Chennai Court December 1981 Judgments
Karuppana thevar Vs. S.R. Karuppiah thevar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-18-1981
Reported in: (1982)1MLJ345
ORDERV. Sethuraman, J.1. The petitioner is the decree-holder. lie filed an execution petition for realisation of the amount due under the decree in A.S. No. 250 of 1978. The decree was as against two persons, who are brothers. In the course of the execution proceedings, they claimed that they were entitled to the benefit of the Tamil Nadu Act, XIII of 1980.2. The petitioner contended before the Court below that the two brothers were having 1.53 acres of nanja lands with irrigation facilities from a tank and also from a, well on the land itself. The income from the land was, stated to be Rs. 7,000. They were also said to be otherwise earning a sum of Rs. 3,000. Thus the total income of both, the brothers was stated to be Rs. 10,000. The Karnam of the village was examined for the purpose of showing that the family had a substantial income from the land. He confirmed that the income from the land was Rs. 7,000.3. The Court below, after considering the evidence came to the conclusion that ...
Tag this Judgment!Muthuswami Udayar Vs. Saminatha Udayar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-18-1981
Reported in: (1982)2MLJ132
ORDERS. Swamikkannu, J.1. This is a petition filed by the plaintiff (decree-holder) against the order passed in E.P. No. 170 of 1979 in O.S. No. 444 of 1959 on the file of the Court of the District Munsif of Ariyalur, dated 29th August, 1979. The learned District Munsif dismissed the execution petition which was filed under Order 21, Rules 11, 54 and 66 of the Code of Civil Procedure for execution of the decree by attachment and sale of the immovables of the first judgment-debtor for the realisation of past and future mesne profits. The judgment in the second appeal Natesa Udayar v. Muthuswami Udayar Swamintha Udayar S.A. No. 1772 of 1962, on the file of the High Court, Madras, was passed on 14th September, 1966. The certified copy of the decree in the second appeal also bore the date 14th September, 1966, on top of the decree in the preamble portion. However, the date as against the designation of the officer of the High Court, viz., the Deputy Registrar, Appellate Side, who signed th...
Tag this Judgment!K. Ganapathia Pillai Vs. Maheswaran Pillai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-18-1981
Reported in: (1982)2MLJ151
S. Mohan, J.1. The plaintiff is the appellant in this second appeal which arises out of a suit for redemption filed by him as O.S. No. 688 of 1970 on the file of the District Munsif of Kuzhithurai. The averments in the plaint are as under:2. The suit property originally belonged to Kosseri Manakkal Madam. It partitioned the same in 1953 and it was allotted to Nara-yana Namboodiri and Sankaran Namboodiri. A sale deed was executed in favour of the plaintiff on 22nd December, 1968 under Exhibit A-3. Thus the plaintiff became the owner of the property. The ancestors of the plaintiffs vendor Sankaran Namboodiri demised the suit it property in favour of Nagabharanam Raman and others of Marukathala Veedu of Arashkulam Desam on 10-5-1091 (M.E.), for 1,155 fanams under Exhibit A-1. The document is described as kanam, but the tenure of the plaint schedule property is Sripandaravaka. Even though Exhibit A-1 is described as kanam, it has to be construed as a mortgage deed and the demisees are only...
Tag this Judgment!Manicka Mudaliar Vs. Shanmugasundara Mudaliar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-18-1981
Reported in: (1982)2MLJ301
ORDERS. Swamikkannu, J.1. This is a civil revision petition against the order in E.P. No. 583 of 1979 in O.S. No. 1252 of 1970 on the file of the District Munsif of Ariyalur, wherein documents only have been filed, but no oral evidence has been let in with respect to those documents and on the contents of the same the lower Court had come to a conclusion. The documents, when they are inducted in a suit by way of proof, it is the elementary principle, which is known to each citizen in this country, that the same have to be proved in accord with the Indian Evidence Act so that the contents of the said documents can be taken as evidence. By merely marking the documents by consent, the Court is not obliged to look into the contents, unless those documents are formally proved in accordance with the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act. The Indian Evidence Act contemplates only certain documents that can be taken judicial notice of and when they are enumerated, apart from the said documents...
Tag this Judgment!A. Pushpanathan and anr. Vs. Sree Devi Financiers
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-18-1981
Reported in: (1982)2MLJ332
ORDERP.R. Gokulakrishnan, O.C.J.1. The revision petition is against the order passed in E.P. No. 168 of 1980 in O.S. No. 438 of 1979 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge at Karur, directing the arrest of the second respondent, therein, who is the petitioner herein. The petitioner, it is stated, has pleaded in the Court below that he is a small farmer entitled to the benefits of Tamil Nadu Act XIII of 1980 and that he is not liable to pay the decree amount. The executing Court negatived both the contentions and ordered arrest of the petitioner.2. It is clear from the order of the executing Court that there is absolutely no discussion as regards the applicability of the Tamil Nadu Act XIII of 1980 to the judgment-debtor in spite of the fact that sufficient evidence has been let in to find out whether the judgment-debtor is entitled to the protection sought for under the Tamil Nadu Act XIII of 1980. Further under Section 51 proviso, Clause (b) of the Code of Civil Procedure, ...
Tag this Judgment!P.R. Panduranga Chettiar Vs. Ezumalai and Kannan Alias Anna Stores Rep ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-17-1981
Reported in: (1982)1MLJ333
ORDERR. Sengottuvelan, J.1. This revision petition is filed against the order of the District Munsif, Vellore, passed in G. No. 20832, dated 12th November 1979, filed by the decree-holder seeking to implead the legal representatives of the judgment-debtor (2nd defendant) who died pending the execution of the decree. It seems the decree had been transferred from the District Munsif Court, Vellore to the District Munsif Court. Arni and it has to be noted that this is 12 years application. On the death of the second defendant, the decree-holder filed an application for impleading the legal representatives before the District Munsif Court, Arni in O.E.A. No. 22 of 1979 in O.E.P. No. 525 of 1973. The learned District Munsif, Arni, seems to have passed an order stating that the Court, which passed the decree, could alone implead the legal representatives and dismissed the said application. Consequent on the said order, the decree-holder filed an application before the District Munsif, Vellor...
Tag this Judgment!Kannu Konar Vs. the Revenue Divisional Officer and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-16-1981
Reported in: (1982)2MLJ230
ORDERT. Sathiadev, J.1. Petitioner claims that third respondent had borrowed a sum of Rs. 1,500 on 20th March, 1971, and executed a registered mortgage deed in his favour hypothecating the properties situate in Pavithram Village, Thiruvannamalai Taluk. Again on 2nd February, 1975, the third respondent borrowed a sum of Rs. 700 and executed a promissory note. Thus, in all a sum of Rs. 2,200 having been borrowed under the aforesaid two transactions and when third respondent had not paid any amounts in discharge of the debts, he the third respondent filed application F.D.R. No. 3 of 1978 before the second respondent claiming relief under Tamil Nadu Act XXXI of 1976 for wiping off the entire debt on the ground that he is a small farmer. A counter-statement was filed by the petitioner and in spite of the petitioner claiming that third respondent was raising wet crops and there is a well situate in the lands and the net annual income from the lands will be not less than Rs. 4,000 per year, s...
Tag this Judgment!J.K.K. Natarajah and ors. Vs. Wealth-tax Officer, Central Circle-vii, ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-15-1981
Reported in: [1983]142ITR804(Mad)
Balasubrahmanyan, J.1. These writ petitions are conveniently dealt with by a common order, for, they all raise an identical question concerning the application to the writ petitioners of certain provision of the W.T. Act, 1957. 2. As many as seven individuals have filed these writ petitions. Each of them is a partner in as many as four partnership firms. The firms are engaged in the production of yarn with the aid of machinery. The petitioners are wealth-tax assessees. Then writ petitions concern their assessments to wealth-tax for the assessment years 1965-66 to 1974-75. Under the scheme of the W.T. Act, the tax is levied on an individual's net wealth. 'Net Wealth' means the value of the surplus of the assets over the debts of the assessee. All assets will have to come into the computation, excepting those that are expressly exempted by the statue. Under the statutory definition of assets, a partner's partnership interest, as such, would also come into the reckoning as an asset, consi...
Tag this Judgment!Tamil Nadu Trading Company Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-15-1981
Reported in: [1983]52STC7(Mad)
Padmanabhan, J. 1. The assessee, M/s. Tamil Nadu Trading Co., Korangumudi, purchased 400 acres of land from M/s. Co-operative Tea Society Ltd., Iyerpadi. They cut and sold the trees standing on the land. The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Valparai, determined the taxable turnover of the assessee for the year 1973-74 at Rs. 25,12,043.61 being the sale proceeds of timber and fuel sold. The assessee contended that the land had been purchased by it for the purpose of raising coffee plantation. For planting coffee it had to clear the forest trees of spontaneous growth. Consequently, the sale of trees of spontaneous growth effected by the assessee would not be exigible to sales tax and the assessee could effected by the assessee would not be exigible to sales tax and the assessee could not be considered a dealer in timber. This contention was rejected by the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer. The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer found that the assessee had not carried on any plantation activity at ...
Tag this Judgment!K.C. Maran and anr. Vs. M. Jayaramaiah and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-14-1981
Reported in: AIR1982Mad335; (1982)1MLJ336
ORDER1. Both these revisions raise an important question of law as to the meaning of S. 68F (I-D) together with its proviso of the Motor Vehicles Act The respondent who is common in both these revisions namely Jayaramiah, the second respondent is C.R.P. 35M of 1961 and the first respondent m C-R.P. 3743 of 198L applied for the grant of the counter-signature, of his permit on the inter-State route Bangalore to Dharmapuri viz. Bennargetta, Jigani, Anekal, Poonampalli, Border, Mathigore, Kelamangalam, Royakottah and Palacode in respect of the stage carriage MYA 400. A portion of this route lies, within the territory of Tamil Nadu State. This route is not covered by any reciprocal agreement and the primary permit was unilaterally granted to the Karnataka authority. The State Transport Authority held that as much as 93 kms of the route which is well over two-thirds of the total distance lies in the State of Tamil Nadu and further in view of the fact that there are a large number of direct b...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »