Chennai Court August 1979 Judgments
Mangalanayagi Ammal and Vedham Iyer Vs. the Authorised Officer, Land R ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-17-1979
Reported in: (1980)2MLJ429
ORDERA. Varadarajan, J.1. C.R.I. No. 2637 of 1975 has been filed for revision the judgment and decree dated 10th July, 1975 passed in C.M.A. No. 116 of 1974 on the file of the Land Tribunal (Principal Subordinate Judge), Cuddalore. C.R.P. No. 1283 of 1976 has been filed for evising the judgment and decree dated 30th March, 1976 passed in L.T.C.M.A. No. 96 of 1974 on the file of the Land Tribunal (Principal Subordinate Judge), Tiruchirapalli W.P. No. 3433 of 1978 has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issue of a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or order calling for the records of the Authorised Officer (Land Reforms), Tiruchirapalli, the second respondent, in M.R.I.V (705/Tri) 70, and of the third respondent, the Land Tribunal (Principal Subordinate Judge), Tiruchirapalli, in L.T.C.M.A. No. 96 of 1974, and quashing the orders dated 14th November, 1973 and 30th March, 1976 passed by the second respondent and third respondent respectively.2. ...
Tag this Judgment!Pattammal and ors. Vs. Yasotha Ammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-17-1979
Reported in: (1980)1MLJ447
ORDERP. Venugopal, J.1. The defendants are the appellants before this Court. The first plaintiff is the widow of Kuppuswamy Chettiar and the plaintiffs 2 and 3 are the daughter and son. The plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration of title to the suit properties and for recovery of possession of the same from the defendants contending that the defendants were in permissive occupation of the suit properties during the lifetime of the first plaintiff's husband and after his death they have fraudulently asserted title to the suit properties and they should be evicted and possession given to the plaintiffs. The defendants filed written statements contending that they are not in permissive occupation of the suit properties and they are in possession in their own right. The trial Court held that the plaintiffs have not proved their title to the suit properties and dismissed the suit. On appeal, it was held that it is necessary to ascertain whether the properties in possession of the defendant...
Tag this Judgment!T.V. Balakrishnan Vs. T.S. Venkatachalam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-16-1979
Reported in: AIR1980Mad99; (1980)1MLJ175
ORDER1. C. M. P. No. 7812 of 1979 has been filed to dismiss the civil revision petition C. R. P. No. 1707 of 1979. The said revision petition itself is filed against the order of the authorities functioning under the Tamil Nadu Act 18 of 1960 dismissing the petition filed by the petitioner in the revision petition to set aside the ex parte order for eviction passed on 2-11-1971. The respondent in the revision petition, who has filed the present civil miscellaneous petition to dismiss the revision petition contends as follows,namely 'that when the bailiff went to evict the petitioner in the revision petition and take possession of the property pursuant to the order of eviction on 23-7-1979, the petitioner in the revision petition, namely, the tenant made the following endorsenment:- Today I have gone through the contents of the order. I undertake to vacate the portion in the premises 54 Mowbrays Road, Madras 18 on 18-9-1979, without raising objection in this court and without taking any...
Tag this Judgment!Durai Alias Karunanidhi Vs. D. Devarajalu Naidu and 10 ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-16-1979
Reported in: (1980)1MLJ507
V. Sethuraman, J.1. This appeal has been filed of the plaintiff in O.S. No.272 of 1970 on the file of the Subordinate Judge of Cuddalore. The properties under consideration in this case originally belonged to a Hindu undivided family consisting of one Pakkiriswami Naidu, his son Muthu Naidu and the plaintiff the grandson of Muthu Naidu as coparceners. On 19th September, 1955, when the plaintiff was aged about three years, a document was executed by Pakkiriswami and Muthu Naidu settling the suit properties on the plaintiff. His mother was to be the guardian and to be in possession of the properties, and on the plaintiff attaining majority, the properties were to be handed over to him. The plaintiff has attained majority, and he filed the present suit for setting aside certain sale deeds in favour of defendants 1 to 10, for possession and for future mesne profits. The sale deeds have been marked as Exhibits B-3, B-7, B-9, B-10 and B-11. The said sale deeds have been executed either by th...
Tag this Judgment!K. Narayanaswamy Vs. Sundari
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-14-1979
Reported in: (1980)1MLJ278
V. Ratnam, J.1. The husband who filed a petition in O.P. No. 102 of 1974 for an annulment of his marriage with the respondent is the petitioner in this civil revision petition which arises out of an application filed by the respondent herein under Order 9, Rule 13, Civil Procedure Code, to set aside the ex parts decree passed against her in O.P. No. 102 of 1974 on 1st November, 1974. The respondent stated in her affidavit that she and the petitioner were living in the house of the petitioner as husband and wife till 15th June, 1973, and thereafter misunderstandings arose between them as a result of which she was driven out and later she came to know that the petitioner was making arrangements to marry another girl. According to the respondent, she preferred a police complaint to prevent that marriage when she was confronted with an ex parte Order of annulment of marriage between them in O.P. No. 102 of 1974, and it was then that she came to know that the petitioner had made it appear a...
Tag this Judgment!R. Soundarapandian and ors. Vs. Special Secretary to Government of Tam ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-14-1979
Reported in: (1980)1MLJ302
ORDERA. Varadarajan, J.1. These writ petitions have been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by various miners of and dealers in sea-shells, for the issue of writs of certiorari or other appropriate writs or orders, calling for the records pertaining to the respondent's order in G.O. Ms. No. 73129/D3/73, dated 3rd April, 1975 and quashing that order in so far as it concerns the petitioners. As stated earlier, the petitioners are miners of and dealers in sea-shells in and around Tuticorin town in Tirunelveli District While as lime-shell has been included as item 14 in the Second Schedule to the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development), Act, 1957 by G.S.R. 1486 dated 31st October, 1962 published in the Gazette of India, Part II, Section 3(i), page 1791, sea-shell is not included in the schedule which prescribes rates of royalty to be paid to the Government, The petitioners were not obtaining any lease or licence for mining sea-shells by digging patta lands belongi...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Vallaba Ganesar Devasthanam Represented By: 1) Kailasa Mudaliar an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-14-1979
Reported in: (1980)1MLJ140
S. Padmanabhan, J.1. The question that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the suit which is for a declaration that the suit properties are trust properties belonging to Sri Vallaba Ganesar Devasthanam, Tiruvannamalai and for recovery of possession of the same is barred under Section 108 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act (Tamil Nadu Act XXII of 1959), (for short, the Act).2. The plaintiffs in O.S. No. 24 of 1974 on the file of the Sub-Judge, Tiruvannamalai viz., Sri Vallaba Ganesar Devasthanam, Tiruvannamalai by trustees are the appellants.3. The facts leading to the institution of the suit may be briefly stated as follows. There is a temple called Sri Vallaba Ganesar Devasthanam, Thiruvannamalai. The suit properties are the Devasthanam properties having been endowed by its original owner in favour of the temple. The first defendant had been appointed as a trustee of the temple. Subsequently, plaintiffs 1 to 4 have been appointed as trustees...
Tag this Judgment!Senga Pillai and ors. Vs. Varadarajan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-14-1979
Reported in: (1980)1MLJ424
S. Padmanabhan, J.1. The two appeals arise out of O.S. No. 578 of 1971 on the file of the Sub-Judge of Salem. A.S. No. 902 of 1974 has been filed by defendants 1 and 2 while A.S. No. 304 of 1976 has been filed by the plaintiff. The C.R.P. has been filed by defendants 1 and 2 against the dismissal of I.A. No. 1299 of 1973 filed by them.2. The facts of the case are briefly as follows: The plaintiff, the 3rd defendant and 4th defendant are brothers. The suit property belonged to the plaintiff and 3rd defendant. The suit property was acquired in their names by their father on 2nd June, 1948 under Exhibit A-1 sale deed. At the time of the acquisition of the property, the plaintiff and 3rd defendant were minors. The plaintiff, had, therefore, right over 1/2 share in the suit property while the 3rd defendant was entitled to the other 1/2 share. While so, on 26th September, 1956 Meenakshi Ammal, the mother of the plaintiff and the 3rd defendant executed a registered lease of the suit property ...
Tag this Judgment!V.A. Ramraj and anr. and C.V. Ramaswamy Vs. the Collector of Central E ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-14-1979
Reported in: (1981)1MLJ338
ORDERT. Ramaprasada Rao, C.J.1. These three writ appeals are directed against the judgment of Koshal, J., who refused to issue a rule in the nature of a writ of prohibition, as against the respondents from taking any further action in pursuance of the samples of tobacco taken by the Excise Officials from the appellants' warehouse. W. A. No. 501 of 1976 is against W. P. No. 4328 of 1975, W. A. No. 30 of 1977 is against W. P. No. 4327 of 1975 and W. A. No. 31 of 1977 is against W. P. No. 4698 of 1975. The facts relevant for our purposes and which are almost similar in all the appeals can be referred to. Each of the appellants is a person holding a L-5 licence under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, read with the Rules made thereunder. Under this licence, the petitioners were entitled to keep a bonded warehouse and store tobacco therein, maintain stock registers and be bound by the various Rules and regulations in the matter of storage of the tobacco which is admittedly excisable an...
Tag this Judgment!A. Abdul Gaffor Vs. the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-13-1979
Reported in: [1980]46STC324(Mad)
ORDERVaradarajan, J.1. This writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issue of a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order, directing the respondent, the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Vaniyambadi, North Arcot District, to forbear from enforcing the demand made by his notice R. C. No. B1-3938/77 dated 4th July, 1977. The petitioner is a dealer of coconuts at Vaniyambadi. There was confusion from about the year 1969 on the question whether coconut is liable for sales tax and, if so, at what stage. Originally both the assessees and the commercial taxes department were under the impression that coconut is an oil-seed liable for assessment. Subsequently, some assessees put forward the contention that coconut is only a fruit, not liable for tax. The controversy has been settled by this Court holding that it is neither a fruit nor an oil-seed, but a commodity liable for multi-point sales tax like any other commodity liable for tax under...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »