearing for the revision petitioner, strenuously urges be...
Lakshmi Ammal Vs. Rakkayi Ammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-09-1975
Reported in: (1976)2MLJ234
M.M. Ismail, J.1. The plaintiff in O.S. No. 685 of 1967 on the file of the Court of the District Munsif of Madurai Town, who lost before the Courts below is the appellant herein. The suit was instituted for recovery of the amount said to be due under a promissory note dated 15th May, 1959 marked as Exhibit A-4., said to have been executed by the respondent herein in favour of the deceased Parthasarathi Iyengar for a sum of Rs. 1,500. It was the case of the appellant herself that no cash was paid on the date of Exhibit A-4; that prior to Exhibit A-4 the respondent had borrowed a sum of Rs. 500 under a promissory note dated 1st August, 1956 marked as Exhibit A-1, another sum of Rs. 500 under a promissory note dated 1st December, 1956 marked as Exhibit A-2 and a third sum of Rs. 500' under another promissory note dated 31st May, 1957 marked as Exhibit A-3; and that consolidating all the three amounts only, the suit promissory note Exhibit A-4 was executed in lieu of the said three promiss...
Sivan Pillai Vs. Anbayyan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-08-1975
Reported in: (1976)1MLJ385
M.M. Ismail, J.1. The second plaintiff in O.S. No. 635 of 1957 on the file of the Court of the principal District Munsif, Padmanabhapuram who lost before the Courts below, is the appellant herein. The suit was instituted by the prcdecessor-in-interest of the appellant herein and during the pendency of the suit, he having died, the appellant herein was brought on record as his legal representative and as the second plaintiff to prosecute the suit. The suit was to enforce a mortgage and a preliminary decree was passed on 30th January, 1958. Thereafter, in 1969, the appellant filed I.A. No. 126 of 1969 purporting to be under Order 34, Rule 5 of the First Schedule to the Code of Civil Procedure for passing a final decret for the sale of the property. Admittedly, the amount decreed had not been paid by the respondents herein. The respondents put forward the contention that, since the preliminary decree was passed on 30th January, 1958 and since the application in I.A. No. 126 of 1969 was fi...
The Union of India (Uoi) Owing the Railways in India Represented by th ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-08-1975
Reported in: (1976)2MLJ153
N.S. Ramaswami, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for damages in respect of certain bundles of dry salted cow hides transport ed through the railways. The plaintiff's are the consignees of 210 bundles of dry salted cow hides, the same having been consigned from Shillong, in the State of Assam. The said 210 bundles were consigned on 6th April, 1962. 105 bundles had been loaded in one wagon and another 105 bundles were loaded in a second wagon. One wagon reached Salt Gotaurs at Madras, the place of destination, on 9th June, 1962 and the other reached only on 20th June, 1962. The consignees demanded open delivery and it was given.The goods were found to be deteriorated and the Claims Inspector of the Southern Railway evaluated the damages at Rs. 4,780.38. The consignees filed the suit for damages for a sum of Rs. 8,303.16, which according to them, is the correct value of the damages of the goods, contending that the deterioration of the goods was due to negligence or misconduct on the...
In Re: Oli
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-05-1975
Reported in: 1976CriLJ1339
ORDERRatnavel Pandian, J.1. The petitioner, who was accused No. 4 before the trial court, is canvassing the judgment passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate of Madurai in C. A. No, 88 of 1974, confirming the conviction and sentence passed in C. C. No. 1125 of 1974 by the learned Judicial II Class Magistrate, Uthampala-yam, viz., convicting the petitioner under Section 61 (f) of the Tamil Nadu Excise Act and sentencing him to suffer simple imprisonment for three months. Before the trial court, there were four accused including this petitioner, who were tried for an offence under the above charge, on the allegation that on 20-4-1974, at about 6-45 a.m., at Cumbur-Mettu Road on the southern bank of Kalivu Odai, they were each found to be in possession of 25 litres of fermented wash fit for distillation of illicit arrack, without a valid licence or permit. The prosecution examined two witnesses on its side, of whom P.W. 1 is a Head Constable and P.W. 2 is the Sub-Inspector, Excise ...
In Re: Natarajan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-05-1975
Reported in: 1976CriLJ1502
Ratnavel Pandian, J.1. Accused 1 to 6 in C.C. No. 3721 of 1974 on the file of the Ninth Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Madras, are the revision-petitioners.2. They stood charged by the Inspector of Police, Food Cell, C.I.D. Investigation Wing V Madras for offence under Clause 17 of the Tamil Nadu Kerosene (Regulation of Trade) Order, 1973, read with Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and Sections 3 and 23 (1) of the Petroleum Act, 1934, on the allegation that on 16-7-1973 at about 4-30 p.m., at No. 188, Rathinasabhapathi Street, Puliyurpuram, Kodambakkam, the accused were in possession of 3,500 litres of kerosene, 170 litres of diesel and 800 litres of dangerous petrol valued at Rupees 4,000/- contained in barrels and tins for sale and that the said quantity of petroleum products, empty barrels, measuring vessels, funnels and connected records, were seized from the possession of the accused and that the accused were not having any valid licence for the possession of t...
Sivasangu Vs. Chinnaiah
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-05-1975
Reported in: (1977)1MLJ134
G.J.R. Paul, J.1. This appeal has been preferred against the order of the learned District Judge of Tiruchirapalli in C.M.A No. 14 of 1973, confirming the order passed by the learned Subordinate Judge of Tiruchirapalli dismissing a petition filed under Order 21, Rule 90 and Section 47 of the Civil Procedure Code, by the appellant for setting aside a Court-sale.2. The respondent-decree-holder obtained a mortgage decree against the appellant-judgment-debtor and brought the mortgaged properties to sale and subsequently on 21st April, 1971 he purchased the properties in Court-auction for a sum of Rs. 7,000 after obtaining permission from the Court to bid in the Court-auction. The judgment-debtor assailed the sale on the following grounds; (1) the decree-holder managed to see that due publication of the sale proclamation was not made and as a result thereof the prospective purchasers did not get sufficient information and properties worth Rs. 20,000 had been sold for a low amount of Rs. 7,0...
H. R. Sathyanarayana Rao Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu Represented by Co ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-05-1975
Reported in: (1977)1MLJ302
ORDERV. Ramaswami, J.1. The Village of Marasandram in Hosur Taluk was notified as an inamestate under the Madras Inam Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act (XXVI of 1963). Thereupon the petitioner filed an application before the Settlement Officer under Section 5 of the Madras Inams Supplementary Act (XXXI of 1963) for a declaration that Marasandram village was a minor inam and not an inam estate within the meaning of Section 2 (7) of the Madras Act XXVI of 1963. The Settlement Officer held that it is an 'Existing Inam' within the meaning of Section 2 (4) of that Act and that therefore the notification was valid. In an appeal preferred against this judgment, the Inam Estates Abolition Tribunal, Dharmapuri was of the view that it is an existing inam estate and, at any rate, it would come within the definition of 'part village inam estate' and that therefore, the notification was valid. It is against the judgment of the Inam Estates Abolition Tribunal the present revision ...
Nataraja Mudaliar Vs. Panduranga Mudaliar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-04-1975
Reported in: (1976)2MLJ381
A. Varadarajan, J.1. The defendant, who failed in both the Courts below, is the appellant. One Veerappa Mudaliar had two daughters, Amirthammal and Ammaniammal and one son, Nagarathna Mudaliar. Shanmugam alias Arumugam, who is stated to have died in 1957, and Thillaikannu Ammal are the son and daughter of Amirthammal. The appellant is the son of the said Shanmugam alias Arumugam. Thillaikannu Ammal, the daughter of Amirthammal, had been married to her maternal uncle Nagarathna Mudaliar. Panduranga Mudaliar, the respondent herein, is the grandson of Ammaniammal by her son Krishnaswami Mudaliar. The suit properties, which are a house with a well, 74 cents of wet land and an oil engine, admittedly belonged originally to Nagarathna Mudaliar. Nagarathna Mudaliar had executed the settlement deed, Exhibit A-1, dated 9th April, 1963, in favour of his wife Thillaikannu who died after him on 2nd May, Ig55. The respondent claimed title to the suit properties as the heir of his paternal aunt Thill...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »