Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: mediation Court: chennai Year: 1977 Page 1 of about 39 results (0.035 seconds)

Mar 04 1977 (HC)

Muniammal Vs. Raja

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Mar-04-1977

Reported in : AIR1978Mad103

..... was afflicted with leprosy, the plaintiff did not want to live with him and she resorted to questionable ways of living, which the defendant's family resented. due to a mediation effected at the instance of the relations, the plaintiff entered into full satisfaction of the decree in o. s. no. 15 of 1943 under the original of ex. b-2 .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 21 1977 (HC)

K. Mohideen Ibrahim Vs. M. Muhammed Abdullah

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Jul-21-1977

Reported in : AIR1978Mad97; (1978)1MLJ386

..... . according to the plaintiff, he and the defendant gave an undertaking to the police not to put up any new construction without settling their disputes either with the aid of mediators or through a competent court. overruling the objections raised by the plaintiff, the commissioner of virudhunagar. municipality granted permission to the defendant to put up constructions. in pursuance of that .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 15 1977 (HC)

Booraswami Vs. Rajakannu and ors.

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Jul-15-1977

Reported in : (1978)1MLJ248

v. sethuraman, j.1. this is an appeal filed by the plaintiff in o.s. no. 107 of 1969 on the file of the court of the subordinate judge of chidambaram. there was one rengasami vandayar, who died in or about 1940. his four sons are booraswami, the plaintiff, rajakannu, the first defendant, chinnadurai, the second defendant and dharmalinga, the third defendant. he owned certain properties. according to the plaintiff the four sons of rengasami vandayar were living as members of a hindu undivided family till about 1964. in that year there was a division of the movables and the respective brothers started separate messes. the parties were, it is said, put in possession of the properties of the joint family for the purpose of convenient enjoyment. the second defendant was alleged to have entered into partition with his sons, defendants 4 to 6, later on under which some of the joint family properties were sought to be divided. according to the plaintiff, some properties had been purchased in the names of defendants 4 to 8 out of joint family funds. the plaintiff, therefore, issued a registered notice to the defendants on 1st september, 1969 to have all the joint family properties divided and allotted by metes and bounds. there was no reply and the plaintiff, therefore, came forward with the present suit for partition and separate possession of his 1/4th share in the suit properties.2. the third defendant filed a written statement, which was adopted by the first defendant. he admitted .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 07 1977 (HC)

Kumaraswami Gounder and ors. Vs. Subba Gounder and ors.

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Feb-07-1977

Reported in : AIR1977Mad353

1. defendants 2 to 4 and 6 to 9 in o. s. no. 17 of 1965 on the file of the subordinate judge of coimbatore, are the appellants. the plaintiffs came to court for a partition and separate possession of their half share in the suit properties under the following circumstances. kandaswami gounder is the common ancestor. he had two sons, nanjappa gounder, the first defendant and palani gounder, the first plaintiff. his other son subba gounder died as a bachelor in 1959. palaniammal is his daughter. the first defendant, who is the eldest son who died pending suit is herein represented by his legal representatives, defendants 2 to 10. in fact, it is the second defendant who is contesting the action. plaintiffs 2, 3 and 4 are the sons and daughters of the first plaintiff. the fifth plaintiff is the wife of the first plaintiff and the 4th plaintiff is the wife of the 1st defendant. the plaintiffs' case is that kandaswami gounder died in adi 1955, prior to the hindu succession act of 1956 and that, therefore, palaniammal, the daughter of kandaswami gounder cannot be reckoned as a sharer to the estate of kandaswami gounder. the plaintiff's contention is that after the death of kandaswami gounder in 1955, the only person, entitled to share the estate of late kandaswami gounder was the 1st plaintiff and his branch, nanjappa gounder and his branch and subba gounder. subba gounder died in 1959. prior to his death, it is the case of the plaintiffs, that the family properties which were .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 07 1977 (HC)

Kumaraswami Gounder and ors. Vs. Subba Gounder and ors.

