Chennai Court April 1999 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.
Marudhu Pandiyar Transport Vs. M. Veerammal and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-01-1999
Reported in: 2(2000)ACC128
M. Karpagavinayagam, J.1. Marudhu Pandiyar Transport Corporation is the appellant herein. As against the award dated 30.8.1989 made in M.C.O.P. No. 517 of 1988 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (IV Additional Sub Judge), Madurai directing the appellant to pay the compensation to the claimant, the first respondent herein, has filed this appeal.The facts leading to the filing of this appeal could be summarised as follows:(a) While the claimant Veerammal was travelling in a bus belonged to the Marudhu Pandiyar Transport Corporation on 9.4.1988, the said bus as well as the other bus belonged to Rani Mangammal Transport Corporation came with a great speed in a rash and negligent manner and collided against each other. In the said accident, the claimant sustained grievous injury on the hand and 2 or 3 fingers got complete cut.(b) With reference to the incident, F.I.R. Ex. P2 had been registered by the Police. The sketch is Ex. P3. The Motor Vehicle Inspector's report is Ex. P...
Sellambana Gounder and ors. Vs. Sinnia Gounder and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-01-1999
Reported in: (1999)3MLJ465
A. Raman, J.1. Defendants 1 to 4 are the appellants herein.2. The plaintiff filed a suit for injunction and declaration. Briefly stated, the plaintiff's case is thus:The plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit property, having obtained the same in a partition that took place about 50 years ago. The plaintiff and before him, his ancestors were in possession of the specific portions. There are ridges, showing the divisions. The plaintiff is entitled to 1/3rd right in the suit well. The plaintiff has been given separate patta in the re-survey proceedings. The plaintiffs has put up pipes and is taking water to S.F.No. 195/B, measuring 1-84 cents. It cannot be questioned by the defendants. The plaintiff is in possession of the property for more than the statutory period and has prescribed title by adverse possession as well. On 26.12.1977 the plaintiff leased out the suit property to one Muruga Gounder, who redelivered the possession to the plaintiff. The defendants cannot question the ...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›