Chennai Court February 1921 Judgments
Sri Rajah Inuganti Venkata Rajagopala Suryarao Bahadur Garu Vs. Sri Ra ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-16-1921
Reported in: AIR1921Mad332; (1921)41MLJ208
John Wallis, C.J.1. This is an appeal from the judgment of,, the Subordinate Judge of Cocanada in a suit brought by the plaintiff as the next reversioner of the last male owner Surya Rao to recover the suit properties which formed part of the estate of the last male owner.2. The position is somewhat a curious one because these properties were purchased by the defendants in a court auction under decrees obtained against the plaintiff himself. The last male owner left a mother and two sisters and the present plaintiff is the grandson of the elder sister. The mother in 1870 transfered a third of the estate she inherited from her son to each of her two daughters reserving a third for herself.3. Then at a later stage after the death of her two daughters the widow executed another deed, Ex. I, by which she surrendered the one-third that she had previously reserved for herself to her two grandsons, each being the son of one daughter, in equal shares. This was in 1890. The widow survived till ...
Tag this Judgment!JainulabdIn Sahhib Vs. Krishna Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-15-1921
Reported in: AIR1921Mad420; (1921)41MLJ120
Krishnan, J.1. The point taken before us in this Second Appeal for the defendant-appellant is, that the plaintiff's suit is barred by Section 47 Civil Procedure Code, his only remedy being an application under that section. It was not taken in the Lower Courts but as it is a question of law arising on the facts found, we have allowed it to be raised.2. The facts relevant for the argument are these. One Rangan Pattar obtained a mortgage decree against the plaintiff; the properties were sold in Court auction and one of the items was purchased by the present defendant who was a stranger to the mortgage suit and to the decree. A sale certificate was issued to him and he obtained a delivery order. In execution of that order he got possession of plots A, B and C. This was about Hi years ago. It is the plaintiff's case that plot C alone was included in the decree and in the sale certificate, and was delivered to the defendant, and that the defendant subsequently trespassed on the plots A and ...
Tag this Judgment!Sambasivam Pillai and anr. Vs. the Secretary of State for India in Cou ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-15-1921
Reported in: (1921)ILR44Mad704
Ayling, J.1. This Second Appeal arises on of a suit by Government to obtain possession as an escheat of the property of one Shanmuga Yogeeswaraswami. The facts found are that the latter was a Sudra ascetic, not entitled to enter the order of yati or sanyasi, that the suit property was his secular property, not endowed in favour of any institution, that he died leaving no relations, and that fourth defendant was his chief 'sishya' or disciple. The sole question for our decision, is whether the claims of the fourth defendant to inherit as 'sishya' are sufficient to stop the escheat to Government. Both the Lower Courts decided in favour of Government. Defendants 1 and 3, who have acquired the rights of the fourth defendant by purchase, appeal.2. Both the Lower Courts have decided the question as if it were concluded by the ruling in Dharmapuram Pandara Sannadhi v. Virapandiyam Pillai I.L.R.,(1899) Mad., 302 , but as a matter of fact that has no application to the present case. Appellants ...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Pedda Anjinigadu Vs. Â
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-15-1921
Reported in: AIR1922Mad353; 64Ind.Cas.282
John Wallis, C.J.1. It is expressly provided by Section 199 of the Code of Criminal Procedure that no Court shall take cognizance of an offence under Section 497 or Section 498 of the Indian Penal Code except upon a complaint made by the husband, and a conviction under these sections is bad in the absence of something which amounts to a complaint by the husband of one of the offences specified in the section. Therefore, on a complaint of rape by the husband a conviction for adultery or kidnapping cannot be supported. Complaint is defined in Section 4(h) of the Code of Criminal Procedure as the allegation made orally or in writing to a Magistrate, with a view to his taking action under this Code, that some person, whether known or unknown, has committed an offence,' I agree with Coutts. Trotter, J,, that the examination of the complainant by a Magistrate who has taken cognisance of the complaint under Section 200 cannot be regarded as part of the complaint. The only question that remain...
Tag this Judgment!Sheik MohidIn Sahib Vs. Ramaswami Chetti
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-14-1921
Reported in: AIR1921Mad271; (1921)41MLJ276
Odgers, J.1. The question here is whether the Court should interfere in revision to set aside a decree passed in accordance with an award, on the ground that the arbitration was vitiated by material irregularity in that one of the arbitrators used knowledge obtained privately in coming to his decision as an arbitrator. Ghulani Khan v. Muhammad Hassan I.L.R. (1901) Cal. 167 is authority for saying that in the case of an award revision would be more> objectionable than an appeal. It is therefore the rule that the court proceeds very warily in allowing revision in awards. Two cases were referred to by the vakil for the petitioner-one, Kanhaiya Lal v. Khairati (1918) 49 I.C. 303 where an arbitrator made private enquiries from a persons unknown behind the back of one of the parties the plaintiff in the suit. It is there Laid down than an arbitrator must come to his decision on evidence taken before both parties or after having given both parties an opportunity of being present at the enquir...
Tag this Judgment!Viravan Chettiar, Represented by Ramasami Chettiar Vs. Srinivasacharia ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-14-1921
Reported in: AIR1921Mad168; (1921)40MLJ481
Oldfield, J.1. In this reference, second appeal No. 932 of 1919 and all questions of law arising in it are before us. The finding we have obtained in favour of the adoption of Narasimha Aiyangar by Veeraraghava Aiyangar, not by his widow, leaves only two such questions for decision. Plaintiff is suing as assignee from the guardian of Narasimha Aiyangar of a promissory note in favour of Veeraraghava Aiyangar, which represented at the date of its execution the latter's self-acquisition. Veeraraghava and Narasimha Aiyangar died (?) undivided. The questions for decision are whether plaintiff is exempt from the obligation to produce succession certificate either because he sues as an assignee from Narasimha Aiyangar, the person entitled to the debt or because Narasimha Aiyangar should be regarded as having become entitled to the debt by survivorship.2. The first question can be answered shortly. The Act is, as its preamble states, intended to ' afford protection to parties paying debts to t...
Tag this Judgment!The Chief Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. the Eastern Extension Austral ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-14-1921
Reported in: AIR1921Mad298; (1921)40MLJ560
John Wallis, C.J.1. This reference raises a question as to the interpretation of a rule made by the Government of Madras under Section 43(2)(e) of the Indian Income-tax Act which enables it to ' prescribe the manner in which and the mode by which the taxable income of persons not resident in British India or of persons deemed to be asses-sees in respect thereof, shall be arrived at.' Such persons under Section 33 are made liable to be taxed on profits or gains which are deemed to arise or accrue in India. Rule 1 provides that the profits in India for assessment purposes may be calculated on such percentage of the turnover of the business in India as the Collector may consider reasonable Rule 2, with which we are concerned, is as follows. ' In cases in which the method of assessment on a percentage of turnover is inapplicable--as for example--the case of an Indian Branch of a Foreign Insurance Company--the profits of the Indian Branch may be assumed for Incometax purpose's to bear the s...
Tag this Judgment!Vairavan Chettiar Represented by Ramasami Chettiar Vs. Srinivasacharia ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-14-1921
Reported in: (1921)ILR44Mad499
Oldfield, J.1. In this reference, Second Appeal No. 932 of 1919 and all questions of law arising in it are before us. The finding we have obtained in favour of the adoption of Narasimha Aiyangar by Veeraraghava Aiyangar, not by his widow, leaves only two such questions for decision. Plaintiff is suing as assignee from the guardian of Narasimha Aiyangar of a promissory note in favour of Veeraraghava Aiyangar, which represented at the date of its execution the latter's self-acquisition. Veeraraghava Aiyangar and Narasimha Aiyangar died undivided. The questions for decision are whether plaintiff is exempt from the obligation to produce a succession certificate either because he sues as an assignee from Narasimha Aiyangar, the person entitled to the debt, or because Narasimha Aiyangar should be regarded as having become entitled to the debt by survivorship.2. The first question can be answered shortly. The Act is, as its preamble states, intended to 'afford protection to parties paying deb...
Tag this Judgment!Sheikh MohidIn Sahib Vs. Ramaswami Chetty
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-14-1921
Reported in: 65Ind.Cas.676
Odgers, J.1. The question here is, whether the Court should interfere in revision to set aside a degree passed in accordance with an award on the ground that the arbitration was vitiated by a material irregularity in that one of the arbitrators used knowledge obtained privately in coming to his decision as an arbitrator. Ghulam Khan v. Muhammad Hassan 29 C. It 7 is authority for saying that in the case of an award revision would be more objectionable than an appeal. It is, therefore, the rule that the Court proceeds very warily in allowing revision in awards. Two cases were referred to by the Vakil for the petitioner, one Kanhaiya Lal v. Khairati Lal 49 Ind. Cas. 303 where an arbitrator made private enquiries from a person or persons unknown, behind the back of one of the parties--the plaintiff in the suit. It is there laid down that an arbitrator must come to his decision on evidence taken before both parties or after having given both parties an opportunity of being present at the en...
Tag this Judgment!Ramasami Iyengar Vs. M.V. Kuppusami Iyer and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-14-1921
Reported in: AIR1921Mad514; 66Ind.Cas.554
1. These appeals have to some extent been argued on identical grounds, The appellants---11th and 16th defendants---are purchasers of certain items of property covered by what may be described as a security-bond, Exhibit C. The District Munsif dismissed the suit brought by the holder of Exhibit C. to enforce its terms against the executants and against the property bound by it. The lower Appellate Court gave the decree asked for, which is now under appeal.2. The first contention with which we have to deal is, that Exhibit C. has not been properly proved. The lower Courts dealt with the question on the assumption that Exhibit C is a mortgage with reference to Section 59 of the Transfer of Property Act and Sections 68 and 71 of the Evidence Act, Here we might not be able to follow the lower Appellate Court in its application of Section 71. But it is unnecessary for us to go further into this portion of the case, because we accept the respondents' contention that the document is not a mort...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »