Chennai Court February 1975 Judgments
Jacob A. Chakramakal Vs. Rosy J. Chakramakal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-28-1975
Reported in: (1975)2MLJ95
P.S. Kailasam, J.1. This appeal is filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order of Mohan, J. holding that the petition filed by the appellant-father praying for a declaration that he is the guardian of the persons of the minors and for the restoration of the custody of the minors to the father is not maintainable.2. The petition is a continuation of a longstanding and bitter litigation between the father and the mother of the minor children. A suit O.M.S. No. 12 of 1962 was filed for judicial separation. Judicial separation was granted and certain directions were given regarding the custody of the minor children. The father filed O.P. No. 270 of 1970 for the custody of the minor children. There were three children out of the marriage, and custody of two minor children was given to the mother. The lather preferred an appeal and the wife a memorandum of objections against the judgment in so far as it was against them, the father and the mother claiming custody of the thr...
Tag this Judgment!Thanumalayaperumal Mudaliar and ors. Vs. the Commissioner, the Hindu R ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-28-1975
Reported in: (1975)2MLJ310
T. Ramaprasada Rao, J.1. The unsuccessful plaintiffs in O.S. No. 7 of 1966 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Nagercoil appeal against the judgment and decree of the learned Judge, who did not agree that the suit temple was a private one, but in whose opinion it was a public temple. The relevant pleadings may be summarised. (2) Periaveettu Mudaliars about 1000 years ago founded two Siva temples one at Azhakiapandiapurarc and the other at Aloorr. The temple at Azhakiapandiapuram is known as Ambalathaduvar temple and the Aloor temple is popularly known as Chera Chola Pandia Mahadevar temple. They were built on the sites belonging to the ancestors of the plaintiffs and were constructed with their private funds. 1 here is no evidence expressly as to dedication but from time immemorial these temples were recognised as the private temples of the Periaveettu Mudaliar family. It is claimed that the inscription in the Aloor temple, which is the subject matter of this litigation, bears ample ...
Tag this Judgment!S.A. Ramiah Nadar and anr. Vs. Rajalakshmi Ammal and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-28-1975
Reported in: (1975)2MLJ175
V. Sethuraman, J.1. The defendants have filed this appeal. The plaintiffs filed the suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 600 due on a mortgage deed, dated 19th November, 1951 which is Exhibit A-1 in the case. It recites that the house property described in the schedule was usufructuarily mortgaged for a loan for discharging certain debts incurred in connection with the business. It gives a right to redeem the mortgage to the mortgagor on or before 30th Kartikai of next year which corresponds to 14th December, 1952. In default of such redemption on that date, it is agreed that the mortgagor will pay the amount whenever demanded and redeem or discharge the mortgage.2. The present suit was filed on 19th July, 1969. The defendants-appellants objected to the maintainability of the suit on the ground that it was barred by limitation under Article 62 of the Limitation Act, 1963.3. The Trial Court accepted the objection of the defendants and dismissed the suit. On appeal the learned Subordinate J...
Tag this Judgment!V.R.S.Rm. Ramaswami Chettiar and anr. Vs. Sri Devi Talkies by Partner ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-27-1975
Reported in: (1976)1MLJ22
T. Ramaprasada Rao, J.1. These two appeals arise out of two original suits, O.S. Nos. 290 and 299 of 1970, on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Madurai, They are connected in the sense that the plaintiff in one suit (O.S. No. 290 of 1970) is the husband of the plaintiff in the other (O.S. No. 299 of 1970) and the defendants are common. For the purpose of convenience, we snail take up Appeal No. 260 of 1971 which is against the judgment and decree in O.S. No. 290 of 1970. The plaintiff's case that defendant's 2 and 3, partners of the first defendant, Sri Devi Talkies, borrowed a sum of Rs. 55,000 on 26th February, 1970 gave a bearer cheque on the Thanjavur Permanent Bank limited fax the said amount, undertook to repay the amount within a few days thereafter and gave an assurance to the plaintiff that the cheque (Exhibit A-1) given by them could be presented for encashment after seventeen days. In furtherance of the assurance, as also in evidence of the borrowing, the def...
Tag this Judgment!Janaki Ammal Vs. Muthiah thevar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-27-1975
Reported in: (1975)2MLJ105
ORDERP.R. Gokulakrishnan, J.1. This revision petition arises out of the order passed in T.C.T.P. No. 66 of 1972 dated 30th March, 1974 on the file of the Authorised Officer (Land Reforms) Ramanathapuram at Madurai. The said petition was filed by the tenant under Section 3 (3) and Rule 3 of Act XXV of 1955 depositing Rs. 540 towards the rent payable to the landlord for one year from 1st July, 1971. The prayer in that petition is that the landlord may be directed to receive the rent deposited. This petition is in accordance with Section 3 (3) of the Cultivating Tenants Protection Act XXV of 1955 which says that:A cultivating tenant may deposit in Court the rent or, if the rent is payable in kind, its market value on the date of the deposit to the account of the landlord.While the petition was pending Tamil Nadu Act XXI of 1972 came into being in order to provide relief to cultivating tenants in respect of certain arrears of rent. As per Section 3 (1) (a) of Act XXI of 1972:All arrears of...
Tag this Judgment!Karuppammal, Vs. T.U. Poosari and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-25-1975
Reported in: AIR1976Mad311
N.S. Ramaswami, J.1. These two appeals arise out of a suit to set aside a decree passed in an earlier suit and consequential relief of possession in respect of part of the suit property and injunction in respect of the remaining part.2. The property involved in the litigation is a vacant land whose total extent is 14 acres 47 cents and comprised in three Survey Numbers, namely S. No. 755, S. No. 756 and S. No. 94/4 Thottipalayam village, Palladam taluk, Coimbatore district. The land was said to be a waste, but now it has acquired considerable value as house sites. The above said land is described in the A schedule to the plaint, while in Schedules B, G and D, specific portions of the said land are described. There are three plaintiffs in the suit out of whom, plaintiffs 1 and 2 are brothers. They claim title to the portions described in Schedules B and G and they seek to recover possession of those portions from the first defendant in the suit. The third plaintiff claims title to the p...
Tag this Judgment!The Management of M. Jeewanlal (1929) Limited, Proprietors of Mysore P ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-25-1975
Reported in: (1975)2MLJ143
ORDERG. Ramanujam, J.1. As both the writ petitions arise out of the same award of the Industrial Tribunal, they are dealt with together.2. The petitioner in the first case is the management and they challenge that portion of the award which is against them. The workmen have filed W.P. No. 3281 of 1971 challenging that portion of the award which is adverse to them.3. A partnership firm called 'The Mysore Premier Metal Factory' was carrying on business of manufacture in aluminium utensils and other articles from the year 1939. In or about 1945, in order to facilitate its business of manufacture, it purchased the Hindustan Metal Refinery and Rolling Mills. The Government of India gave separate registration numbers for the rolling mills purchased as well as for the undertaking owned by the firm for manufacturing utensils. In or about the year 1965 the management of Jeewanlal (1929) Limited, hereinafter referred to as the company, purchased the two undertakings owned by the Mysore Premier M...
Tag this Judgment!Ahamad Ibrahim Vs. N.M.K. Syed Mohideen and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-25-1975
Reported in: (1975)2MLJ377
S. Mohan, J.1. The plaintiff is the appellant. He filed a suit in O.S. No. 224 of 1966 on the file of the District Munsif's Court of Ramanathapuram for declaration and possession. The suit property measures 20 feet cast to west and 24 feet south to north in Ward No. 1 of Keelakarai Panchayat and a hut bearing Door No. 204-A standing thereon. There was also a prayer for injunction.2. The property originally belonged to one Madar Ammal. She made an oral gift of the entire property to her daughter Syed Ali Bathumal. She had another daughter by name Yusuf Sulaika and a son by name Seeni Mohammed. Seeni Mohamed married Mohammed Ameena Ummal. After the death of Syed Ali Bathumal, a half share of the property devolved upon her daughter Mohamed Aisha and the dispute in this second appeal relates only to this half share. Consequent to this devolution Aisha sold the property in favour of the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiff. Mohammed Ameena Ummal filed O.S. No. 1 of 1945 against Seeni Mo...
Tag this Judgment!Ramalinga Reddiar Vs. Radhakrishnan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-21-1975
Reported in: (1975)2MLJ343
ORDERV. Sethuraman, J.1. The judgment-debtor is the appellant herein. A decree was passed against him by the Sub-Court, Cuddalore, in O.S. No. 281 of 1969. The decree was passed on a joint memo. Under the decree a sum of Rs. 25,000 was payable with interest at 6 per cent, per annum. The amount was payable in monthly instalments of Rs. 1,500 the first instalment to start on 7th December, 1971. As only three instalments were paid, on the application of the decree-holder the decree was transmitted for execution to the District Munsif's Court, Tiruvanamalai. Before the executing Court, a petition under Section 20 of the Tamil Nadu Agriculturists Relief Act, 1938 (IV of 1938) was filed. The learned District Munsif dismissed the application on 10th October, 1973 saying that it was not stated in the petition under what provision of the Act the petitioner was claiming benefit. Even taking for granted that the petitioner was an agriculturist, he pointed out, that under the compromise decree, in...
Tag this Judgment!Adaikappu Chettiar Vs. Ayesha Natchiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-20-1975
Reported in: (1975)2MLJ298
S. Maharajan, J.1. This is an appeal filed by the defendant against the judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge of Karaikal decreeing the plaintiff's suit on foot of a mortgage executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff, and granting a preliminary decree in her favour. The defendant in his answer contended that the mortgage was unsupported by consideration to the extent of Rs. 1,400. He also pleaded partial discharge. The Court below rejected the evidence of the defendant, accepted that of the plaintiff and fully decreed the plaintiff's claim.2. The first point that arises for determination is whether the suit mortgage is unsupported by consideration to the tune of Rs. 1,400. Exhibit A-1 is the notarial deed of mortgage admittedly executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff on 29th September, 1965 for Rs. 11,400. In this document the defendant has clearly admitted that he received the entirety of this amount 'out of the view' of the Notaire and the attestors to the...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »