Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1996)2MLJ37
S.S. Subramani, J.1. Second appeal is by the second defendant who got herself impleaded in O.S. No. 98 of 1979, on the file of the Principal District Munsif s Court, Cuddalore.2. The suit filed by the plaintiff, first respondent herein, was against the Cuddalore Municipality represented by its Commissioner. It was a suit for mandatory injunction to direct the Municipality to remove the obstruction caused by the appellant herein, by constructing a hut in front of the plaintiff's house. The allegation was that the construction caused obstruction to his access to the highway, and that the construction is in a poramboke land belonging to the Municipality. It was averred that the appellant is a trespasser, and that it was without permission of the Municipality, she has constructed the hut. Even though various demands were made to the Municipality to remove the hut, the Municipality did not take any action. Hence the suit was filed by the plaintiff, seeking a mandatory injunction to take ste...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1996)2MLJ46
S.S. Subramani, J.1. Legal representatives of the plaintiff in O.S. No. 135 of 1976, on the file of Additional District Munsif's Court, Kuzhithurai, are the appellants.2. The suit was one for partition. The following averments were made in the plaint:One Abdur Rahman had three children, viz., defendants 1 and 2 the plaintiff. In the entire survey number, he had 1/12th share, and on his death, it devolved on the original plaintiff and defendants 1 and 2. There was a suit for partition in O.S. No. 310 of 1960, on the file of the District Munsif's Court, Kuzhithurai. That suit was filed by the other co-owners in the survey number with defendants 1 and 2 as legal representatives of Abdur Rahman. Defendants 1 and 2 herein were defendants 32 and 33 in that case.3. Towards 1/12th share, plaint property was allotted and the same was taken by defendants 1 and 2 on behalf of the plaintiff and other legal heirs of Abdur Rahman. It is also said that on 15.12.1116 M.E. there was a partition between...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1996)2MLJ145
S.S. Subramani, J.1. This second appeal is by the defendant in O.S. No. 447 of 1979, on the file of Second Additional Subordinate Judge's Court, Coimbatore.2. As per Ex.A-2, dated 2.5.1973, the respondent herein executed a sale deed in respect of the plaint schedule property in favour of the appellant herein. The sale was for a consideration of Rs. 20,000. It is seen that on the date of sale, the respondent herein was indebted to some persons and that necessitated the execution of the sale. A stranger has obtained a decree against the plaintiff/respondent, and there was an understanding between the plaintiff and the defendant that the appellant will discharge the debt which as on that day came to Rs. 15,005. There was also some other payment to be made. Out of the sale consideration of Rs. 20,000, Rs. 15,005 was earmarked for discharging the decree debt, and out of the balance, an amount of Rs. 2,500 was to be paid to one Palaniammal, for getting vacant possession of the premises, and ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1996)1MLJ451
ORDERRaju, J.1. The above revision has been filed against the order of the learned Subordinate Judge, Kumbakonam, dated 31.3.1994 in C.M.A. No. 12 of 1993 confirming the order dated 17.11.1992 passed by the learned District Munsif, Valangaiman at Kumbakonam in I.A. No. 168 of 1992 in O.S. No. 139 of 1995. The defendant in O.S. No. 139 of 1995 is the applicant and appellant before the courts below as also the petitioner herein.2. The suit has been filed by the respondent plaintiff claiming the relief of redemption of mortgage and delivery of possession of the suit property. The fact that the redemption sought for is that of an usufructuary mortgage said to have been executed by the plaintiff in favour of the defendant on 15.10.1975, is not seriously disputed. But, what is claimed by the defendant in his written statement filed is that though the document was executed as a mortgage, the plaintiff really agreed to sell the property. In addition to the said claim, a panchayat and further a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : [1998]94CompCas832(Mad)
P. Sathasivam, J. 1. The plaintiff is the appellant. The plaintiff, Indian Bank, filed a suit in O.S. No. 408 of 1979 on the file of the District Munsif's Court, Tiruchirapalli, claiming a sum of Rs. 2,968.89 on the promissory note exhibit A-7, dated March 15, 1976. The allegations in the plaint are as follows : The defendants have borrowed a sum of Rs. 2,000 on March 2, 1970, and executed a promissory note exhibit A-1 from the plaintiff's branch office at Tennur. For due repayment of the loan, as a collateral security, the defendants have executed the pronote on the same date in favour of the plaintiff-bank. After giving credit to the amounts paid by the defendants towards the loan, the amount still due and payable by them comes to Rs. 4,331.87 together with interest calculated upto March 10, 1979, as per the ledger page maintained by the plaintiff. For the amount due by the defendants as on March 15, 1976, the defendants have executed a suit pronote, exhibit A-7, promising to pay the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 1996CriLJ3903
Arunachalam, J.1. For having caused the death of Palaniammal by hitting on her face with a big stone and thenceforth for having committed robbery of her gold chain with pottu, in the course of the same transaction, at or about 5 p.m., on 10-3-1986 at Nahakka Kovil, Kathiranampatti village, appellant was charged under Sections 302, 392 and 394 I.P.C. in S.C.No. 5/88 on the file of the Sessions Judge, Anna District, Dindigul. 2. On conclusion of trial, learned trial Judge found the appellant guilty of all offences, with which he was charged and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life for murder and rigorous imprisonment for ten years each, for the offences under Sections 392 and 394 I.P.C. 3. Prosecution case in brief is as follows. - Deceased Palaniammal was the wife of Perumal (P.W. 5) a Head Constable attached to special Branch, Natham, P.W. 1 (Palanisamy) a resident of Kathiranampatti, is a landlord as well as Poojari for Nahakka Koill, situated at a distance of 1 1/4 K.M., on...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : [1996]222ITR404(Mad)
K.A. Swami C.J.1. This is a case, in which the appellants have failed to comply with Clause (b) of the proviso to Rule 61 of the Second Schedule to the Income-tax Act, 1961, relating to procedure for recovery of tax (hereinafter referred to as 'the rules of the Second Schedule'). The house property bearing door No. 15, Kanda Filial Street, now known as Kandan Street, Chetpet, Madras-31, belonging to the late M. Natesan was attached and sold in public auction on April 26, 1985, towards the realisation of the tax arrears of the aforesaid late M. Natesan. The widow of the late M. Natesan filed an application under Rule 61 of the rules of the Second Schedule for setting aside the sale. However, she did not deposit the amount recoverable from her late husband, M. Natesan, in the execution of the certificate. Therefore, the application was rejected by the Tax Recovery Officer-V, Madras, in his proceedings T. R. No. 3020 of 1972-73, dated June 13, 1985. Hence, she approached this court in W. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 1996(1)CTC717; (1996)IMLJ368
ORDERSrinivasan, J.1. The revision petition is filed by the Trust, which is the landlord. The petition for eviction has been filed on the ground of wilful default in payment of rent. The matter was posted for trial to 14.12.1993. The tenant did not appear, nor did his counsel appear in Court. The Rent Controller passed an order of eviction after recording the evidence of the landlord. The tenant filed I.A. No. 145 of 1994 for setting aside the said order.2. In the affidavit filed in support of the application, the reason given by him for non-appearance on 14.12.1993 is that he was suffering from acid peptic disease and taking treatment under a doctor K.P. Kannappan from 12.12.1993 to 19.12.1993. It is further stated that he was bed ridden and could not move about. Consequently, he could not appear in Court nor instruct his counsel. The application was filed on 3.1.1994. The application was contested by the petitioner herein. In the counter affidavit, it was clearly stated that the case...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 1996(54)ECC142
K.A. Swami, C.J.1. At the stage of admission, Shri Krishnan, learned Additional Central Government Standing counsel is directed to take notice for the respondents. Accordingly, he has put in appearance for the respondents. As the appeal lies in a narrow compass, it is admitted and heard for final disposal.2. The appeal is preferred against the order dated 7.11.1995 passed by the learned single Judge in W.P.6330 of 1985. Learned single Judge has disposal of the writ petition in the following terms:--At the very outset I would like to state that the learned Advocate for the writ petitioner did not argue the matter on merits to set aside the order passed by the respondents, but argued only to the limited extent of remanding the matter to the lower authority for fresh disposal according to law. On the other hand, the learned Advocate for the respondents relied upon a decision taken by this Court in W.P.No. 5589 of 1983 dated 15.11.1991 reported as Salem Co-operative Sugar Mills Ltd. v. The...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1997)141CTR(Mad)439
K. A. SWAMI, C.J. :This is a case, in which the appellants have failed to comply with cl. (b) of the proviso to r. 61 of the Second Schedule to the IT Act, 1961, relating to procedure for recovery of tax (hereinafter referred to as 'the rules of the Second Schedule'). The house property bearing door No. 15, Kanda Pillai Street, now known as Kandan Street, Chetpet, Madras 31, belonging to the late M. Natesan was attached and sold in public auction on 26th April, 1985, towards the realisation of the tax arrears of the aforesaid late M. Natesan. The widow of the late M. Natesan filed an application under r. 61 of the rules of the Second Schedule for setting aside the sale. However, she did not deposit the amount recoverable from her late husband, M. Natesan, in the execution of the certificate. Therefore, the application was rejected by the TRO-V, Madras, in his proceedings T.R. No. 3020 of 1972-73, dt. 13th June, 1985. Hence, she approached this Court in WP No. 7088 of 1985, under Art. 2...
Tag this Judgment!