Chennai Court February 1980 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.
Velu and anr. Vs. Nagaraja Nattar and Four ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-07-1980
Reported in: (1980)2MLJ228
ORDERV. Balasubrahmanyan, J.1. The only question in this civil revision petition is, whether the Court below was right in holding that the petitioners were not indigent persons, but had sufficient means to pay the deficit court-fee on their plaint, which, according to the checkslip, amounted to Rs. 2,347.2. At the inquiry into the plaintiffs' pauperism, the learned Subordinate Judge found the following facts. The plaintiffs were the undivided sons of one Thulasi Nainar. Along with their father and another brother of theirs, they constituted a joint Hindu family. The plaintiffs were living jointly with their father. The family held, in all, 20 acres of land originally. Of these 1.75 1/3 cents were sold in the period between 1949 and 1963. In the remaining lands of the extent of nearly 18 acres, a mortgage had been raised as recently as in 1971.3. On the above facts, borne out by the evidence, the learned Subordinate Judge dismissed the plaintiffs' petition under order 33, Rule 1 to cont...
Kasi Ammal Vs. Vellai Gounder and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-06-1980
Reported in: (1980)2MLJ232
P. Venugopal, J.1. The plaintiff is the appellant before this Court and the defendants are the respondents. The suit property originally belonged to plaintiff's husband Seetharama Goundar. Under the original of Exhibit A-1, the said Seetharama Goundar settled the suit property in favour of his wife, the plaintiff herein. On the basis of the settlement deed, the, plaintiff has filed the suit for declaration of her title to the suit property and for recovery of possession of the suit property from the defendants. The first defendant contended that the settlement deed (Exhibit A-l) was never acted upon, and Seetharama Goundar himself has revoked the settlement deed under Exhibit B-5 and he is a bona fide purchaser for value from Seetharama Goundar under Exhibit B-1 and the plaintiff is not entitled to a decision and recovery of possession as prayed for. The trial Court held that a valid settlement has been executed in favour of the plaintiff under the original of Exhibit A-1 and the subse...
M. Arasan Chettiar and Ors. vs. S.P. Narasimhalu Naidu's Estate Trust, ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-05-1980
Reported in: AIR1980Mad305; (1980)2MLJ303
1. In these cases, a common question of law as to the interpretation of certain words occurring in Section 9 of the Tamil Nadu City Tenants, Protection Act, 1921 (Tamil Nadu Act 3 of 1922) as amended by Tamil Nadu Act 13 of 1922, arises, and the said Act will be hereinafter referred to as the Act. The Act was promulgated, as was originally enacted, to give protection to certain classes of tenants in municipal towns and adjoining areas in the State of Tamil Nadu. The preamble to the Act stated:"Whereas it is necessary to give protection to tenants who in municipal towns and adjoining areas in the State of Madras have constructed buildings -on others' lands in the hope that they would not be evicted so long as they pay a fair rent for the land".This preamble itself was amended subsequently by Tamil Nadu Act IV of 1972, and we are not concerned with that amendment. In Section 2 (4) of -the Act the expression "Tenant" was defined as:"'Tenant' in relation to any land - (i) means a person li...
Sri Hari Babu Naidu Vs. S. Alamelu Ammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-05-1980
Reported in: (1980)2MLJ115
ORDERV. Ratnam, J.1. This case has posed a problem in giving effect to Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Agriculturists (Temporary Relief) Act, 1976. This section barred for a short duration, the institution of suits for recovery of debts from agriculturists. The petitioner in this civil revision petition was the defendant in a suit on a promissory note on the file of the Sub-Court, Cuddalore. The petitioner invoked Section 3 of the Act as a bar to the suit. The learned Subordinate Judge tried this issue as a preliminary issue. At the end of the inquiry, he held that the section did not apply to this case and posted the suit for further trial on the remaining issues. This decision is now questioned by the defendant in this civil revision petition.2. At the hearing before me, there was little or no controversy as to the construction of Section 3 of the Act or even as to its application to the present case. The parties were at variance only on the manner of giving effect to the provision in th...
K.M. Madhavakrishnan Vs. S.R. Sami and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-05-1980
Reported in: (1980)2MLJ398
S. Padmanabhan, J.1. The Additional plaintiff in O.S. No. 71 of. 1968, who is the son and legal representative of Paramayee Animal, the deceased first plaintiff, is the appellant. Paramayee Ammal having died pending suit, her son the appellant was brought on record as her legal representative. Paramayee Ammal filed the suit for a declaration that the agreement of sale executed by her in favour of defendants 1 and 2 on 17th June, 1967 was void and inoperative and for other reliefs. The suit was dismissed by the trial Court and consequently the present appeal has been filed.2. The facts of the case may be briefly set out as follows : One Marimuthu Pillai, the husband of Paramayee Animal was the owner of an extent of 4.04 acres of land comprised in T.S. No. 1332 in Erode Town. Marimuthu Pillai died in 1953 leaving two widows one of whom was Paramayee Ammal and two sons Venugopal and Rajagopal through his first wife and a son Madhavakrishnan, the appellant herein and a daughter Lakshmi tho...
M. Rathinavelu Vs. R.C. Khanna, Branch Manager, Films Division and anr ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-05-1980
Reported in: (1980)1MLJ476
ORDERV. Ramaswami, J.1. The petitioner was appointed as a Chowkidar in a temporary capacity by an order of the second respondent dated 22nd April, 1974. The post of Chowkidar at that time was a temporary post. The order of appointment further stated that 'he will be on trial for a period of two years from the date of his appointment which may be extended at the discretion of the appointing authority'. Though a notice of termination of service by giving one month's notice was given on 23rd August, 1974, obviously on the basis of Rule 5 of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965,. hereinafter called the Rules, by a subsequent notice, dated 24th September, 1974, the competent authority withdrew the notice of termination of service and the petitioner was permitted to continue as usual. Subsequently, by the impugned order dated 25th March, 1977, the petitioner's services were terminated under Sub-rule (1) of Rule 5 of the Rules. The impugned order reads as follows:In purs...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›