Chennai Court September 1978 Judgments
Christinamary Stella Vs. Dr. Vijay Siddharaj and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-07-1978
Reported in: (1979)1MLJ57
T. Ramaprasada Rao, C.J.1. This case comes up before us for confirmation of the order passed by the District Judge, Pudukkottai, who allowed the petition filed by the first wife and dissolved the marriage as between the petitioner and the first respondent on the ground that the first respondent contracted a second marriage with the second respondent after the solemnisation of the first marriage and that the first respondent deserted the petitioner and is permanently living with the second respondent and had a child through her also. The facts, as disclosed in the petition, are that the first respondent married the petitioner on 19th February, 1973 in the Sacred Heart Church, Pudukkottai, and the marriage solemnisation certificate, though not filed in the trial Court, has been filed in this Court which we mark as Exhibit C-1. Having thus married the petitioner on 19th February, 1973, it appears that the first respondent married again, 20 days thereafter on the 11th of March 1973, the se...
Tag this Judgment!G.T. Venkatasamy Reddi Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-04-1978
Reported in: AIR1979Mad261; (1979)1MLJ382
Ramaprasada Rao, C.J.1. These two appeals arise out of a common order of a learned single Judge of this court who refused to issue a writ of Mandamus forbearing the second respondent before him from demanding and collecting the motor vehicles tax, in view of the alleged exemption under the inter-State agreement published in the Tamil Nadu Extraordinary Gazette dated 1-5-1973, for the bus MYA 2484 plying on the route Bangalore to Tirupattur and concurrently for the issue of a direction to the first respondent to refund a tax of Rs. 37840 paid by the appellant for the quarter ending 31-3-1978, as the appellant is entitled for exemption and benefit of single point taxation pursuant to the inter-State agreement as above. The history of the grant need not be traced excepting to state that the appellant before us, after satisfying that there was need for a second bus over the route, namely, Bangalore to Tirupattur, secured a permit from the appropriate authorities under the Motor Vehicles Ac...
Tag this Judgment!Rajah Sir M.A. Muthia Chettiar Vs. R.M. Murugappan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-04-1978
Reported in: (1979)1MLJ311
M.M. Ismail, J.1. The Assistant Settlement Officer granted a ryotwari patta in respect of the land in question under Section 9(1)(a)(i) of Tamil Nadu Act XXVI of 1963 in favour of the appellant herein. However, on appeal preferred by the respondents herein, the Special Tribunal, Inam Abolition, Ramanathapuram at Sivaganga, by his order dated 30th April, 1974, allowed the appeal preferred by the respondents herein and set aside the order of the Settlement Officer. It is against this order of the Tribunal, the present appeal has been filed.2. It is not in dispute that the matter arises out of Tamil Nadu Act XXVI of 1963. Section 9(1) of that Act deals with the right of a landholder to the grant of ryotwari patta under that Act. Section 9(1) opens by stating, 'in the case of an existing inam estate, the landholder shall with effect on and from the notified date, be entitled to a ryotwari patta in respect of.' The expression 'landholder' occurring in Section 9 has been defined in Section 2...
Tag this Judgment!C. Ramamurthi Vs. Karuppasami and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-01-1978
Reported in: (1979)1MLJ298
ORDERSathiadev, J.1. These two civil revision petitions are filed against the orders passed in I.A. No. 784 of 1975 filed for correcting the provision of law, and I.A. No. 265 of 1975 filed to bring on record the legal representatives of the fist defendant in the suit. The Court below had dismissed the petitions on the ground that the suit was filed on 14th November, 1974, on the basis of promissory note executed by the first defendant, whereas he died on 5th October, 1974, itself, and therefore a suit filed against a dead person is 'non est' and there can be no question of legal representatives being brought on record, Even if they are to be brought on record as legal representatives, the date of the suit will be the date on which they were brought on record and it will not date back to the date on which the suit was originally filed, i.e., 14th November, 1974.2. The counsel for the petitioner contends that so far as the I.A. No. 784 of 1975 is concerned, it was filed for correcting t...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›