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Feb-07-1977

Reported in : (1978)1MLJ305

ramaprasada rao, j.1. defendants 2 to 4 and 6 to 9 in o.s. no. 17 of 1965 on the file of the subordinate judge of coimbatore, are the appellants. the plaintiffs came to court for a partition and separate possession of their half share in the suit properties under the following circumstances. kandaswami gounder is the common ancestor. he had two sons, nanjappa gounder the first defendant and palani gounder the first plaintiff. his other son subba gounder died as a bachelor in 1959. palaniammal is his daughter. the first defendant, who is the eldest son who died pending suit is herein represented by his legal representatives, defendants 2 to 10. in fact, it is the second defendant who is contesting the action. plaintiffs 2, 3 and 4 are the sons and daughter of the first plaintiff. the fifth plaintiff is the wife of the first plaintiff and the 4th plaintiff is the wife of the 1st defendant. the plaintiffs' case is that kandaswami gounder died in adi 1955, prior to the hindu succession act of 1956 and that therefore, palaniammal, the daughter of kandaswami gounder cannot be reckoned as a sharer to the estate of kandaswami gounder. the plaintiffs contention is that after the death of kandaswami gounder in 1955, the only persons entitled to share the estate of late kandaswami gounder was the 1st plaintiff and his branch, nanjappa gounder and his branch and subba gounder. subba gounder died in 1959. prior to his death, it is the case of the plaintiffs, that the family properties .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 12 1977 (HC)

Haji S.P.E.S. Mohamed Aboobacker, Mutawalli of Haji Pitchai Mohideen R ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Apr-12-1977

Reported in : (1977)2MLJ164

t. ramaprasada rao, o.c.j.1. the appellant, not satisfied with the order of mohan j., passed in w.p. no. 2808 of 1976 whereby he made certain interim directions and ultimately dismissed his writ petition, is the appellant before us. the admitted facts are that 'haji pitchai mohideen rowther wakf' was created by late mohideen rowther and it is common ground that the petitioner-appellant is the mutawalli of that wakf and is functioning in accordance with the terms of the deed of wakf. the petitioner claims that he was discharging his duties properly. one of the ordainments in the said wakif deed as per the intentions of the wakf was that an arabic school madarasa at kayatar in tirunelveli district to propagate the arabic language was to be maintained and education given to the students seeking for such benefits. originally, to wit, during the year 1973, the wakf board which was in charge of the school sought for a sum of rs. 750 per month for the maintenance and upkeep of that madarasa. in august, 1974, they demanded a sum of rs. 2,500 from the appellant who was admittedly in possession of both the movables and immovable belonging to the wakf. no doubt, there was no previous notice to the mutawalli about the proposed increase in the demand as above. the mutawalli, therefore, sought for a reconsideration of the demand on the ground that it was excessive. thereafter, it is said that as many as 18 charges were framed as against the appellant in connection with the alleged male .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 09 1977 (HC)

N. Soundarapandian Vs. Vallioor Panchayat Union Council Represented by ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Mar-09-1977

Reported in : (1978)1MLJ23

ordera.d. koshal, j.1. the second respondent made an application dated the 11th of november, 1970 to the vallioor panchayat union (here in after referred to as the panchayat) praying for the issue of a licence to install machinery for running a new rice mill in chottikulam. the panchayat granted the application by an order dated the 10th of may, 1971 which is challenged by the petitioner on the ground that according to the rules framed under the tamil nadu panchayats act, 1958 (here in after referred to as the act) it was incumbent on the panchayat to call for the report of the chief inspector of factories and the director of town planning before granting the application, that neither of these two authorities was approached by the panchayat, and that, therefore, the application was granted in contravention of the said rules. the petitioner prays that the order dated the 10th of may, 1971 and mentioned above be quashed by a writ of certiorari.2. learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 banks on the provision of sub-section (3) of section 159 of the act and a rule framed thereunder for the proposition that a period of two months having elapsed since the date of the said application without respondent no. 1 having communicated his orders thereon, the application stood automatically sanctioned. sub-section (3) reads:save as aforesaid, if orders on an application for any such licence or permission are not communicated to the applicant within thirty days or such longer period as .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 11 1977 (HC)

T.S. Radhakrishnan Vs. the State Bank of India, Madras

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Oct-11-1977

Reported in : AIR1978Mad163

1. this appeal by the defendant in c. s. no. 68 of 1967 on the original side of this court is directed against the order of mohan j. in diary no. 11511 of 1974 dated 14-2-1975 directing the inclusion of rs. 100 and rs. 150 said to have been paid by the appellant on 11 -4-1967 and 26-4-1967 respectively, rs. 850 paid to the receiver for his remuneration and rs. 5017-30 paid to the receiver for his expenses as per order dated 11-4-1967 in appn. no. 849 of 1967 in the costs awarded to the respondent (plaintiff) in the decree in the said cs no. 68 of 1967.2. the judgment dated 7-7-1971 of n.s. ramaswami j. declares the respondent to be entitled to costs from the appellant. in accordance with order xviii rule 6 of the original side rules, clause 3 of the decree declares that the respondent is entitled to costs of suit when taxed and noted in the margin of the decree. one of the prayers in the suit was for appointment of a receiver to take charge of the properties described in schedule i to the plaint and protect the same and safeguard the interest of the respondent as the pledgee of those properties. an interim receiver had been appointed by order dated 10-4-1967 in appn. no. 840 of 1967, pending the suit. clause 8 of the decree provides for adjustment of the amount deposited into court by the receiver as the sale proceeds of the hypothecated goods towards the amount due to the respondent under the decree. the respondent filed an application on 21-7-1971, before the registrar to .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 07 1977 (HC)

R. Srinivasan Vs. S.P. Krishnamoorthy Sarma and ors.

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Feb-07-1977

Reported in : (1978)1MLJ452

v. ramaswami, j.1. the plaintiff is the appellant. the suit was filed for recovery of the suit properties from defendants 6 to 14. one subbaraya iyer purchased originally a small bit of land in raghunathapuram, which is a harrlet of sholapuram within the sub-registration district of tiruvidaimaruthur, kumbakonam taluk, and with his owr money put up a tiled building and planted cocoanut trees. in the building he installed 'sri ramachandramurthy' and consecrated the same and was performing daily pooja, and neivedyam end was also conducting festivals on important occasions. later on, by a deed of endowment dated 4th september, 1904 he corstituted this into a trust and endowed also other properties. he called the trust property as a public charitable trust. the hindu community of the village were worshipping in the madam, doing bajanal and holding festivals on important occasions. the trust deed provided also for the management of the trust properties and the madam. the founder constituted himself as the first trustee and further provided that after his death, the eldest of his brothers should become a trustee and thereafter the eldest sons of his brothers should succeed and manage the properties as sole trustees. in the event of a failure to assume the trusteeship by any persons referred to above, or on their acting adversely to the trust, the deed further provided that it would be open to anybody who is interested in the trust or any worshipper to take steps in a court of law .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 16 1977 (HC)

The Firm of Shamlal and Co. and ors. Vs. V.R.C. Rajagopala Chettiar

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Mar-16-1977

Reported in : AIR1977Mad340

1. the plaintiffs are the appellants. the suit was filed by them for recovery of a sum of rs. 6,490 due under a promissory note dated 21-4-1966 and for directing the defendants to pay the amount in court, in default of which, directing the plaint schedule properties to be sold for realisation of the amount so decreed. it appears that the plaintiffs, a firm of partnership, were lending moneys to the defendant as and when he wanted a loan. on 21-10-1964, the defendant executed a security document under which he gave his self-acquired properties as security for the due payment of all moneys that might be borrowed by the defendant from the plaintiff under hundies, promissory notes, accounts and cheques and giving right to the plaintiffs to proceed against the security for realisation of the moneys due, in default of payment. on 21-4-1966, the plaintiffs lent a sum of rs. 6,000 under a promissory note executed by the defendants. on the ground that he had defaulted in payment of the money as per the promissory note, the present suit was filed for recovery of the same. along with the plaint, the original promissory note was also filed. the defendant raised a number of contentions, one of which was that the suit promissory note was not properly stamped and that therefore it was inadmissible in evidence. the trial court took the issue relating to the admissibility of the suit promissory note and ultimately came to the conclusion that though it is a promissory note, it is not payable .....

Tag this Judgment!


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //