Chennai Court October 1919 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.
Kannan Narayanan Alias Narayanan Moopil Moossad Vs. Muthalpuredath Ram ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-02-1919
Reported in: 56Ind.Cas.241
1. We must accept the findings now submitted, as the respondents do not appear and file any objection.2. The 8th defendant will be liable to pay the arrears of rent claimed by the mortgagor landlord in the place of the 7th defendant, as he is the assignee of the former's right and the rent claimed accrued after the date of the assignment. We think the landlord is entitled to 6 years' arrears from the 8th defendant, for even though his liability arises from his privity of estate, the result of such privity is to make him bound by the covenants in the registered Kanom deed. As the rent is payable under such a covenant, we thick that Article 116, Indian Limitation Act, applies against him also. With all respect to the learned Judge, we are unable to follow the ruling of Miller, J., in Naduvil Edom Kelu Achan v. Voradarau Aiyar 24 Ind. Cas. 481 : 26 M.L.J. 283. We observe the learned Judge does not say what article applies to the case in his view, though be holds against the application of...
Gadi Neelaveni Vs. Marappareddigari Narayana Reddi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-01-1919
Reported in: (1919)37MLJ599
Abdur Rahim, C.J.1. The question referred to us in this case which is in these words: 'Has a Court power, apart from the provisions of Rule 13, Order IX, C.P.C. to set aside an exparte decree passed by itself? ' has been fully discussed before us and I shall shortly express my opinion. Upon an application made to him under Order IX, Rule 13, Civil Procedure Code, the District Munsif, while holding that it was not proved that the summons was not duly served or that the defendant was prevented by any sufficient cause from appearing when the suit was called on for hearing, set aside the ex parte decree passed against the respondent observing 'Looking, however, to the heaviness of the amount involved and the relationship subsisting between the parties and looking at the unwillingness of the present surety to continue his obligation, I shall allow the petition as a special case and give him a chance of contest.' I should say that, even if the Court had inherent jurisdistion to set aside an ...
Beeju Bee Alias Zulaika Bee Ammal (Dead) and ors. Vs. Syed Moorthuja S ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-01-1919
Reported in: (1919)37MLJ627
Abdur Rahim, C.J.1. The first question asked by this reference is whether a Muhammadan widow, who is lawfully in possession of her husband's property after his death but not by virtue of any agreement with his other heirs, is entitled to retain such possession until the dower due to her has been paid or satisfied before the property in her possession is divided among the heirs.2. In the Allahabad and Calcutta High Courts there have been a long series of decisions, some of them conflicting with the others, on the subject of a Muhammadan widow's lien for dower, but in this Court the question is practically bare of authority. There are, also four decisions of the Privy Council in this connection, the latest being in the case of Hamira Bibi v. Zubaida Bibi (1916) I.L.R. 38 All. 581. P.C. Our main task is to ascertain whether in the course of their judgment in the last case, the Judicial Committee wanted to confirm the view of the law expounded by the Chief Justice, Sir John Edge, of the Al...
The Secretary to the Commissioner, Salt, Abkari and Separate Revenue V ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-01-1919
Reported in: (1919)37MLJ663
Abdur Rahim, C.J.1. This is a case stated by the Board of Revenue, under Section 51 of the Income-tax Act, VII of 1918, in which the question involved is whether the assessee, a Nattukottai Chetti, who is the proprietor of a money-lending business carried on on his behalf by his agents in various places including Saigon, Sodac and Khando situated in French Cochin China, is liable to be taxed, under the provisions of this Act, in respect of the income of the business though not received in British India.2. The learned Advocate-General on behalf of the Crown has based his contention on two grounds : firstly, that the income in question accrued or arose to the assessee in British India inasmuch as he was entitled to call upon his agents to pay the income to him in British India, and, secondly, that, upon the case stated by the Board, the business the income of which is sought to be taxed must be held to have been carried on in British India and, therefore, income of that business is taxab...
Mutha Korakki Chetty and anr. Vs. Mahomad Madar Ammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-01-1919
Reported in: (1920)38MLJ1
Abdur Rahim, C.J.1. The question referred to the Full Bench arises under Article 180 of the Limitation Act.2. A person, who purchased certain properties at a Court auction in execution of his own decree on the 25th of March 1913, applied for delivery of possession on the 19th of February 1917. An order confirming the sale was made on the 26th of April 1913, but on the 3rd of January 1914, that is more than 30 days afterwards, an application was made on behalf of the judgment-debtor for the setting aside of the sale. That application was disposed of by the Court of First Instance on the 25th of June 1915, the Court setting aside the sale in respect of some of the items and upholding it as regards the other items. That order was appealed from and the Appellate Court dismissed the appeal on the 13th of May 1916.3. It will thus be seen that the application for delivery of possession of the property would be barred under Article 180 if the time of 3 years allowed by the second column be rec...
Beeju Bee Alias Zulaika Bee Vs. Syed Moorthiya Saheb and Eight ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-01-1919
Reported in: (1920)ILR43Mad214
Abdur Rahim, Kt. Offg. C.J.1. The first question asked by this reference is whether a Muhammadan widow, who is lawfully in possession of her husband's property after his death but not by virtue of any agreement with his other heirs, is entitled to retain such possession until the dower due to her has been paid or satisfied, before the property in her possession is divided among the heirs.2. In the Allahabad and Calcutta High Courts there have been a long series of decisions, some of them conflicting with the others, on the subject of a Muhammadan widow's lien for dower, but in this Court the question is practically bare of authority. There are also four decisions of the Privy Council in this connection, the latest being in the case of Hamira Bibi v. Zubaida Bibi (1916) I.L.R. 38 All. 581 (P.C.). Our main task is to ascertain whether in the course of their judgment in the last case the Judicial Committee wanted to confirm the view of the law expounded by the Chief Justice, Sir John Edge...
Board of Revenue Vs. Ramanadhan Chetty Minor by Guardian Velliamma Ach ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-01-1919
Reported in: (1920)ILR43Mad75
ORDER1. We think that on this reference made under Section 51 of the Indian Income-tax Act, VII of 1918, the assessee, on whose application reference was made by the Board of Revenue, is entitled to be heard first. The Board of Revenue under the section is bound to refer the question on an application made for the purpose by the assessee, and when the question is referred to the High Court, the High Court after hearing the case is to deliver judgment and the judgment so delivered will be sent to the revenue authorities. There is no ruling on the point and we have not been able to ascertain whether there has bean any uniform practice on any similar reference, but having regard to the nature of the reference in this case and how it originated, that is, on the motion of the assessee who is aggrieved by the order of the revenue authorities, we are of opinion that the assessee's pleader ought to be heard first.2. A. Krishnaswami Ayyar for the assessee. My client is not liable to be assessed...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›