Chennai Court August 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.
Ameena Ammal and anr. Vs. Saroja Ammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-04-1987
Reported in: (1988)2MLJ44
ORDERK.M. Natarajan, J.1. The revision is filed against the order of the Subordinate Judge, Nagapattinam in court-fee check slip issued in A.S. No. 53 of 1983.2. The facts which are necessary for disposal of the above appeal are as follows: The petitioner herein is the third defendant and the appellant in A.S. No. 53 of 1983. The plaintiff in this suit, which is the subject-matter of the appeal are the minor, children of the first defendant, who is the mother and the second defendant is their brother, though the first wife. The appellant, who is the third defendant, is the purchaser of one of the items of the suit properties from the defendants 1 and 2. The plaintiff filed the above suit for partition and separate possession contending that the said transaction is not valid and binding on them as regards the first item which was sold to the third defendant. The plaintiffs paid Court-fee under Section 37(2) and in respect of the disputed item 1 under Section 37(1) of the Court-Fees Act....
The Authorised Officer, Land Reforms Vs. T.A.N. Viswalingam Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-04-1987
Reported in: (1989)1MLJ343
ORDERK.M. Natarajan, J.1. This revision has been preferred by the Authorised Officer, Land Reforms, Trichi against the order passed by the Land Tribunal, Thanjavur allowing the appeal filed by the landholder.2. The main point for consideration in this appeal is:Whether the Authorised Officer is entitled to reopen his earlier decision after obtaining the opinion of the Government Pleader treating the trust as a religious trust of public nature and that the Act is not applicable to the said trust.3. It is brought to my notice that this Court had occasion to consider the said question in a number of decisions and it has been held in Radhakrishna v. Authorised Officer, Land Reforms, Kancheepuram (1986)2 M.L.J. 57 : 99 L.W. 351, where V. Ramaswami, J., has held as follows:There is no provision in the Act which enables the Authorised Officer to review his earlier order or to reopen a closed issue.Similar view was taken by two learned Judge is Radhakrishna v. Authorised Officer, Land Reforms ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›