Chennai Court February 1987 Judgments
PravIn Kumar Vs. P. Rajeswaran and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-27-1987
Reported in: AIR1988Mad132; (1987)IIMLJ481
1. In these second appeals by defendants 1, 4, 5, and 6, the questions which arise for consideration relate to the genuineness and validity of two wills marked as Exs. A-3 and A-2, the former executed by one Jimmarammal, the mother of plaintiff and defendants I to 6 and th6 later executed by her paramour Prakasam Pillai, the father of plaintiff and defendants 1 to 6, Jimmarammal was admittedly the owner of the suit property. She died on 16-12-1971. It is stated that she left a will dated 27-11-197 1, the genuineness of which was challenged by the defendants in the courts 'below. Under the said will, Jimmarammal granted power to Prakasam Pillai, whom she described as her*' .............. in other words as the paramour*. The relevant portion of the will granting power to the said Prakasam Pillai reads as follows :-*(Matter in vernacular omitted)2. Prakasam Pillai executed a will dated 4-4-1977 the truth of which was under challenge before the Courtsb6low. Under the said will, he gave sui...
Tag this Judgment!B. Paras Devi Vs. Vijaya Auto Parts, Rep. by Its Prop. M. Gulapchand
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-27-1987
Reported in: (1987)1MLJ482
ORDERPadmini Jesudurai, J.1. The above civil revision petition by the landlord is directed against the order of the VII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Madras (Appellate Authority) in R.C.A. No. 547 of 1985, reversing the order of eviction passed by the IX Judge, Court of Small Causes, Madras (Rent Controller) in R.C.O.P. No. 3714 of 1983 under Section 14(1)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 18 of I960 hereinafter referred to as the Act.2. The facts giving rise to the present revision are as follows: - The proceedings relate to four shops situate in door No. 99, Waltax Road, Park town, Madras. The petitioner as landlady filed the application under Section 14(1)(b) of the Act, against the respondent and three other tenants, each of whom was occupying one shop in the above door Number. Eviction was sought on the ground that the building was more than 70 years old and had developed cracks in many places and the walls were in a dangerous condition. The structure was...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Mahadevi Vs. Goutham Chand Jain
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-20-1987
Reported in: (1987)2MLJ197
M.N. Chandurkar, C.J.1. This is a revision petition by the landlady challenging the orders of the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority rejecting her claim for eviction of the respondent who is a tenant of the premises in question at Rs. 80 per month.2. The premises in question are shop premises. The landlady became the owner of the shop in question as a result of a settlement made by her mother with effect from 10.1.1977. She filed a petition for eviction expressly stating that her husband was having a hair dressing saloon in a rented shop for which he was paying a rent of Rs. 175 per month, and she required the premises for the purpose of setting up of her husband's business in her own place and, therefore, for her own use and occupation. According to her, she did not possess any other building of her own within the City of Madras. By way of abundant caution, she also pleaded in her petition that she was residing in a hut in the same premises which bore the same Corporation doo...
Tag this Judgment!The Commissioner for Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Vs. G. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-18-1987
Reported in: (1987)2MLJ403
S. Swamikkannu, J.1. This is an appeal preferred by the sixth defendant - Commissioner for Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments, Madras, against the judgment ' and decree dated 12-11-1975 in O.S.No. 309 of 1973 on the file of the Court of the learned Subordinate Judge, Dindigul, decreeing the suit, as prayed for with costs, filed by the first respondent herein - Shri. S. Krishnaswami Swamigal, claiming himself to be the Hereditary Trustee, for cancellation of the order of the appellant herein passed in A.P. No. 35 of 1973 in which it was held that the suit institution is a 'public temple' and not a private Samadhi as claimed by the first respondent herein, for declaration that this institution is a private Samadhi with the first respondent herein as its head and hereditary trustee, for a permanent injunction restraining the appellant herein and respondents 2 to 6 herein from interfering with the first respondent's peaceful enjoyment of the said institution viz., Guruswamy Samathi,...
Tag this Judgment!K.V. Janakirama Iyer Vs. Radhakrishna Chettiar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-17-1987
Reported in: (1987)2MLJ284
ORDERPadmini Jesudurai, J.1. The short point that arises for consideration is whether the amendment introduced to Order 21, Rule 90, C.P.C., by the High Court demanding furnishing of security from an applicant seeking to set aside the sale, stands repealed by the Central Act 104 of. 1976 as being inconsistent with it.2. The facts necessary for the disposal of the revision are as follows:3. The first respondent obtained a money decree against the petitioner in O.S. No. 102 of 1975 on the file of the District Munsif, Valangaiman at Kumbakonam, and in execution thereof, brought certain properties belonging to the petitioner to sale. The second respondent purchased the same In the Court auction. The petitioner filed an application under Order 21, Rule 90, C.P.C., to set aside the above sale. The petitioner was called upon by the executing Court to furnish security in the above petition under the second proviso to Order 21, Rule 90, C.P.C., added to the rule by virtue of Madras Amendment da...
Tag this Judgment!East Coast Papers, Madras Vs. Union of India and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-16-1987
Reported in: 1987(30)ELT248(Mad)
1. The prayer in the Writ Petition runs in the following lines : 'For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, it is prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction for-bearing the second-respondent from levying and collecting excise duty under Item 17(2) of the Excise Tariff on the Polyethelene Sandwitch paper and Board made by the petitioner in pursuance of the Notification 71/77-CE., dated 28-4-1977 as amended by Notification No. 25-79-CE., dated 1-3-1979 and Notification No. 109/89-CE., dated 19-6-1980 passing such other orders as may be deemed fit.' 2. The petitioner manufactures polyethelene sandwitch board with the aid of power. Normally this product would attract item 17(2) of the Excise Tariff set out in the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, hereinafter referred to as the Act. The three notifications referred to in the prayer in the Writ Petition by themselves do not enable he...
Tag this Judgment!Dharmalinga Chetty and ors. Vs. Mathurambal and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-12-1987
Reported in: (1987)2MLJ268
Sengottuvelan, J.1. Defendants 1 and 3 to 5 in O.S. No. 230 of 1977 on the file of the District Munsif of Vellore, have filed this second appeal challenging the legality and correctness of the Judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge, Vellore in A.S. No. 157 of 1978.2. The facts of the case are briefly as follows :- The first respondent in the second appeal, viz., the plaintiff in O.S. No. 230 of 1977 and the 2nd respondent herein are the daughter and son of the first appellant herein, Dharmalinga Chetty through his first wife Meenakshi who died on 27.1.1944. Appellants 3 and 4 are the defendants 4 and 5 in the suit. Defendants 4 and 5, are the sons of Dharmalinga Chetty (1st appellant) through his second wife Rajammal who figures as second appellant herein. The relationship of the parties may be set out in the following genealogy.Dharmalinga Chetty(1st defendant) ||_______________________________|___________________| || || || |Meenakshi Rajammal(died on 27.1.1944) (3rd defendant) ...
Tag this Judgment!Surajmal Sowcar and Sons Vs. Arokia Mary
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-05-1987
Reported in: AIR1987Mad278; (1987)IIMLJ50
ORDER1. The above revisions arise out of the order passed by the VI Judge, Court of Small Causes at Madras (Appellate Authority) in R.C.A. 1433 of 1983 as against the order of the VIII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Madras, (Rent Controller) in HRC 5455 of 1981. C.R.P. 3821 of 1984 is filed by the landlord, hereinafter referred to as the petitioner, challenging the correctness of one finding of the appellate authority and C.R.P. 1018 of 1985 is filed by the tenant, hereinafter referred to as the respondent, challenging the correctness of another finding in the same order of the same appellate authority.2. The facts giving rise to the present revisions briefly are as follows- The proceedings related to a house bearing door No. 4 (old door No. 102) in Portuguese St, 7th Lane, Madras 1. The petitioner filed an application under S. 10(2)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 18 of 1960, as amended by Act 23 of 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) on the averment ...
Tag this Judgment!K.M.S.K. Rabindranath (Died) Vs. S. Bakyam Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-04-1987
Reported in: AIR1988Mad358
1. The legal representatives of one Rabindranath who was, the plaintiff in 0. S. 67 of 1966 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Madurai are the appellants. For the purpose of this judgment, the said Rabindranath will be referred to as the plaintiff in this case.2. The plaintiff and his three brothers, owned a property bearing TS No. 257, Ramnad Road, Madurai, measuring,349 feet north south on the west, 367 feet north south on the east, 215 feet east west on the south and 77 feet cast west on the north. This vacant site was leased by these four brothers to the defendants under a lease deed dt. 28- 10- 1955, for the purpose of constructing a rice mill. The monthly rent agreed to was Rs. 2(k. The defendants lessees were permitted to put up a building, instal machinery and to remove the same at the end of the lease period of ten years. There was a clause that at the end of ten years period, the defendants shall hand over vacant possession after removing the super structure and th...
Tag this Judgment!S.V. Saminatha Naidu Vs. L. Muthuswamy Chettiar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-04-1987
Reported in: (1989)1MLJ257
Srinivasan, J.1. The appellant filed the suit for recovery of Rs. 4037.32 P. under peculiar circumstances. He was the owner of the suit property. He executed a usufrucutary mortgage in favour of Alli Rani on 23.2.75 for a sum of Rs. 11,000. The mortgage was assigned by the mortgages to the defendants on 14.7.75 for a consideration of Rs. 11,000. The plaintiff entered into an agreement with the defendants on 10.3.78 for selling the property to them for a total consideration of Rs. 22,000. A sum of Rs. 3,000 was paid in advance on the date of the agreement. It was agreed that a sum of Rs. 11,000 should be adjusted by the defendants towards the discharge of the usufructuary mortgage, which they got by assignment from Alli Rani. The balance of Rs. 8,000 was agreed to be paid on or before 13.6.78. Actually, the time for completion of the transaction was extended upto 13.9.78 and a sale deed was executed by the plaintiff in favour of the defendants, which is marked as Ex.A.1. The plaintiff f...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »