Chennai Court February 1982 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.
K.V.S.R. Subramanian Chettiar Vs. Revenue Divisional Officer, Arantang ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-02-1982
Reported in: AIR1983Mad26
1. The petitioner herein had advanced a sum of Rs.5,000/- to the third respondent herein on mortgage of his property on 14-12-1964. In enforcement of that mortgage the petitioner herein filed a suit O. S. No. 86 of 1979 on the file of the Court of the District Munsif, Arantangi, for half the amount, as per the Tamil Nadu Act, 40 of 1978, and another suit O.S. No. 128 of 1981 for the balance of the amount on the file of the same District Munsif's Court, against the third respondent, and those two suits are said to be pending.2. In the meanwhile, the debtor, the third respondent, filed an application before the Special Tahsildar (Debt Relief), Arantangi, under Sec. 6 of the Tamil Nadu Debt Relief Act, 1980, (hereinafter referred to as the Act), claiming benefits under the Act and seeking a certificate of redemption of the mortgage in question. The second respondent, the Special Tahsildar, held that the debtor owned properties worth only about Rs.23,500/-, only and that his annual househo...
Pushpavalli Ammal Vs. Revenue Divisional Officer, Nagapattinam and ors ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-02-1982
Reported in: AIR1983Mad215; (1983)1MLJ251
Ramanujam, J.1. The petitioner herein filed an application under Section 6(1) of the Tamil Nadu Act 13 of 1880 hereinafter referred to as the 1880 ACt, before the second respondent claiming benefits under the 1980 Act, and seeking a certificate of redemption in respect of a mortgage debt of Rs. 2200 which she had borrowed from the third respondent herein, on a mortgage of her property. In those proceedings the creditor remained ex parte and the second respondent , Tahsildar, treating the application as one filed under the Tamil Nadu Act 21 of 1976, hereinafter referred to as the 1976 Act, dismissed the same on the ground that the loan was obtained on 19-3-1972, that the petitioner was a small farmer and that as such she was not entitled to any benefits under the 1980 Act. The matter was taken up in appeal to the first respondent by the petitioner. The first respondent took the view that as the mortgage loan was obtained for the purchase of three certain other lands, the loan amount sho...
K.V.S.P. Subramanian Chettiar Vs. the Revenne Divisional Officer and o ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-02-1982
Reported in: (1982)2MLJ375
G. Ramanujam, J.1. The petitioner herein had advanced a sum of Rs. 5,000 to the third respondent herein on mortgage of his property on 14th December, 1964. In enforcement of that mortgage the petitioner herein filed a suit O.S. No. 86 of 1979 on the file of. the Court of the District Munsif, Arantangi, for half the amount, as per the Tamil Nadu Act XL of 1978, and another suit O.S. No. 128 of 1981 for the balance of the amount on the file of the same District Munsif's Court, against the third respondent, and those two suits are said to be pending.2. In the meanwhile, the debtor, the third respondent, filed an application before the Special Tahsildar (Debt Relief), Arantangi, under Section 6 of the Tamil Nadu Debt Relief Act, 1980, hereinafter referred to as the Act, claiming benefits under the Act and granting a certificate of redemption of the mortgage in question. The second respondent, the Special Tahsildar, held that the debtor owned properties worth only about Rs. 23,500, and that...
V.N. Chandravadivelu Chetty Vs. Secretary to Government, Revenue Depar ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-01-1982
Reported in: AIR1983Mad104; (1983)1MLJ50
ORDER1. This writ petition coming on for hearing on this day upon perusing the petition and the affidavit filed in support thereof the order of the High Court, dated 29-5-1981 and made herein and affidavit filed herein and the records of the respondent relating to the order in proceedings No. N. K. 7/81 May 81 pending before the second respondent filed by the 3rd respondent against the petitioner comprised in the return of the respondents to the writ made by the High Court, and upon hearing the arguments of Mr. A. Subrahmanya Iyer, Advocate for the petitioner and of Mr. S. Jagadeesan for Government Pleader on behalf of the respondents 1 and 2 and the 3rd respondent not appearing in person or by advocate, the Court made the following order :The petitioner herein advanced a sum of Rs. 3000/- to the 3rd respondent on a mortgage of his property. In respect of that debt, the 3rd respondent filed an application before the Special Tahsildar (Debt Relief) Chengalpattu, claiming the benefits un...
Sundarambal Achi Vs. the Appellate Authority and
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-01-1982
Reported in: AIR1983Mad278; (1983)1MLJ346
1. The petitioner herein is a creditor and the second respondent herein is a debtor who has borrowed a sum of Rs.1,200 from the former on a pro note. After the coming into force of the Tamil Nadu Debt Relief Act (13 of 1980) the second respondent filed an application before the Special Tahisildar (Debt Relief) Kumbakonam for a certificate of discharge of the said loan on the ground that the second respondent was not a debtor as defined in the Act as he was holding immovable property other than cultivable lands to the value of Rs,38,000. On appeal by the bet or the second respondent therein the appellate authority held that the second respondent is entitled to the benefits of that Act as he has not been shown to posses immovable property worth more than Rupees 25,000 and that the certificate given by the Tahisldar, Thiruvidaimarudur, stating that the certificate given by the Tahsildar. Thiruvandaimarudur stating that the debtor owns properties worth about Rs. 38,000 cannot be accepted o...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›