Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1987)2MLJ256
S.A. Kader, J.1. The appeal is against the judgment and decree of the court of the Subordinate Judge of Tiruvannamalai in O.S. No. 85 of 1979. The first defendant is the appellant.2. This is a suit on two promissory notes. The case of the plaintiff is that the first defendant, who is the father of the second defendant, borrowed from the plaintiff Rs. 7,800/- on 30.10.1972 and executed the suit first promissory note agreeing to repay the said sum with interest at 12% per annum. He paid on several occasions in all Rs. 2,614/- and the balance is due. The first defendant again borrowed Rs. 2,000/- from the plaintiff on 19.9.1974 and executed the suit second promissory note promising to repay the same with interest at 12% per annum. He has paid Rs. 440/- in, all towards this promissory note and the balance is due. In view of the Debt Relief Acts and moratorium laws, the suit is not barred. As the defendants 1 and 2 constituted a joint Hindu family, the second defendant is also liable to pay...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1988)1MLJ313
David Annoussamy, J.1. The second appeal turns on the following question of law:In view of the Amendment Act 2 of 1980 and its applicability to tenancies created before 3.3.1980, would not the appellant be entitled to the advantage conferred by the Act?The case of the appellant is that the suit property is within the limits of the municipal town of Nagapattinam, that as per the Madras City Tenants Protection Amendment Act 19 of 1955, the Act could be extended to any municipal town with effect from such date as has been specified in the notification, that a notification was issued as per G.O. Ms. No. 4243 extending the Act to the Nagapattinam municipal town with effect from 20.11.1956, that the Madras City Tenants Protection Amendment Act, 1979 applies also to any municipal town from such date as may be specified in the notification, that there was no subsequent notification cancelling the earlier notification, that the Act continues to apply without interruption to the Nagapattinam mun...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1988)2MLJ11
Bellie, J.1. The defendant Kannammal is the appellant in this second appeal. The suit relates to 1.35 acres of land in Amur Village (1.10 acres in S. No. 143/5 and Order 25 acres in S. No. 143/6 aggregating to 1.35 acres). The suit is filed for declaration of title and injunction. The suit land originally belonged to one Lakshmana Naidu. He executed a simple mortgage of the land in favour of one Chinna Munusamy on 12.6.1930. In discharge of that mortgage the mortgagor executed a sale deed in favour of the mortgagee's son by name Rajagopala Chetty on 1.5.1937. This Rajagopala Chetty is the father of the plaintiffs 1, 3 and 6. (Originally the suit was filed by the first plaintiff first son of Rajagopala Chetty and the second plaintiff the lessee of the land, but subsequently second son of Rajagopala Chetty, wife of Rajagopala Chetty and his two daughters were impleaded respectively as plaintiffs 3 to 6). It is the case of the plaintiffs that since the date of sale in favour of Rajagopala...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1988)1MLJ165
ORDERSivasubramaniam, J.1. The unsuccessful tenants in R.C.A. 225 of 1984, on the file of the appellate authority (III Judge, Court of Small Causes, Madras) are the petitioners in this revision petition. The respondents are the landlords.2. The respondents-landlords filed the eviction petition in R.C.O.P. 2621 of 1982 before the learned Rent Controller, (II Judge, Court of Small Causes) Madras, seeking eviction of the tenants on the ground of wilful default, sub-letting and the requirement for their own use by way of additional accommodation. According to the landlords, they purchased the petition premises under Ex. P-1 on 9th March, 1981 and the fact of purchase was intimated to the original tenant orally. It is claimed by them that the tenant has committed wilful default in the payment of rent from November, 1981 to January, 1982, and that he has also sublet the petition premises to respondents 2 to 6 in the eviction petition. The landlords also claimed possession on the ground that ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1988)2MLJ186
ORDERS. Mohan, J.1. The first defendant is the appellant before us in this appeal, which arises out of O.S.No. 9477 of 1978 on the file of the VI Additional Judge, City Civil, Madras. The short facts are as follows: The said suit laid for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 40,565.91 P. on the following allegations as stated in the plaint: The second plaintiff, Messrs. Seshasayee Paper and Boards Ltd., is a customer of the first plaintiff, the United Commercial Bank, Madras Main Office. The second plaintiff issued a cheque bearing No. 029775 on 20.11.1975 for a sum of Rs. 25,636 in favour of Messrs. I.C.I. (India) Private Limited, Bombay. It appears the cheque was intercepted by the second defendant, I.C. Pal Industries. The same was presented to the first defendant Bank (the appellant herein) for collection after altering the name from I.C.I. (India) Limited to I.C. Pal Industries. There was an alteration in relation to the date as well from 20.11.1975 to 28.11.1975. The first defendant made...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1988)1MLJ153
S.A. Kader, J.1. The appeal is against the judgment and decree of the 7th Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras, in O.S. No. 6220 of 1969. The defendants 2 to 7 are the appellants.2. This is a suit for partition and separate possession of the plaintiff's half share in the suit property, which is house bearing door No. 36, Ramakrishna Street, Madras, and for accounts. The plaintiff is the sister of the first defendant, since dead. The defendants 2 to 7 are the heirs and legal representatives of the deceased first defendant. The plaintiff and the first defendant had another sister by name Padmavathi. The plaint schedule property originally belonged to one Murugesa Mudaliar, the maternal uncle of the plaintiff and the first defendant, as his self-acquired property, having been purchased by him with his own funds by a deed of sale dated 22.6.1933. His only son Mohanasundaram predeceased his father on 17.5.1930 issueless leaving behind him his widow Padmavathiammal, the sister of the pl...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1988)1MLJ196
K.M. Natarajan, J.1. This appeal is directed by defendants 1, 2, 4 to 6 and 8 to 10 in O.S. No. 49 of 1982 on the file of the Sub-Court, Pattukottai (Respondents in the same order in A.S. No. 170 of 1984 on the file of the District Court, West Thanjavur) against the order of remand passed by the lower appellate Court.2. Respondents 1 and 2 herein, who are appellants-Plaintiffs in A.S. No. 170 of 1984, filed the suit for the reliefs of declaration and injunction. The case of the plaintiffs as set out before the trial Court can be briefly stated as follows:3. The suit properties consist of our items and they originally belonged to one Ramasamy Thevar. He is alleged to have executed three settlement deeds Exs. A3, A4 and A5 and a sale deed Ex. A6 in favour of the fourth defendant, Seethalakshmi, Alamelumangai and the sixth defendant respectively. The sixth defendant is a close friend of Ramasami Thevar. The ninth defendant is alleged to be in possession of some of the properties through t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1988)2MLJ115
ORDERSivasubramaniam, J.1. These three revision petitions have been filed against the common judgment in R.C.A. Nos. 42 of 1984, 43 of 1984 and 44 of 1984, on the file of the Appellate Authority, Court of Small Causes at Madras.2. The revision petitioner in all these revision petitions is a firm, which is a tenant in occupation of three portions in the suit premises, bearing door No. 260, Waltax Road, Madras-3, belonging to the respondent herein. The respondent landlord filed petitions in R.C.O.P. Nos. 3305 of 1982, 3306 of 1982 and 3307 of 1982, on the file of the Rent Controller, Madras for eviction for the respondent firm on the ground that he required the premises for personal occupation. The respondent firm resisted the applications on various grounds. On consideration of the evidence adduced by the parties, the learned Rent Controller passed orders against the tenant. As against the said order the respondent firm preferred these appeals in R.C.A. Nos. 42 of 1984, 43 of 1984 and 4...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : [1990]181ITR517(Mad)
Srinivasan, J. 1. These matters are covered by the decision in Addl. CIT v. Bimetal Bearings Ltd. : [1977]110ITR131(Mad) , against the Revenue. Hence, these petitions are rejected with costs. Counsel's fee Rs. 250 one set. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1988)2MLJ385
ORDERM.N. Chandurkar, C.J.1. This civil revision petition filed by the tenant is directed against the concurrent finding of both the Courts below that the tenant has committed wilful default in the payment of rent for the period from July, 1979 till the institution of the proceedings for eviction against him. Though initially the petition for eviction was filed on several grounds, we are only concerned with the case with the ground of wilful default.2. The cases of the tenant was that for the premises in the occupation of the tenant which were originally let out by the original owner at the rate of Rs. 40 per month, the rent came to be increased to Rs. 80 per month in 1974 from Rs. 50 per month which was the rent paid in 1966. The application for eviction was filed some time in 1980 and the allegation was that for a period of one year, the tenant had not paid rent. The tenant's case was that the rent payable was only Rs. 40 per month and he has paid the rent without any default. He cla...
Tag this Judgment!