Chennai Court August 1978 Judgments
The New College, Represented by Its Secretary-cum-correspondent, A.A. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-19-1978
Reported in: (1979)1MLJ145
P.R. Gokulakrishnan, J.1. The second defendant in un-numbered suit of 1978 who was the second respondent in Application No. 2231 of 1978 is the appellant in O.S.A. No. 82 of 1978. The third defendant in the said suit who was the third respondent in the said application is the appellant in O.S.A. No. 86 of 1978. The first defendant in the said suit who was the first respondent in the said application is the appellant in O.S.A. No. 87 of 1978. These three appeals arise from the order passed by Padmanabhan, J., in Application No. 2231 of 1978 on 26th July, 1978.2. Application No. 2231 of 1978 was filed by plaintiffs 1 to 5 in un-numbered Civil Suit of 1978 on the file of the High Court (Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction) praying for the grant of leave to them for instituting the suit under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Padmanabhan, J., by his order in the said application, after observing that the question whether the first respondent has been notified to be a wakf by the ...
Tag this Judgment!Rajalakshmi Ammal and anr. Vs. S.S. Piramanayagam Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-17-1978
Reported in: AIR1979Mad147; (1979)1MLJ60
1. The two petitioners in this revision, as 'landlords' within the meaning of Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, Act 18 of 1960. (Hereinafter referred to as the Act), sought the eviction of the respondent-tenant herein by invoking the aid of S. 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act. According to them, they purchased the premises in question for the purpose of running a jewellery business run by their husbands, which business having been started by their husbands as partners under the name and style of 'Ameer Jewellery Mart' is being run in another premises which is not their own. The Rent Controller (Principal District Munsif), Tirunelveli, who entertained the petition of the landlords in HRC No. 43 of 1972, found the case tenable on facts and countenanced their plea for eviction of the tenant and allowed the petition for eviction. The tenant filed an appeal, C. M. A. No. 24 of 1973, which was heard and disposed of by the Rent Control Appellate Authority (Principal Subordinate Judge...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. Balaguru Vs. the Government of Tamil Nadu Represented by the Commi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-17-1978
Reported in: (1979)1MLJ4
ORDERV. Ramaswami, J.1. In response to the notice of motion issued to the Government, a note and the file concerning G.O. Nos. 1087 and 1088, dated 22nd June, 1978, are produced by the Government Pleader. This file and the note show that a petition containing certain allegations against the petitioner herein was received by the Director of Animal Husbandry. But the Director forwarded the petition to the Government with a request to entrust the matter to some other senior high-level officer of the Government for enquiry on the ground that the petitioner had been disputing the bona fides of the Director on earlier occasions and therefore he did not want to deal with that matter. On receipt of the petition, the Government forwarded the matter to the Director of Vigilance and Anti-corruption for a discreet enquiry and report. On receipt of the report of the Director of Vigilance and Anti-corruption in which the Director has suggested that a detailed enquiry is called for, the concurrence o...
Tag this Judgment!Varudayammal Vs. Balasubramania Gounder
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-16-1978
Reported in: (1979)1MLJ294
M.M. Ismail, J.1. In this second Appeal, the matter lies within a very narrow compass. Admittedly, the appellant herein had sold the suit property to the respondent under the original of Exhibit A-1 dated 9th March, 1955. Her case was that the property on the date of sale was more valuable than the consideration she received from the respondent herein namely Rs. 3,000 and the understanding between the parties was that the respondent should reconvey the property whenever the appellant paid an amount of Rs. 3,000 and asked for such a reconveyance. There was a further case that she was allowed to be in possession of the property paying Rs. 300 per year as rent, the said sum of Rs. 300 having been calculated on the basis of interest at 10 per cent, for Rs. 3,000 and that she had leased the coconut trees to others, but subsequently carried on personal cultivation. In 1965, she demanded reconveyance on payment of Rs. 3,000 but the-respondent refused to reconvey the property and hence she fil...
Tag this Judgment!Ameena Bibi Alias Sahebzadi and ors. Vs. the Assistant Commissioner of ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-14-1978
Reported in: (1979)1MLJ461
ORDERS. Natarajan, J.1. The petitioners are aggrieved by an order of assessment made against them under the Tamil Nadu Urban Land Tax Act and have, therefore, preferred this writ petition for issue of a writ of certiorari and mandamus to quash the assessment order and to direct the respondent to assess their liability, if any, under the Act as individual members.2. One P. Quda Baksh, who is the husband of the first petitioner, and father of petitioner8 2 to 8, died on 26th July, 1970, leaving behind him about 3 grounds and 2154 sq. ft. of urban land within the limits of Tiruchirapalli Municipality. After his death, the first respondent has assessed the entire extent of land left by him in the hands of the petitioners and demanded urban land tax from them on the basis of such assessment. This was objected to on the ground that on the death of Quda Baksh, each of the petitioners became entitled to an one-eighth share in the land and as instantaneous devolution of property has taken place...
Tag this Judgment!M. Kunjithapatham and ors. Vs. the Thiruvilaiyattam Village Co-operati ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-11-1978
Reported in: (1979)1MLJ6
ORDERT. Ramaprasada Rao, C.J.1. The interesting question raised in this civil revision petition is whether the proceedings initiated against the petitioners, amongst others, under Section 71 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, is maintainable at all, in view of certain factors and events which preceded the filing of what are usually called surcharge proceedings under Section 71 of the Act. It appears that the petitioners, who were ex-officers of Thiruvilaiyattam Village Co-operative Agricultural Credit Society, found, on an audit report, there was misappropriation and wilful negligence on the part of the Secretary of the Society, one Deenadayalu Naidu. Based on such audit report, proceedings were initiated by the petitioners as Board of Directors under Section 73 of the Act. It is not in dispute that such proceedings were initiated under Section 73 of the Act at the instance of the petitioners herein as against the said Deenadayalu Naidu, and the Registrar of Co-operative Soc...
Tag this Judgment!B.N. Ananthachary and anr. Vs. Mohan Ram and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-10-1978
Reported in: (1979)1MLJ341
T. Ramaprasada Rao, C.J.1. Defendants 1 and 2 in O.S. No. 626 of 1972 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Madurai, are the appellants. The suit property was the absolute property of one Balu G. Perumal Iyer. According to the plaintiff, he executed a deed of settlement Exhibit A-1 dated 27th March, 1969 inter alia in favour of himself, the defendants and 2 others and divested himself, of his title, interest and right in the suit property. There were several recitals in the settlement deed, the main provision of which was that the property has to be sold by all the settlees and out of the sale proceeds, a sum of Rs. 4,000 must be set apart for two religious charities and the discharge of a debt due to one Ramaseshan & Company and that the balance of the sale proceeds were to be equally divided as between the 16 settlees. Perumal Iyer died on 4th December, 1972. The case of the plaintiff is that the defendants did not cooperate with him in carrying out the stipulations in the settlement...
Tag this Judgment!V. Kasinatha thevar Vs. Sri Gnanapuriswaraswami Devasthanam Thriumakot ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-09-1978
Reported in: (1979)1MLJ80
V. Sethuraman, J.1. The defendant in O.S. No. 113 of 1969 on the file of the Subordinate Judge of Thanjavur, is the appellant. The defendant had taken about 76 acres of land belonging to the plaintiff Devasthanam on lease. Possession of the lands were surrendered in the suit filed for recovery of rent. The principal amount due was Rs. 60,256. There were also costs of Rs. 1,939.50, thus totalling about Rs. 62,195.50. The defendant had paid a sum of Rs. 53,221. 83 and, therefore, there was a balance of Rs. 16,239.53 for which the suit was filed. A decree was granted. But an application was filed under Act VIII of 1973 which amended the Tamil Nadu Act IV of 1938. The application was for recording full satisfaction of the decree. According to the judgment-debtor, as against the principal sum of Rs. 60,256 and costs of Rs. 1,939.50 totalling Rs. 62,195 he had already paid prior to the suit Rs. 53,221.83 and during the execution Rs. 14,500, totalling Rs. 67,721. 83 so that there was no amoun...
Tag this Judgment!M. Arumugam Pillai Vs. K.S. Kullappan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-09-1978
Reported in: (1979)2MLJ458
ORDERS. Nainar Sundaram, J.1. The defendant in O.S No. 332 of 1973 on the file of the District Munsif of Kumbakonam, is the petitioner in this revision. The respondent herein is the plaintiff in the suit. On 28th August, 1974, the plaintiff obtained a decree for possession and for arrears of rent against the defendant. There is no dispute before met hat there are structures standing on the land in question and the structures would come within the definition of 'building' used for non-residential purposes, within the meaning of the provisions of Tamil Nadu City Tenants' Protection Act (III of 1922), hereinafter referred to as the Act, as they stand amended. At the time when the decree came to be passed in the suit, the benefits of the Act were not extended to non-residential buildings in Kumbakonam Municipal area, where the property in question is situate. There is also no dispute before me that by G.O. Ms. No. 1285, Revenue, dated 31st May, 1975, the benefits of the Act were extended t...
Tag this Judgment!Valliammal Vs. Saroja
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-07-1978
Reported in: AIR1979Mad151
1. The plaintiff in O. S. No. 58 of 1972, on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Kumbakonam, is the appellant. The plaintiff is the mother and the defendant is the widow of one Chinnasami Odayar who died intestate on 1-4-1972, leaving behind him properties described in Schedules A to D to the plaint. The plaintiff and the defendant would be the heirs of Chinnasami Odayar under the provisions of the Hindi Succession Act 1956, the plaintiff and the defendant having each a half share in the properties. The plaintiff therefore claimed partition and separate possession of her half share in all the properties described in the Schedules. In the written statement filed by the defendant it was stated that there was a medication on 10-4-1972, as a result of which the A Schedule lands were allotted in favour of the plaintiff and the B Schedule and other movables were allotted to the defendant. The decision of the mediators was said to have been engrossed on a paper and the plaintiff and the defend...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »