Chennai Court July 1988 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.
S.K. Sabapathy Mudaliar Vs. Dhandapani and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-26-1988
Reported in: (1988)2MLJ240
ORDERRatnam, J.1. The petitioner is the decree-holder in O.S.No. 316 of 1985, District Munsifs Court, Cuddalore. With a view realise the amounts due under the decree, the petitioner filed E.P.No. 787 of 1986 in O.S.No. 316 of 1985 under Order 21, Rule 48, C.P.C. praying for the attachment of a sum of Rs. 265 from out of the monthly salary of Rs. 1,200 of the first respondent herein, who is admittedly a Government servant. In his counter, the first respondent contended that after deductions, a sum of Rs. 295 alone is received by him and as that amount would be insufficient even to maintain his family, a sum of Rs. 50 from out of the salary may be attached. The executing Court found that the first respondent received Rs. 553 towards salary out of which two-thirds could be attached and a sum of Rs. 50 alone could be attached by means of a pro-order. It is the correctness of this that is questioned by the decree-holder in this Civil Revision Petition.2. From the pay certificate issued by t...
Sivalingam Vs. Sakthivel and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-22-1988
Reported in: AIR1989Mad252; (1988)IIMLJ167
Srinivasan, J.1. This second appeal is against the judgment and decree of the District Judge, East Tanjore at Nagapattinam made in A.S. 123 of 1987, reversing that of the District Munsif of Nagapattinam, in O.S. 262 of 1982, At the time of admission of the second j appeal, the following substantial question of law was framed :--'Whether a valid marriage can be inferredfrom a mere recital of relationship in adocument, in the absence of any proof of the |form and ceremonies of marriage ?'The learned Judge, who admitted the appeal directed the appeal to be posted on 20-6-1988 , for final disposal. Consequently when the application for stay came up before me, directed counsel on both sides to argue the appeal, arid after some adjournments, the appeal was argued today. 2. The plaintiffs prayed for declaration of title to the suit property and for recovery of possession on the ground that they are the children of Thambithurai, who was the owner of the suit property. According to the plaintif...
Sivalingam Vs. Sakthivel, Rep. by His Power of Attorney Agent Kunjitha ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-22-1988
Reported in: (1988)2MLJ167
Srinivasan, J.1. This second appeal is against the judgment and decree of the District Judge of East Thanjavur at Nagapattinam made in A.S.No. 124 of 1987, reversing that of the District Munsif, Nagapattinam, in O.S.No. 262 of 1982. At the time of admission of the second appeal, the following substantial question of law was framed. Whether a valid marriage can be inferred from a mere recital of relationship in a document, in the absence of any proof of the form and ceremonies of marriage?The learned Judge, who admitted the appeal, directed the appeal to he posted on 20.6.1988 for final disposal. Consequently when the application for stay came up before me, I directed counsel on both sides to argue the appeal, and after some adjournments, the appeal was argued today. 2. The plaintiffs prayed for declaration of title to the suit property and for recovery of possession on the ground that they are the children of Thambithurai, who was the owner of the suit property. According to the plaint...
K.R. Shankar Raj Vs. State Bank of India, Vellore Branch
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-20-1988
Reported in: AIR1989Mad255
ORDERSrinivasan, J.1. The petitioner who was the defendant in O.S. 130 of 1984 filed an application out of which this revision arises, under Order XXI, Rule 2(2), CP.C. for recording full satisfaction of the decree made in the suit.2. In the affidavit filed in support of the application, the petitioner has stated that he had paid a sum of Rs. 8,000 after decree in LA. 364 of 1987 and that was recorded on 27-4-1987, and again he had filed LA. 432 of 1987, and paid a sum of Rs. 1,500 towards the decree and that was recorded on 25-6-1987. Thereafter the petitioner deposited a sum of Rs. 33,916.38 in Court after giving notice to the plaintiffs advocate, which amount represented the entire balance due under the decree as on that date.3. To this application for recording full satisfaction a counter was filed by the plaintiff in which it was stated that the plaintiff had filed an appeal against the decree of the trial Court, and therefore the trial Court could only record part satisfaction of...
Chinnappan Vs. Ramachandran
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-20-1988
Reported in: AIR1989Mad314
Ratnam, J.1. The plaintiff in O.S. 12 of 1982, Sub-Court, Pattukotai, is the appellant in this civil miscellaneous appeal. The appellant instituted that suit against the respondent herein and others praying for the relief of partition and separate possession of his one-fourth share in the A and B schedule properties. That suit is pending. In I. A. 219 of 1983 in O.S. 12 of 1982, filed under Order 11, Rule 14 and Section 151, C.P.C. the petitioner prayed that the respondent may be directed to produce into court certain documents detailed in the application. On 12-4-1983, the learned Subordinate Judge passed an order directing the respondent herein to produce the documents set out in I. A. 219 of 1983, Later on 13-9-1983, learned counsel for the respondent made an endorsement to the effect that the documents a re not available. Thereupon, the appellant filed I. A. 562 of 1983 in O. S. 12 of 1982 purporting to be under Order 11, Rule 21, C.P.C. praying that the defence off the respondent ...
P. Balakrishnan and ors. Vs. the District Registrar, Tuticorin, Tirune ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-20-1988
Reported in: AIR1989Mad257
ORDERSwamikkannu, J.1. This is a writ petition filed by the petitioners, P. Balakrishnan, Jawahar alias Ramakrishnan, R. Annamalai, R. Rangarajan and R. Dhanabalakrishnan alias Dhanasekaran for issue of a writ of certiorari calling for the records relating to the proceedings of the District Registrar, Tuticorin, the first respondent herein made in No. 1910/B1/17, dt. 28-11-1979 following the decision of the Inspector General of Registration, Madras, the second respondent herein dt, 11-11-1976 in his proceedings No. 62644/B1/14/76 and quash the order therein dt. 28-11-1979. 2. In the affidavit accompanying the writ petition, it is inter alia stated by P. Balakrishnan, the first petitioner herein, that Palanisamy Gounden father of the two petitioners and Ramaiyya Nadar father of the petitioners 3 to 5, were brothers, that they jointly owned house properties and agricultural lands having purchased the same in either of their names or in their joint names) that they were enjoying those pro...
Rajapalayan Industrial and Commercial Syndicate Ltd. and anr. Vs. K.A. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-19-1988
Reported in: AIR1989Mad139
ORDERSrinivasan, J.1. This revision petition is against an order passed on 26-5-1-988 by the Vacation Civil Judge in I.A. 697 of 1988. It is, no doubt, an ad interim ex parte order and a revision petition is not ordinarily maintainable in this court. Normally, this court does not entertain a revision petition against an ad interim injunction, when the court below has passed the same and has ordered notice to the other side. The normal course open to the opposite party in such a case is to approach the same court for vacating the injuction order or passing appropriate order as laid down by a Division Bench of this court in Abdul Shukoor Sahib v. Umachandran AIR 1976 Mad 350.2. However, learned counsel for the petitioner points out that the order of interim injunction made by the trial court in this case is in complete violation of the provisions of Order XXXIX Rule3, C.P.C. When the Civil Procedure Code was amended in 1976 by Act 104 of 1976, a proviso was introduced in Order XXXIX Rule...
Thilagammal Vs. Elango and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-19-1988
Reported in: AIR1989Mad340
1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is against an order rejecting an application filed by the appellant under Order 33, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure for permission to file a suit as a suit as a person in indigent circumstances. The suit is filed by the appellant against her husband who is the first defendant and an alienee from him, the second defendant for recovery of maintenance and for payment of amounts for clothing and residence. The amounts claimed in the petition relate to maintenance, both past and future. The Court below dismissed the application on the ground that the petitioner has suppressed relevant materials and that she has not come to Court in good faith in filing the application for permission to file the suit as an indigent person. He has relied upon certain documents produced by the respondents and also the case of the respondents that the petitioner was doing tailoring business and earning a sum of Rs. 300 p.m.2. When the appeal was taken up for hearing, lea...
The Rajapalayam Industrial and Commercial Syndicate Ltd. and anr. Vs. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-19-1988
Reported in: (1988)2MLJ155
ORDERSrinivasan, J.1. This revision petition is against an order passed on 26-5-1988 by the vacation Civil Judge in IA. No. 697 of 1988. It is, no doubt, an ad interim ex parte order and a revision petition is not ordinarily maintainable in this Court. Normally, this Court does not entertain a revision petition against an ad interim injunction, when the Court below open to the opposite party in such a case is to approach the same Court for vacating the injunction order or passing appropriate order as laid down by a Division Bench of this Court in Abdul Shukoor Sahib v. Umachander and Ors. A.I.R. 1976 Mad. 350 : 89 L.W. 550. 2. However, learned Counsel for the petitioner points out that the order of interim injunction made by the trial Court in this case is in complete violation of the provisions of Order 39, Rule 3, Code of Civil Procedure. When the Civil Procedure Code was amended in 1976 by Act 104 of 1976, a proviso was introduced in Order 39, Rule 3, whereby when a court proposes t...
Thilagammal Vs. Elango Alias Chinnappayyan and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-19-1988
Reported in: (1988)2MLJ217
ORDERSrinivasan, J.1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is against an order rejecting an application filed by the appellant under Order 33, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure for permission to file a suit as a suit as a person in indigent circumstances. The suit is filed by the appellant against her husband who is the first defendant and an alienee from him, the second defendant for recovery of maintenance and for payment of amounts for clothing and residence. The amounts claimed in the petition relate to maintenance, both past and future. The Court below dismissed the application on the ground that the petitioner has suppressed relevant materials and that she has not come to Court in good faith in filing the application for permission to file the suit as an indigent person. He has relied upon certain documents produced by the respondents and also the case of the respondents that the petitioner was doing tailoring business and earning a sum of Rs. 300 p.m.2. When the appeal was taken ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »