Chennai Court November 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.
A.P. Muthu Alias Adaikappan and ors. Vs. OA.Pr.M.Ar. Adaikappa Chettia ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-19-1987
Reported in: (1987)2MLJ454
Sivasubramaniam, J.1. The unsuccessful plaintiffs in O.S. No. 58 of 1980 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Devakkottai are the appellants in A.S. No. 700 of 1981 and the fourth defendant in the said suit is the appellant in A.S. No. 707 of 1981.2. The appellants in A.S. No. 700 of 1981 as plaintiff filed the said suit for a declaration that they are entitled to 3/8ths share in the plaint A and B schedule shares and for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants 1 and 2, who are respondents 1 and 2 in both these appeals, from selling or alienating the snares without their consent and the 4th defendant and also for partition and allotment and separate possession of their 3/8ths share in the plaint mentioned properties.3. The material averments in the plaint are as follows: - The plaintiffs are the sons of the fourth defendant and the grandsons of the first defendant and the great grandsons of late Rao Bahadur O.A.P.R.M. ArunachaIam Chettiar. The plaintiffs and defendants 1 and...
T.P.T.S. and Company Vs. Sudali Ammal and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-19-1987
Reported in: 2(1988)ACC20
Swamikkannu, J.1. Both the Appeals arised out of Claim Petition No. 89 of 1981 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (II Addl. Subordinate Judge), Tirunelveli. The occurrence in this case took place due to an accident in which the bus belonging to the uppellant in A.A.O. No. 693 of 1982, got involved. The deceased victim in this case, was one Bootha-pandi Thevar, whose wife as his legal representative, has claimed compensation in this case. The case of the appellant in A.A.O. No. 693 of 1982, viz. the owner of the bus in question, is that the first information report in the criminal case, C.C. No. 272/81, launched against the driver of the bus (marked as Exhibit A-1 in this case), given by the deceased victim himself while alive, would disclose that he was having a reeling sensation and that he fell down. When such an admission was available on the part of the victim himself in the first information report given by him to the police, the Tribunal went wrong in holding that...
Srinivasagam Pillai Vs. Kuttiah and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-18-1987
Reported in: AIR1989Mad18
ORDERK.M. Natarajan, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the order of remand passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Srivilliputtur. The facts which are necessary for the disposal of this appeal are briefly stated as follows :--The appellant herein filed the suit, O.S. 354 of 1983, for the relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with his possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule properties. The plaint schedule properties consist of two items, viz., Item A and Item B. Item A is a punja land in survey No. 667/4, measuring 1-15 acres in Villupanur village bearing patta No. 369. Item B is also a punja land in survey No. 666/3 measuring 7 cents in the same village bearing the same patta number. It is the case of the plaintiff that he purchased the plaint schedule Item A under registered sale deed dated 9-4-1968 and Item B under registered sale deed dated 23-8-1969. According to the plaintiff, there is no detailed channel running along the plaint s...
Chenpaga Alias Pankajammal and ors. Vs. Thangammal (Deceased) and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-18-1987
Reported in: (1988)2MLJ208
Ratnam, J.1. Defendants 2 to 5 in O.S.No. 39 of 1977, Sub Court, Chengalpattu are the appellants in the second appeal. That suit was instituted by deceased Thangammal for a declaration of her title to the A and B Schedule properties and for recovery of possession from the appellants and others with past and future mesne profits Thangammal claimed the suit properties through her husband Kannan Iyengar. On the other hand, with reference to A schedule properties, the appellants claimed that their predecessor-in-title, one M.K. Seshadri Iyengar, purchased the A schedule properties from Kannan Iyengar himself under two documents, Exs.B-1 dated 4.5.1951 and B-2, dated 25.9.1951. Insofar as B schedule properties are concerned, the appellants pleaded that they were purchased benami in the name of Kannan Iyengar.2. On a consideration of the oral as well as the documentary evidence, the trial Court found that the A schedule properties absolutely belong to the deceased M.K. Seshadri Iyengar, thro...
Kovilpatti Steel Rolling Industries P. Ltd. Vs. Commercial Tax Officer ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-17-1987
Reported in: [1988]71STC383(Mad)
Ratnavel Pandian, J.1. These two writ appeals arise out of the common order of Nainar Sundaram, J., dated 27th March, 1981 made in Writ Petitions Nos. 1642 and 1643 of 1981 dismissing the said petitions. The learned Judge had made the following observations :'This Memorandum is not clear as to whether it relates to the arrears that are now sought to be collected. For sheer lack of clarity and precision and on the ground of ambiguity, I am not able to entertain these writ petitions. These are not cases of formal defects in the expression of prayers. Accordingly the writ petitions will stand dismissed.' 2. Apart from agreeing with the reasoning given by the learned Judge we would like to observe that as there is a revision provided under section 33 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act to the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, the appellant herein can approach the said authority by way of a revision as against the order passed by the assessing authority. In this connection, we wo...
Tamil Nadu State Housing Board, Madras Vs. Shanmugha Sundara Nadar and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-17-1987
Reported in: AIR1989Mad20; (1987)IIMLJ170
M.N. Chandurkar, C.J. 1. The main question which really arises in this appeal does not relate so much to the validity or otherwise of the land acquisition proceedings, but to the basic question with regard to the exercise of discretion under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in respect of land acquisition proceedings which were commenced by notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act), dt. 8-5-1975, which were really substantially challenged by an amendment to the original writ petition some time in the year 1986, that is, almost after eleven years.2. The notification under Section 4 of the Act relating to 42.19 acres of land belonging to the original petitioner, present respondent 1, hereinafter referred to as the petitioner, was issued on 8-5-1975. The public purpose stated in the notification was the implementation of housing schemes to meet the demand made by various sectors of the population under Kalaingar Karunanidhi Furthe...
P.M. Naina Mohammed Rowther Vs. Kapporchand Jain
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-17-1987
Reported in: (1988)1MLJ261
V. Ratnam, J.1. The plaintiff in O.S. No. 160 of 1976, District Munsif Court, Kuzhithalai, who succeeded in part before the trial Court and lost before the lower appellate Court, is the appellant in this second appeal. The appellant instituted the suit for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 3,088, comprised of a sum of Rs. 2,000 deposited by him and Rs. 1,088 towards loss of profits under the following circumstances.2. On 28.1.1976, a contract was entered into between the appellant and the respondent through the second defendant in the suit for the purchase of white jawar from the respondent at Rs. 115.50 per bag of 100 kgs. A sum of Rs. 2,000 was paid by the appellant to the respondent's deposit. On arrival of the goods in Tiruchi, the appellant was informed of the same and he ascertained the condition and quality of the jawar with some members of the Chamber of Commerce at Manaparai, when it was found that the jawar actually consigned was inferior in variety and not white jawar contracted ...
Krishnaveni Ammal Vs. Sundaralakshmi Ammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-16-1987
Reported in: AIR1988Mad352; (1988)IIMLJ290; 100LW1188
1. This second appeal at the instance of the defendant in O.S. 366 of 1977, District Munsif Court, Thanjavur, has been entertained on the following question of, Law -'Whether the jural relationship of landlord and tenant covered by the lease deed dated 9-7-1936 had lapsed on 29-7-1961, is not the suit instituted in 1977 barred by limitation by virtue of Art. 67 of the Limitation Act 1963?'2. The suit in O.S. 366 of 1977 was instituted by the respondents herein for a declaration of their title to the suit property and for recovery of possession and a sum of Rs. 300 by way of damages for use and occupation from the appellant. The suit property is a house situate in S. No. 19 in Melaveli Reddipalayarn village, Tharijavur taluk. According to the case of the respondents, the suit property originally belonged to Ramalinga Reddiar, deceased husband of the first respondent ancestrally and he had been in possession and enjoyment of the suit property till his death on 30-111975, and, thereafter,...
V.S.S. Velayudam Vs. K. Palanichamy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-16-1987
Reported in: (1988)2MLJ113
ORDERSivasubramaniam, J.1. The unsuccessful tenant in R.C.O.P. 14 of 1983 on the file of the Rent Controller (District Munsif) Palani and in the appeal in C.M.A. 15 of 1984 on the file of the appellate authority (Subor-dinate Judge), Dindigul, is the petitioner in this revision petition. The respondent is the landlord.2. The respondent-landlord filed the petition in R.C.O.P. No. 4 of 1983 for the eviction of the petitioner, on the ground of wilful default in payment of rent and on the ground that he requires the building for his own personal occupation. He contended that the petitioner is a tenant from 21.11.1974 paying a rent at the rate of Rs. 75 per month and the tenant paid an advance of Rs. 5,000. The tenant was not regularly paying the rent, and therefore issued notice on 24.12.1980 through his advocate demanding the arrears of rent and to vacate the premises. Thereafter, the tenant paid a sum of Rs. 600 through his advocate on 11.1.1981. He did not pay the subsequent rent, he pa...
Nainar Mohammad Rowther and anr. Vs. Minor Vijayasankar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-16-1987
Reported in: (1988)1MLJ407
Srinivasan, J.1. This second appeal arises out of a suit for redemption of a usufructuary mortgage executed by one Easanapothi for himself and as guardian of his minor sons in favour of the 1st defendant and his brother Khader Mohideen Rowther on 18.6.1971 under Ex.A-3 for a sum of Rs. 5,000. It is admitted that Khader Mohideen Rowther had assigned his share to the 1st defendant by a document dated 14.6.1974 marked as Ex.A-4. The plaintiffs are claiming under two sale deeds dated 3.12.1975 marked as Exs.A-1 and A-2 obtained from Easanapothi for himself and as guardian of his minor sons. Easanapothi got a life interest in the property in a partition deed in the family, dated 6.4.1960, and the vested remainder was with his minor sons.2. The main defence raised in the written statement filed by the 1st defendant which was adopted by the 2nd defendant was that the sale deeds in favour of the plaintiffs were not valid as they were not for the benefit of the minors or the necessity of the fa...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »