Chennai Court October 1997 Judgments
Minor Shanmugam Rep. by Next Friend and Mother Valliammal Vs. Karuppia ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-27-1997
Reported in: 1997(3)CTC128; (1998)IMLJ454
ORDERAR. Lakshmanan, J.1. Heard Mr. S. Parthasarathy, learned counsel for the petitioner. Thought the respondent has been served even on 29.8.1997, there is no appearance on his behalf. He was called absent. Arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner were heard.2. The above revision has been filed against the order in I.A.No.61 of 1997 in O.S.No.346 of 1991 on the file of the District Munsif, Kulithalia and dated 9.6.1997. The petitioner herein has filed the suit claiming partition and separate possession of his 1/15 share in the suit properties which was comprised in several survey numbers and also for accounting. The respondent herein who is the father of the petitioner was impleaded as the 2nd defendant, the petitioner's grand father was impleaded as the 1st defendant and he died pending suit. The other legal heirs were impleaded as defendants in the suit. In the said suit the respondent herein/father of the petitioner disputed the fact that he is the father of the petition...
Tag this Judgment!K. Alagappan Padayatchi Represented by Power Agent K. Chinnayya Vs. V. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-27-1997
Reported in: 1997(3)CTC500; (1998)IMLJ711
ORDERR. Balasubramanian, J.1. The prayer in this petition is as follows:'For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, it is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to condone the defective presentation of the above C.R.P. SR. No. 40117 of 1996 in not filing the certified copies of the order and the decretal order in I.A. No. 635 of 1995 in O.S. No. 123 of 1995 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Kerranur, Pudukottai District, at the time of presentation of the C.R.P. SR. No. 40117 of 1996 and condone the delay of 372 days in filing the above order and decretal order and pass such further or other orders as this Hon'ble Court seem fit and proper.'2. From the records, it is seen that the civil revision petition is filed against the order and decretal order dated 13.11.1995 on the file of the District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Keeranur. That was an application filed under Order 6, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure by the plaintiff to amend the pla...
Tag this Judgment!Minor Shanmugam Represented by Next Friend and Mother Valliammal Vs. K ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-27-1997
Reported in: (1998)1MLJ454
ORDERAR. Lakshmanan, J.1. Heard Mr. S. Parthasarathy, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Though the respondent has been served even on 29.8.1997, there is no appearance on his behalf. He was called absent. Arguments of the learned Counsel for the petitioner were heard.2. The above revision has been filed against the order in I.A. No. 61 of 1997 in O.S. No. 346 of 1991 on the file of the District Munsif, Kulithalai and dated 9.6.1997. The petitioner herein has filed the suit claiming partition and separate possession of his 1/15 share in the suit properties which was comprised in several survey numbers and also for accounting. The respondent here in who is the father of the petitioner was impleaded as the 2nd defendant, the petitioner's grand father was impleaded as the 1st defendant and he died pending suit. The other legal heirs were impleaded as defendants in the suit. In the said suit the respondent herein/father of the petitioner disputed the fact that he is the father of the peti...
Tag this Judgment!Tmt. Muthammal Vs. Gurunathan and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-24-1997
Reported in: 1999(1)CTC73
ORDER1. By consent of both the counsel, the Civil Revision Petition itself is taken up for final disposal.2. The plaintiff in O.S.No. 502 of 1990 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Melur, has filed the said suit for partition of her 1/10th share in the suit properties. The suit has been dismissed on 20.9.1990 for non-payment of batta. On coming to know of the same, the petitioner herein has filed I.A.No.86 of 1995 for condoning the delay of 982 days in filing the petition for restoration of the suit stating that the suit was pending at Melur and she engaged the counsel at Madurai and the counsel has failed to take care of the matter. Thereafter, she came to know about the same and the counsel at Madurai entrusted the matter to the local counsel. Now the jurisdiction lies within the District Munsif Court.3. The respondents have filed a counter stating that even though enough opportunities have been given for the plaintiff to pay the batta, still the batta has not been paid and th...
Tag this Judgment!Boopathy and Another Vs. State, by Inspector of Police, Erode
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-24-1997
Reported in: 1998(1)ALT(Cri)436; 1998CriLJ2405; I(1999)DMC491
ORDER1. Accused Nos. 1 and 2 in C.C. No. 18/94 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Erode and the appellants in C.A. No. 43/94 on the file of the Additional District Judge, Erode are the revision petitioners in this case. They were charged and tried for offences under Section 498-A of the India Penal Code and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Each one of them was convicted to undergo R.I. for six months together with a fine of Rs. 500/- carrying a default sentence for the former offence and to undergo R.I. for six months together with a fine of Rs. 500/- carrying a default sentence for the latter offence. The appeal filed by the accused was also dismissed. Hence, the present revision. 2. I heard Mr. S. Uthirasamy, learned Counsel appearing for the revision petitioners and Mr. R. Karthikeyan, learned Government Advocate on the Criminal Side for the respondent. The learned Counsel for the revision petitioners contended that on the materials placed before the Court, neither...
