Chennai Court February 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.
Shanmughasundaram Vs. Janagarajan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-11-1975
Reported in: AIR1976Mad19; (1975)2MLJ363
P.R. Gokulakrishnan, J.1. The first defendant in O.S. No. 294 of 1972, on the file of the Court of the District Munsif of Udumalpet, is the petitioner herein. The suit has been filed for a declaration that the plaintiff is the cultivating tenant of the suit property and for the consequential relief of permanent injunction against the defendants in order to restrain them from in any way interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit 'property by the plaintiff. Apart from various other contentions, the first defendant put forth the contention that the suit claim is barred by resjudicata in view of the decision in O.S. No. 919 of 1970, on the file of the Court below, and as such the suit is not maintainable. The trial Court framed as many as six issues and took up for decision, as a preliminary issue; issue No. 1, as to whether the suit is barred by res judicata. The trial Court, after elaborately discussing the facts of the case, gave the finding that the suit is not ...
Jayarama Chandra Iyer Vs. Thulasi Ammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-11-1975
Reported in: AIR1976Mad17; (1975)2MLJ167
M.M. Ismail, J.1. The plaintiff in O.S. No. 36 of 1968 in the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Chidambaram, is the appellant herein. The suit was instituted by him for partition and separate possession of his half share in the suit properties which consist of five items and for recovery of his share of income from items 4 and 5 of the plaint A schedule properties. Since the plaintiff has been granted a decree in respect of items 2 to 5, the appeal is confined only to item 1, a residential house in Vridachalam. There were two brothers, Krishnaswami Iyer and Kuppuswami Iyer. Krishnaswami Iyer, in his turn, had two sons, the appellant herein and one Dandapani Iyer, who died on 18th October, 1963 whose widow is the first respondent, whose sons are respondents 3 and 6, whose daughters are respondents, 3, 4, 5 and 7 and whose grandson through a predeceased daughter is the eighth respondent. Respondents 9 and 10 are strangers claiming some interest in the property. As far as item...
Hariram Vs. K.i. Zachariah and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-10-1975
Reported in: AIR1975Mad327
ORDERMohan, J.1. This is a petition under Section 9(e) of the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act (hereinafter referred) to as the Act) seeking to adjudicate the respondents as insolvents on the ground that attachment of the movables of the debtors were subsisting for a period exceeding 21 days. 2. By an ex part order passed on24-7-1074, the respondents were adjudicated as insolvents. That order was later on set aside. Subsequently, on behalf of the second respondent (I. S. K. Menon), it was stated that there was no defence to the petition and, therefore, he was adjudicated insolvent by an order of Sethuraman J. dated 19-8-1974. Hence, the only question that survives is whether the first respondent could be adjudicated as insolvent.3. In the counter-affidavit, the stand is taken by him that he is not the proprietor of the shop, Zacharia Stores, at No. 39 Purasawalkam High Road, Madras 7, and that the shop belongs to his son. Further, he was not carrying on business within the jurisdiction ...
Hariram, Sole Proprietor of Hariram Behilal Vs. K.i. Zachariah, Propri ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-10-1975
Reported in: (1975)1MLJ381
S. Mohan, J.1. This is a petition under Section 9(e) of the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) seeking to adjudicate the respondents as insolvents on the ground that attachment of the movables of the debtors was subsisting for a period exceeding 21 days.2. By an ex parte order passed on 24th July, 1974 the respondents were adjudicated as insolvents. That order was later on set aside. Subsequently, on behalf of the 2nd respondent (I. S. K. Menon), it was stated that there was no defence to the petition and, therefore, he was adjudicated insolvent by an order of Sethuraman, J., dated 19th August, 1974. Hence, the only question that survives is whether the 1st respondent could be adjudicated as insolvent.3. In the counter-affidavit, the stand is taken by him that he is not the proprietor of the shop, Zachariah Stores, at No. 39, Purasawalkam High Road, Madras-7, and that the shop belongs to his son. Further, he was not carrying on business within the juri...
P. Nagappan Vs. H.A. Ramaswamy Chettiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-06-1975
Reported in: [1975]36STC408(Mad)
Ramaprasada Rao, J.1. The fourth defendant is the appellant. The plaintiffs laid an action on a mortgage deed dated 27th September, 1957, marked as exhibit A-1 in the case, impleading defendants 1 to 3, who were the persons interested in the hypotheca as mortgagors. As we shall presently state, it may not be quite necessary for us to treat at length on the pleading relating to the mortgage and the basis of the claim. In fact, the plaintiffs, as mortgagees, released, under exhibit A-2 dated 29th March, 1963, one portion of the hypotheca after obtaining the consideration therefor. The result was that the plaintiffs came to the court on the foot of the mortgage deed (exhibit A-1) for sale of the suit property which was the property not released by them under exhibit A-2. The plantiffs were conscious of the fact that prior to their coming to court, the Commercial Tax Officer, Erode, publicised the suit property for a public sale on the ground that the mortgagors were in arrears of Central ...
Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition, Defence Equipment Factory ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-06-1975
Reported in: AIR1976Mad215; (1975)2MLJ248
M.M. Ismail, J.1. These appeals are by the State and they have been preferred against the judgment and decrees of the learned Principal Subordinate Judge of Tiruchirapalli in O.P. Nos. 176 to 184 and 186 of 1966, respectively. They are concerned with the question as to proper compensation payable in respect of the lands belonging to the respondents herein, situate in Palanganangudi village in Triuchirapalli district, and acquired under the Land Acquisition Act for the Defence Equipment Factory, Timchirapalli. Those lands were acquired pursuant to the notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, dated 4th December, 1963. In all these cases, the Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 4 per cent. The Court, on references made under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, enhanced the same to Rs, 5-50 per cent. In three cases, namely, A.S. No. 200 of 1969, A.S. No. 203 of 1969 and A.S. No. 205 of 1969, in addition to the compensation for the lands ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›