Court : Chennai
Reported in : 1996(2)CTC500; (1997)IIMLJ142
ORDERGovardhan, J.1. Plaintiffs are the appellants.2. The averments in the plaint are as follows: The first plaintiff mortgaged the suit property belonging to the plaintiffs in favour of one Periyasami Servai on 7.11.1961 for a period of five years both on his behalf and on behalf of the plaintiffs 2 and 3.3. The first defendant has got the mortgage made over to him on 28.9.1963. The first plaintiff had executed a second mortgage, for a sum of Rs. 3,000 for a period of eight years both on his behalf and on behalf of the other two plaintiffs on 13.4.1966. He had again executed a mortgage for Rs. 5,000/- for a period of 10 years. On 1.11.1969, he has received Rs. l 1,000 and executed the mortgage for 13 years. The period of mortgage expires by 1.11.1982. The plaintiffs have to pay Rs. 41,000 to the first defendant. The defendants 1 and 2 are entitled to half share in the mortgage as per the partition between them dated 6.12.1976. The plaintiff claimed the benefits under Act 40 of 1979 an...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 1997(2)CTC104
ORDERN. Arumugham, J.1. On ordering notice of motion while the present Revision Petition was sought to be admitted which challenges the order passed by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Pasumpon Muthuramalinga Thevar District at Sivaganga in Crl.R.P.No. 11 of 1995 dated 9.11.95 for want of certain legality and propriety, I had the occasion to hear the Bar appearing for the respective parties for and against the impugned order.2. The revision petitioners belong to the Marumalarchi Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (MDMK) of Ariyakudi unit in Karaikudi Taluk who were respectively members of the parental party Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam with the persons of the A party in a like position. An extent of 0.48.5 hectares of road poramboke in Ariyakudi Village of Karaikudi Taluk situated in S.No. 98 appears to have been in possession and enjoyment of the party DMK and in which a terraced building was put up and constructed as evident from the extract of house tax assessment register for assessmen...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1997)1MLJ639
ORDERGovardhan, J.1. This appeal arises out of the order passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Ramanathapuram at Madurai in M.C.O.P. No. 47 of 1983.2. The petitioners in their petition contend as follows: The first petitioner is the wife and petitioners 2 to 4 are the children to the deceased Thangavelu. Thangavelu aged 37 years was earning a sum of Rs. 1,200 per month in his business. On 28.2.1981, Thangavelu and four others were proceeding to Madurai in the car belonging to Kanthamani Chellayya. At that, time the bus belonging to the first respondent bearing registration No. T.N.A. 17 was driven in a rash and negligent manner and it came from the opposite side and dashed against the car in which Thangavelu was travelling. Thangaveiu died in the accident. The petitioners who are the dependents, Have lost the sole bread-winner and they are unable to do the business carried on by Thangavelu in Hardwares. The petitioners therefore make a claim for Rs. 1,50,000 as compensation.3. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1997)2MLJ37
ORDERRaju, J.1. The defendant in O.S. No. 573 of 1980 on the file of District Munsif Court, Cuddalore, who succeeded before the trial court, but lost in the first appellate court, is the appellant in the above second appeal.2. The respondent herein has filed the suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 400 and Rs. 2,400 with interest due thereon as said to be due under two promissory notes dated 27.2.1971 and 12.2.1973 respectively. The defendant/appellant disputed the suit claim. So far as the promissory note dated 27.2.1971 is concerned, the plea was that the same was not fully supported by consideration and the claim of the basis of the said promissory note has to fail on account of partial consideration only. As far as the promissory note dated 12.2.1973 as also the endorsement dated 5.1.1976 thereon was concerned, the claim of the defendant was that they were fabricated documents and not supported by any consideration. At the time of trial, both parties adduced oral evidence and so far a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1997)2MLJ142
Govardhan, J.1. Plaintiffs are the appellants.2. The averments in the plaint are as follows : The first plaintiff mortgaged the suit property belonging to the plaintiffs, in favour of one Periyasami Servai on 7.11.1961 for a period of five years both on his behalf and on behalf of the plaintiffs 2 and 3.3. The first defendant has got the mortgage made over to him on 28.9.1963. The first plaintiff had executed a second mortgage, for a sum of Rs. 3,000 for a period of eight years both on his behalf and on behalf of the other two plaintiffs on 13.4.1966. He had again executed a mortgage for Rs. 5,000 for a period of 10 years. On 1.11.1969, he has received Rs. 11,000 and executed the mortgage for 13 years. The period of mortgage expires by 1.11.1982. The plaintiff have to pay Rs. 41,000 to the first defendant. The defendants 1 and 2 are entitled to half share in the mortgage as per the partition between them dated 6.12.1976. The plaintiff claimed the benefits under Act 40 of 1979 and issue...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1997Mad280; (1997)IMLJ31
ORDERRaju, J.1. The above writ petition has been filed for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the 1 st and 2nd respondents to grant the petitioner freedom fighters pension, permissible under the Sta Government Scheme and also 'Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme' of the Centra! Government, introduced in the year 1980.2. Along with his application, the petitioner was stated to have produced the certificate issued by the General Secretary of All India I.N. A. Committee and though it was initially rejected on the ground of delay, the petitioner has submitted another application and the petitioner was also restlessly continuing his representations and the last of such representations was said to have been made on 24-6-1993. A part from the I.N.A. certificate, referred to supra, a copy of the 'Thamira Patra' as also co-prisoner's certificate obtained from Mr. Gnanadurai and Mr. Ooikattan, who were also I.N.A. personnel and recipients of Central Freedom Fighters' Pension, were st...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1997)1MLJ31
Raju, J.1. The above writ petition has been filed for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the 1st and 2nd respondents to grant the petitioner freedom fighters' pension, permissible under the Slate Government Scheme and also 'Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme' of the Central Government, introduced in the year 1980.2. Along with his application, the petitioner was stated to have produced the certificate issued by the General Secretary of All India I.N.A. Committee and though it was initially rejected on, the ground of delay, the petitioner has submitted another application and the petitioner was also restlessly continuing his representations and the last of such representations was said to have been made on 24.6.1993. Apart from the I.N.A. certificate, referred to supra, a copy of the 'Thamara Patra' as also co-prisoner's certificate obtained from Mr. Gnanadurai and Mr. Ooikattan, who were also I.N.A. personnel and recipients of Central Freedom Fighters' Pension, were stated...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1997)1MLJ59
ORDERSathasivam, J.1. Second defendant in O.S. No. 645 of 1980 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Dindigul, is the appellant in the above second appeal. The first respondent herein, plaintiff in the said suit filed the same for partition and separate possession of his 1/3rd share in the suit properties by metes and bounds.2. The case of the plaintiff is as follows:The plaintiff and the second defendant are the sons of the first defendant and they belong to an undivided Hindu joint family. The suit properties belonged to the joint family. Items 1 to 3 of the plaint A schedule are the ancestral joint family properties and items 4 to 13 of the plaint A schedule were later acquired out of the joint family income in the name of the first defendant, who is the kartha and Manager of the joint family for the benefit of the family on 19.2.1960. After the purchase, a house was constructed. The suit properties are managed by the first defendant, and some of the suit properties are leased out to th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1997)1MLJ95
S.S. Subramani, J.1. Defendant in O.S. No. 100 of 1982, on the file of Subordinate Judge's Court, Tenkasi is the appellant.2. Respondent herein filed the above suit for the following reliefs:(a) pass a decree of declaration of the plaintiff's right to be in possession as cultivating tenant in the plaint schedule lands;(b) pass a consequential decree of permanent prohibitory injunction against the defendant restraining him and his agents from interfering with the plaintiff's possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule lands permanently;(c) award the costs of this suit to the plaintiff; and(d) grant such other relief or reliefs as the Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and thus render justice.3. In the plaint schedule, two items are included. They are, 60 Cents in Survey No. 46 and 1-70 acres in Survey No. 48 with all trees therein [Italics]. It is the case of the plaintiff that the plaint schedule lands belong to the defendant, and the plaintiff i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : [1998]232ITR98(Mad)
Thanikkachalam, J. 1. In pursuance of the direction given by this Court dt. 27th June, 1983 in TCP No. 309 of 1982 the Tribunal referred the following question for the opinion of this Court under S. 256(2) of the IT Act, 1961 : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that even though no books of account are maintained and no clear evidence was produced regarding the division of profits made by the firm among the partners, the assessee is entitled to registration on the basis of Form 11 filed by it 2. The assessee is a partnership firm. The assessee in the asst. yr. 1975-76 has applied for registration of the firm. The firm has been constituted with three partners. The application for registration in Form No. 11 has been filed on 31st March, 1975. The partnership deed in original with a copy thereof has been filed. The assessee was requested to produce evidence to show whether the profit of the business has been fully apport...
Tag this Judgment!