Chennai Court August 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.
The Sivalokam Estate, Represented by Its Managing Partner A.L.N. Raman ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-01-1988
Reported in: (1988)2MLJ231
Bellie, J.1. The defendant Sivalokam Estate is the appellant in this second appeal. The suit was dismissed in the trial Court but it was decreed in the first appellate court.2. The suit relates to 1 acre 25 cents in Survey No. 2894, Kaliyar Village. The entire extent of 19 acres 41 cents in the said survey number originally belonged to Chennathu Veedu of Munchiri. A partition was effected among the members of the tarwad on 6.11.1928. After this partition the members of the tarwad sold different shares to different purchasers. The Plaintiff purchased a specific portion of 1 acre 25 cents from the owners thereof viz., Kesava Pilial Krishna Pillai and others on 7.4.1959 under Ex.A.1 sale deed. The defendant Sivalokam estate purchased 8 acres 90 cents in the eastern - most portion of the suit survey field. According to the plaintiff this is on the east of the said 1 acre 25 cents purchased by him. The land on the west of this plaintiff's 1 acre 25 cents was purchased by some other persons....
R.S. Hoon Vs. Mrs. Azaeemunnissa Begum and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-01-1988
Reported in: (1988)2MLJ477
ORDERSrinivasan, J.1. Though I am aware that I am beating a dead snake, I am obliged to do it somewhat elaborately on account of the lengthy arguments advanced by learned Counsel for the petitioner in the fervent hope that he could persuade me to deviate from the well laid path and pave the way to the constitution of a Full Bench to consider the matter. Unfortunately for him I concur whole heartedly with the decisions rendered already by this Court and there is no question of a reference to a Full Bench. However, I have come out with a long essay on the subject lest I should be accused for not having applied my mind to the points raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner.2. The two revision petitions are against the common order passed by the VII Judge, Court Small Causes, Madras while discharging his functions as an Appellate Authority under the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 as amended by Act 23 of 1973 in R.CA.No. 109 and 110 of 1985 on his file which...
Sundaram Fasteners Limited and ors. Vs. the Assistant Commissioner of ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-01-1988
Reported in: (1989)1MLJ72
ORDERSwamikkannu, J.1. In all these writ petitions, the main point raised on behalf of the petitioners is that when once the power of resumption of the lands assigned to the petitioners is vested with the respondent-Government, it cannot be held that the lands in question are owned by the petitioners absolutely, in other words as full owners, so as to hold that the petitioners in these writ petitions are liable to pay urban land tax. The petitioners in these four petitions belong to one group of companies, known as Sundaram Fasteners Ltd., Padi, Madras-50. The prayer of the petitioner in W.P.No 4172 of 1982 reads as follows:To issue a writ of certiorari calling for the records in C.M.A. No. 133 of 1978 on the file of the Urban Land Tax Tribunal, Chingleput, and quash the order therein confirming the order of the Assistant Commissioner of Urban Land Tax, Madras-7, in U.L.T. Case No. 4 of 1385-Korattur, dated 23.6.1978.Similar prayers have been made in W.P.Nos.4173, 4174 and 4175 of 1982...
M. Ramalingam Udayar Vs. Kathalinga Pillai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-01-1988
Reported in: (1989)1MLJ207
ORDERRatnam, J.1. This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order of the Court below dismissing E.P. No. 53 of 1983 in O.S. No. 47 of 1982 filed by the petitioner for realisation of certain amounts due under the decree by the sale of the hypotheca. Briefly stated, the facts, giving rise to the Civil Revision Petition are as under: On 10-2-1969, respondents 1 and 2 executed a mortgage in favour of the petitioner herein for Rs. 30,000 and subsequently, on 20-8-1972, the mortgaged properties are sold by them in favour of the third respondent herein, subject to the direction that that amounts due under the mortgage dated 10-2-1969 in favour of the petitioner should be discharged by him. The mortgage not having been so discharged, the petitioner instituted O.S. No. 47 of 1982, Sub-Court, Villupuram, for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 39,300 and subsequent interest and costs. On 22-10-1982, a joint endorsement was made in the following terms:In accordance with the joint endorsement,...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›