Tag this Judgment!The State Vs. Rangasamy and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-24-1997
Reported in: 1998CriLJ3428
ORDER1. Cri. R.C. No. 424/94 is directed against the order in Crl. M.P. No. 301/94 in P.R.C. No. 5/94 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Kangeyam. Crl. R.C. No. 425/94 is directed against the order in Crl. M.P. No. 330/94 in P.R.C. No. 5/94 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Kangeyam. Both the above referred to Crl. M.P.s were disposed of by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Kangeyam by a common order dated 25-4-1994. Crl. M.P. No. 301/94 came to be filed by the first accused in P.R.C. No. 5/94 and Crl. M.P. No. 330/94 came to be filed by accused 2 to 7 in the very same P.R.C. No. 5/94. Since both the Crl. M.P.s were disposed of by a common order and though there are two Crl. Revisions before this Court, yet in view of the fact that a common issue was raised by the accused before the learned Judicial Magistrate which found favour with them, and since the same common issue is also involved in these two revision petitions, I am inclined to dispose of both these revisions by a co...
Tag this Judgment!Villi thevar and 11 ors. Vs. State Rep. by the Sub-inspector of Police
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-24-1997
Reported in: 1998(1)ALT(Cri)170; 1997(2)CTC581
ORDERK.P. Sivasubramaniam, J.1. This revision is directed against the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ramanathapuram, made in Crl.M.P.No. 185 of 1996 in S.C.No. 3 of 1996, dated 24.1.1997.2. The twelve petitioners in the above revision petition alongwith 18 others, stood charged in Crime No. 145 of 1991 by the Sub-Inspector of Police Peraiyur Police Station, for offences Under Sections 147, 148, 323, 324, 307, 302 read with Section 149, I.P.C. On behalf of the above mentioned petitioners a petition Under Section 227 Cr.P.C. in Crl.M.P.No. 185 of 1996 was filed for discharge mainly on the ground that there was no incriminating material against any one of them as would appear from the records of the case as furnished to them. It was pointed out by the petitioners that in the first information report given against them, none of their names has been mentioned. It appears that after the petition was filed, the Public Prosecutor had filed Crl.M.P...
Tag this Judgment!Vasudeva Naicker, (Died) and 14 ors. Vs. T.A. Madhavan and 4 ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-24-1997
Reported in: 1997(3)CTC63; (1998)IMLJ34
ORDERP. Sathasivam, J.1. Defendants 1, 3, 5, 7 and 9 in O.S. No. 13 of 1979 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Kancheepuram are the appellants in the above appeal. First respondent herein/plaintiff has filed the said suit for partition and separate possession of 9/32 share to him and for accounts of the income from the date of plaint till the date of delivery of possession.2. The case of the plaintiff as seen from the plaint is briefly stated hereunder: One deceased Rajagopal Naicker and the plaintiff are brothers and constituted a joint family. They are the sons of Hariputhira Gounder, who was a permanent resident of Thandarai village. He died in the year 1964 leaving behind his widow Kalyani Ammal, three sons and five daughters. Plaintiff's mother Kalyani Ammal died in the year 1965, leaving behind her eldest son Rajagopal Naicker, who died in 1973, his widow Karpagammal, his son Varadarajan and his daughter Logammal namely defendants 2 to 4 as his only legal heirs. The plaintiff and ...
Tag this Judgment!R. Subramaniya Udayar Vs. K.E. Maboo and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-24-1997
Reported in: 1997(2)CTC660; (1998)IIMLJ169
ORDERS. Jagadeesan, J.1. By consent of both the counsel, the second appeals themselves are taken up for final disposal.2. The short question involved in these second appeals is: Whether the suit is not maintainable on the ground of want of notice Under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act.3. The respondents herein are the plaintiffs in O.S.No. 269 of 1993 on the file of the District Munsif's Court, Sathiyamangalam. They filed the suit for recovery of possession against the appellant herein on the ground that the appellant is a tenant and in a panchayat convened among the parties, he has agreed to vacate and deliver vacant possession by 31.1.1993. Since, the appellant failed to handover possession on that day, the respondents herein filed the above said suit for recovery of possession.4. The appellant contested the suit contending that the panchayat would create a new lease even though the panchayat Muchalika was entered into, wherein the appellant had agreed to vacate and handov...
Tag this Judgment!Vasudeva Naicker (Died) and ors. Vs. T.A. Madhavan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-24-1997
Reported in: (1998)1MLJ34
P. Sathasivam, J.1. Defendants 1, 3, 5, 7 and 9 in O.S. No. 13 of 1979 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Kancheepuram are the appellants in the above appeal. First respondent herein-plaintiff has filed the said suit for partition and separate possession of 9.32 share to him and for accounts of the income from the date of plaint till the date of delivery of possession.2. The case of the plaintiff as seen from the plaint is briefly stated hereunder:One deceased Rajagopal Naicker and the plaintiff are brothers and constituted a joint family. They are the sons of Hariputhira Gounder, who was a permanent resident of Thandarai village. He died in the year 1964 leaving behind his widow Kalyani Ammal, three sons and five daughters. Plaintiff's mother Kalyani Ammal died in the year 1965, leaving behind her eldest son Rajagopal Naicker, who died in 1973, his widow Karpagammal, his son Varadarajan and his daughter Logammal namely defendants 2 to 4 as his only legal heirs. The plaintiff and the fi...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »