Chennai Court October 1987 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.
Thimiae Gowder Vs. K. R. Kannappan and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-20-1987
Reported in: AIR1988Mad320
ORDER1. This civil revision petition under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India, has been preferred against the judgment of the Election Tribunal (District Munsif) Coimbatore, in O.P. 8 of 1986. The petitioner. the first respondent and six other persons contested the election to the office of President of Kemmarampalayam Village Panchayat, which was held on 23-2-1986. Out of a total of 2277 votes polled, the petitioner secured 690 votes, while, the first respondent in this civil revision petition obtained 521 votes. On the basis of the votes so secured by the petitioner and the first respondent, the petitioner was declared elected. The first .respondent in this civil revision petition challenged the election of the petitioner as the Preside-it of Kernmarampalayarn village Panchayat, on the ground that the petitioner had incurred a statutory disqualification for purposes of contesting the elections. According to the first respondent. the nomination papers were filed on 10-2-1986 by the...
M. Periasamy Vs. C.S. Govindasamy and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-20-1987
Reported in: (1988)2MLJ109
ORDERK.M. Natajaran, J.1. This revision is directed against the order passed by the appellate authority refusing to implead the revision petitioner who is an allottee. C.M.P. Nos. 14238 and 14239 of 1987 were filed by the persons to whom the building in question was subsequently allotted, for impleading them as parties in the revision.2. The facts which are necessary for the disposal of the revision-petition are briefly as follows: The revision petitioner was allotted the petition mentioned premises by the Accommodation Controller, Madras. Fair Rent for the building was originally fixed by the Rent Controller at Rs. 350 per mensem on the application filed by the first respondent landlord. When the matter was taken to the High Court, Madras in C.R.P. No. 1280 of 1979, it was set aside and the same was remanded back to the Rent Controller for fresh disposal. Thereafter after due enquiry, the Rent Controller re-fixed the fair rent at Rs. 633 per mensem. The Accommodation Controller prefer...
Thirumalayappan (Minor) Represented by Guardian Mother Sivagnana Vadiv ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-20-1987
Reported in: (1989)1MLJ33
ORDERRatnam, J.1. The land-holder is the petitioner in this Civil Revision Petition, which is directed against the order of the authorities below holding that the amount payable to the petitioner in respect of the surplus lands taken over should be in accordance with the provisions of Tamil Nadu Act 11 of 1979 and not with reference to the provisions of the Land Reforms Act (58 of 1961) as unamended (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). There is no dispute that according to the draft assessment roll, the amount payable to the petitioner towards the surplus lands taken over was fixed at Rs. 1,802 and this was published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette on 22.8.1979. A copy of the draft assessment roll was also served on the land holder on 12.9.1979. The petitioner raised an objection that the final statement under Section 12 of the Act was published on 12.2.19/76 long prior to 27.10.1978 when Tamil Nadu Act II of 1979 came into force and therefore, the amount payable in respect of ...
Ramachandra Iyer Vs. Vadivelu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-16-1987
Reported in: AIR1989Mad75; (1987)IIMLJ256
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. 86 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. 7800 on 30-10-1972, and executed the suit first promissory note agreeing to repay the said sum with interest at 12 per cent per annum. He paid on several occasions in all Rs. 2614, and the balance is due. The first defendant again borrowed Rs. 2000 from the plaintiff on 19-9-1974, and executed the suit second promissory note promising to repay the same with interest at 12 per cent 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 ...
Thangavelu Udayar Vs. Paramasivam and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-16-1987
Reported in: (1988)1MLJ398
Srinivasan, J.1. The 1st defendant in the suit is challenging the correctness of the decree for partition and separate possession of one-half share passed by the trial Court, and confirmed by the lower appellate Court.2. The plaintiff is the son of one Vadivelu Udayar by his second wife Pattu Ammal. The 1st defendant is the son of the Vadivelu Udayar by his first wife Thangammal. Vadivelu Udayar's mother-in-law Meenakshi Ammal executed a gift deed on 3.6.1937 marked as Ex. A-3 by which, she gave the suit properties to Thangavelu Udayar, who was a minor at that time, and Vadivelu Udayar. She handed over possession of the properties to them to be enjoyed by them absolutely. The gift deed proceeds to state that in the event of Vadivelu Udayar marrying for a second time and begetting male issues, such issues would take the properties along with Thangavelu Udayar absolutely and enjoy the same. It is the case of the plaintiff that the gift deed was executed just prior to the marriage of Patt...
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Parvathy Ammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-15-1987
Reported in: 2(1988)ACC494
Swamikkannu, J.1. The appeal is preferred by the New India Assurance Company Limited (the Second respondent before the Tribunal) against the Award of the Tribunal dated 26-4-1982, passed in M.C.O.P. No. 108 of 1978, on a petition by respondents 1 to 5 herein as claimants for compensation for the accident that took place at 6-30 a.m. on 23 4-1976 on Tuticorin Palayamottah road, 3 kilometres west of Vagaikulam, finding that the claimants (respondents 1 to 5 herein) are entitled to a compensation of Rs. 30,000/-which is payable by respondents 2 and 3 before the Tribunal (the appellant and the 7th respondent herein). The compensation was apportioned as among the claimants (respondents 1 to 5) at the rate of Rs. 6,000/-each as desired by them in their petition, with proportionate interest payable to each of them. The amounts due to the minors (respondents 3 to 5) were directed to be deposited in a Scheduled Bank till they attained majority. The Tribunal dismissed the claim as against the fi...
Murugaiya Konar and ors. Vs. Daniel Nursing Home, Rep. by Its Trustee ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-14-1987
Reported in: (1988)1MLJ121
ORDERNainar Sundaram, J.1. The petitioners in these six. revisions are tenants within the meaning of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 18 of 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act').2. The respondent is their landlord within the meaning of the Act. The landlord obtained orders of eviction Ex Parte against the tenants. The tenants filed applications to set aside the Ex Parte orders, The landlord filed applications under Section 11 of the Act, calling upon the tenants to deposit the rents. The Controller allowed these applications and at the same time dismissed the application filed by the tenants to set aside the Ex Parte orders of eviction. The tenants preferred appeals as against these orders and the Appellate Authority has dismissed the appeals. These revisions are directed against the orders of the Appellate Authority.3. Mr. G. Devadoss, learned Counsel for the tenants-petitioners, herein, would submit that the invocation of Section 11 of the Act by the landl...
Pavayammal Vs. Devanna Goundar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-14-1987
Reported in: (1988)2MLJ162
Mohan, J.1. The appeal arises out of O.S.No. 1217 of 1980 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge of Salem, in which the respondent herein prayed for partition of his one half share in the suit schedule properties and allotment of one such share to him with possession. The case of the plaintiff-respondent was as follows:By a sale deed dated 13.3.1964 the plaint A Schedule property came to be purchased jointly in the names of the plaintiff and the defendant from one Narasiammal and others. Similarly, on 7.3.1966 the plaintiff and the defendant jointly purchased the B schedule property from one Sathan Bibi Ammal. From the date of those purchase the plaintiff and the defendant are being in enjoyment of the properties. However, for the sake of convenience, they are separately enjoying portions of the properties by separate cultivation without any division by metes and bounds. By the joint efforts of both parties the house in the A schedule land was constructed seven years ago at a cos...
Parvathy Vs. N. Arumugham
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-13-1987
Reported in: (1988)1MLJ92
ORDERK.M. Natarajan, J.1. This revision is directed against the order passed by the learned 18th Asst. Judge, City Civil Court, Madras, dismissing the petition I.A. No. 2493/87 filed by the revision-petitioner under Section 12(2) of the Tamil Nadu Court-fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The revision-petitioner is the second defendant in the suit filed by the respondent-plaintiff. The revision petitioner filed the petition I.A. N0. 2493/87 before the Court below alleging that the respondent-plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of possession on ground that he is the tenant in respect of the suit property, that the first defendant asked him to vacate under the guise of carrying out certain repairs, that accordingly possession was delivered and that though he agreed to give possession, he did not do so after repairs. The second defendant (revision-petitioner) has been added on the ground that she received a notice from the sub-tenant that the secon...
P.K. Easwaran and ors. Vs. M. Kuppuswami and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-13-1987
Reported in: (1989)1MLJ390
Swamikkannu, J.1. This is an appeal preferred by defendants 4, 5, 6 and 7, Easwaran, Shanmugham, Sachithanandam and Kaliannan, against the judgment and decree dated 26th June, 1981, in O.S. No. 395 of 1980 on the file of the Court of Principal Subordinate Judge of Erode, in a suit on a promissory note, decreeing the same as prayed for with costs against all the defendants.2. The case of the plaintiff (first respondent herein) before the Court below was as follows The plaintiff the appellants herein and some others entered into a partnership deed on 12.7.74 under the name and style of Vallinayagi Financiers at Erode, which firm was registered under the Indian Partnership Act. The main business of the firm is money-lending. The plaintiff had contributed a sum of Rs. 25,000 towards the share capital. One of the partners by name M.N. Chinnaswamy Gounder, retired from the partnership on 31.3.1976, leaving the entire assets and liabilities to the other partners, who reconstituted the firm on...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »