Court : Chennai
Reported in : 1998(1)CTC195
ORDER1. Second appeal arises from a suit filed by the appellant and his adoptive mother as O.S.No. 312 of 1980, on the file of District Munsif's Court Nagapattinam. That suit was filed by them for the following reliefs:(a) for mandatory injunction directing the defendant from removing all the furnitures and other articles kept by the defendant for conducting classes and to forbid from interference with the possession and enjoyment of the property thereafter.(b) to grant such order and further reliefs which are deemed necessary and expedient in the proved circumstances of the case: and(c) to Award costs of the suit.2. Material averments in the plaint are. the property originally belonged to late Muthu Thandapani Chettiar. First plaintiff is his widow and second plaintiff is his adopted son. It is said that Muthu Thandapani chettiar died on 21.8.1969 and the plaintiffs have succeeded to his estate, having absolute right and title over the property. It is said that the suit property is a ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 1997(1)ALT(Cri)727; I(1997)DMC8
M. Karpagavinayagam, J.1. This is revision filed against the order of learned Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Pudukottai, in Cri. M.P. No. 3309 of 1993, dated 4.7.1994, directing the petitioner to pay die arrears of maintenance to the respondent/minor daughter.2. It is contended in this revision by the petitioner, that under Section 125(3) Cr.P.C., execution petition can be filed claiming arrears of maintenance only for 12 months period, i.e., one year, from the date on which it became due, but the order impugned in this revision has been passed by the learned Magistrate, allowing the claim for 29 months period. It is further submitted by Ms. T. Priya, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, that the application under Section 125(3), Cr.P.C., was not made within a period of one year from die date on which the amount became due. Learned Counsel relied upon a decision in Govind Sahai v. Prem Devi, 1988 Crl.L.J.638, wherein the Jaipur Bench of Rajasthan High Court has held as follows :'H...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 1996(2)CTC727
ORDERP. Sathasivam, J.1. The Madurai City Municipal Corporation aggrieved by the Order passed in LA.No. 82 of 1993 in O.S. No. 149 of 1992 on the file of Sub-Court, Madurai, dated 8.2.1993 has approached this Court by way of the present revision in C.R.P.No. 691 of 1993 under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Likewise, against the order in I.A.No. 55 of 1993 in O.S. No. 182 of 1993, on the file of the I Additional Sub-Judge, Madurai dated 10.2.1993 C.R.P.No. 692 of 1993 has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Since identical orders have been passed both the revisions can be disposed of by a common judgment.2. Even at the outset, in view of the fact that the interim injunction granted by the courts below had already expired (granted up to 1.3.1993 and 8.3.1993 respectively), Mr. V. Raghavachari, learned counsel for the respondents submits that nothing survives in the present revisions for adjudication. The abovesaid statement has not been disputed by Mr. E...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 1997(1)CTC144; (1997)IIMLJ140
ORDERRaju, J. 1. The first defendant in O.S.No. 36 of 1977 on the file of the District Munsif's Court, Kovilpatti, is the appellant in the above second appeal. The suit was filed for partition and separate possession of one-third share of the plaintiffs- respondents in the suit properties.2. The case of the plaintiff before the trial Court was that the suit properties belonged to the joint family of the plaintiff's husband, plaintiff and defendants 1 to 3, the same having been purchased with the ancestral funds and no one else has got any exclusive right over the same. It was stated that they were in joint enjoyment of the properties and subsequently in the year 1967, some misunderstandings arose between the members of the family and since the plaintiff has become old, defendants 2 and 3 executed a settlement deed in respect of their two-third share in the suit items 1 and 3 in favour of the plaintiff, that there was a family arrangement between the plaintiff and the first defendant in...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 1997(1)CTC378
ORDERN.V. Balasubramanian, J.1. The Civil Revision Petitioner is the second defendant and the first respondent is the plaintiff and the second respondent is the first defendant in the suit.2. The Civil Revision petitioner is a Co-operative Society. The first respondent/plaintiff has filed the suit O.S. No. 97 of 1993 on the file of the District Munsif, Arni, for a declaration that the suit property belongs to the plaintiff and for a permanent injunction against the defendants. The second defendant has filed a written statement wherein he has raised an objection that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit, as the matter falls within the purview of the Tamil Nadu Co- operative Societies Act, 1983 and the Rules framed thereunder. The second defendant raised an objection that there was a valid award passed against the first defendant for a sum of Rs. 1,05,981.60, and the plaintiff, who is the sister of the first defendant has instituted the suit with a view to harass the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 1997(1)CTC413
ORDERN.V. Balasubramanian, J.1. The civil revision petition is directed against the order of the Principal District Munsif, Tiruvannamalai in I.A. No. 1017 of 1995 in O.S. No. 411 of 1987 refusing to allow an application filed by the plaintiff for the amendment of the plaint under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure.2. The civil revision petitioner is the plaintiff and the respondent is the defendant. The plaintiff filed the suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the plaintiffs possession and enjoyment of the suit property situate at Perumbakkam village in Survey No. 129/2A of an extent of 2.55 acres. The case of the plaintiff is that the property bearing Survey No. 129/2 of an extent of 5.09 acres in the said village belonged to one Natesan and his brother Oomayan, both sons of one Mottayan. After the death of Oomayan, his two sons, Saman and Subramani sold their half share in the said property to the plaintif...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1997)1MLJ454
Govardhan, J.1. First defendant is the appellant.2. The averments in the plaint are as follows: The suit property belonged to Seeni Ammai who died intestate in the year 1969 leaving the defendants 1 to 8 and the plaintiff as her legal representatives. The first defendant is her son. Plaintiff and the second defendant are the children of Annalakshmi Ammal one of the deceased daughter of Seeni Ammal. Defendants 3,7 and 8 are the daughters of Seeni Ammal. Defendants 4 to 6 are the children of Ramu Ammal another deceased daughter of Seeni Ammal. The second defendant is the wife of the first defendant. The plaintiff and other defendants were having regard and respect for the first defendant. The first defendant was residing in item No. 3 of the suit properties and was managing item Nos. 1 and 2. He was paying the due share of the income from those properties to the plaintiff and defendants 3 to 8. The plaintiff is entitled to 1/12th share. The defendants 1,3,7 and 8 are entitled to 2/12th s...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1997)2MLJ140
ORDERRaju, J.1. The first defendant in O.S. No. 36 of 1977 on the file of the District Munsif s Court, Kovilpatti, is the appellant in the above second appeal. The suit was filed for partition and separate possession of one-third share of the plaintiffs respondents in the suit properties.2. The case of the plaintiff before the trial court was that the suit properties belonged to the joint family of the plaintiff's husband, plaintiff and defendants 1 to 3, the same having been purchased with the ancestral funds and no one else has got any exclusive right over the same. It was stated that they were in joint enjoyment of the properties and subsequently in the year 1967, some misunderstandings arose between the members of the family and since the plaintiff has become old, defendants 2 and 3 executed a settlement deed in respect of their two-third share in the suit items 1 and 3 in favour of the plaintiff, that there was a family arrangement between the plaintiff and the first defendant in ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 1997CriLJ3147
Rengasamy, J.1. These appeals arise from the judgment of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Madurai, in S.C. No. 164 of 1993, convicting the appellants in C.A. No. 145 of 1994, for the offence under Section 302 read with 34, I.P.C., to undergo life imprisonment, while the appellants in other two appeals have been convicted for the offence under Section 201, I.P.C. to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years. The first appellant in C.A. No. 145 of 1994, also has been convicted under Section 201, I.P.C., to undergo R.I. for three years, and the sentence is directed to run concurrently. The alleged occurrence took place in Thiru-Nagar of Madurai, in Kumaran Street, within the jurisdiction of Thiru-Nagar Police, on 29-12-1990. 2. The case of the prosecution can be stated briefly as follows :- (i) The 1st accused (first appellant in C.A. No. 130 of 1994) is the father of the accused Nos. 2 and 4 (1st appellant in C.A. No. 145 of 1994 and 2nd Appellant in C.A. No. 130 of 1994), 3rd a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 1996(2)CTC760
ORDERAR. Lakshmanan, J.1. Heard both sides. The revision is directed against the order in I.A.No. 190 of 1994 in O.S.No. 160 of 1988 on the file of Sub-Court, Tenkasi dismissing an application for amendment of the plaint.2. The petitioners who arc the plaintiffs in the suit filed O.S.No. 160 of 1988 on the file of the Sub-Court, Tenkasi for declaration that the suit second schedule is a common pathway for both the plaintiffs and the defendants and for consequential injunction restraining the defendants from in any manner putting up sunshades or steps in the common pathway and also from interfering with plaintiffs use of the common pathway.3. Pending the suit, the trial court granted injunction in favour of the petitioners herein and the same is in force. It is the case of the petitioners that subsequent to the grant of interim injunction, the respondents trespassed into the suit property and put up construction, violating the order of interim injunction.4. A Commissioner was appointed ...
Tag this Judgment!