Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.91 seconds)
Documents citing Kuppana Chettiar And Anr. vs K. Ramachandran on 6 August, 1980

Danassou.S vs Krishnamurthy (Died) on 9 January, 2026

39.As regards, the decisions in Chinnamarkathian alias Muthu Gounder's case, Kuppana Chettiar's case, V.Ramar Thevar's case, R.Singaravelu Pillai's case, and Baluchamy's case, cited supra, the facts of all these cases were entirely on different footings. There were valid preliminary orders passed, directing payment of arrears, subsequent to which, the eviction orders came to be passed and only in such circumstances, it was held that the eviction orders could not be interfered with in revision. However, I have already discussed the validity of the direction issued on 08.09.1999, fixing an arbitrary sum of Rs.93,418/-, which was clearly without jurisdiction of the Revenue Court. Therefore, these decisions can be easily distinguished on the facts of the present case. In view of the foregoing discussion, I am inclined to set aside the order of eviction passed by the Revenue Court.
Madras High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

A.S.Mothilal vs Rajangam on 24 February, 2020

7. The learned counsel for the petitioners would invite my attention to the provisions of the enactment namely, the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants (Protection) Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for the sake of brevity) and contend that the Revenue Court had no powers to accept the deposit of tenants more so when the entire arrears was not tendered in a proceeding under Section 3 (4) of the said Act. Once the tenant fails to avail the opportunity granted by the Revenue Court, he cannot seek to get over the effect of non compliance by filing an application to deposit. He would also rely upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in Kuppana Chettiar and another Vs. K.Ramachandran and Nangappa Chettiar and others Vs. K.Subba Rao [(1981) 1 MLJ 136].
Madras High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - R Subramanian - Full Document

A.S.Mothilal (Died vs Rajangam on 25 January, 2021

7. The learned counsel for the petitioners would invite my attention to the provisions of the enactment namely, the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants (Protection) Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for the sake of brevity) and contend that the Revenue Court had no powers to accept the deposit by tenants more so when the entire arrears was not tendered in a proceeding under Section 3 (4) of the said Act. Once the tenant fails to avail the opportunity granted by the Revenue Court, he cannot seek to get over the effect of non compliance by filing an application to deposit. He would also rely upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in Kuppana Chettiar and another Vs. K.Ramachandran and Nangappa Chettiar and others Vs. K.Subba Rao [(1981) 1 MLJ 136].
Madras High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - R Subramanian - Full Document

Rajangam vs A.S.Mothilal (Died) on 13 March, 2023

12.The petitioner has raised a ground that he has sent a further demand draft representing the balance amount, however, the same was not received by the 7/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP(MD)Nos.2103, 2116 of 2021 respondents. A Division Bench of this Court, in Kuppana Chettiar and another v. K.Ramachandran and Nangappa Chettiar and others v. K.Subba Rao [(1981) 1 MLJ 136], has held that subsequent payment will not cure the default. The Division Bench further held that the Revenue Court has no power to direct such deposit, unless or otherwise the refusal was just and legal and that if the entire arrear is not paid within the time granted, then the consequence of eviction shall automatically follow. By referring this decision, this Court in CRP(MD)Nos.2213 to 2216 of 2013 has quashed the orders passed by the Revenue Court permitting the petitioner to deposit the amount and has also revived the execution petition.
Madras High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - B Pugalendhi - Full Document

Baluchamy vs Thayammal on 18 December, 1981

2. Mr. Natarajan, no doubt argues that the revision is the continuation of the proceedings of the Revenue Court and as such this court can as well set aside the order of eviction since the arrears have been paid as directed by this court. This is what exactly the Bench of this court has not approved of in the above decision. The abovesaid observation extracted by me is squarely applicable to the facts of the case and as such, the civil revision petition is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.
Madras High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Kunju Padayachi vs Rahmathunissa on 22 January, 1998

6. It is next contended by the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner that the entire arrears having been paid during the pendency of the revision petition as directed by this Court, the order of eviction cannot be allowed to stand. It has been held by a Bench of this Court in Kuppanna Chettiar v. Ramachandran 93 L. W. 656, that if arrears are paid pursuant to directions in C.M.Ps, in revision filed against orders of eviction passed by the Revenue Courts, it cannot be said that the order of the Revenue Court had been complied with and the subsequent payment will nullify the order or eviction. While dealing with this point, the Bench observed as follows:
Madras High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1