Chennai Court April 1922 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.
Ramachandram Pillai Vs. Neelambal Achi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-18-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Mad88; 70Ind.Cas.5
Phillips, J.1. The same question is in issue in both the suits, i.e., the validity of the alienation by respondent to petitioner, and the disposal of the issue in the first suit will practically dispose of the second suit, for petitioner does not dispute his liability under the mortgage if the alienation is valid. The Subordinate Judge's order refusing to stay proceedings therefore, involves a question of jurisdiction, for he has assumed jurisdiction which is denied to him by Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure; It is argued for respondent that this Court has no power to interfere in revision with orders under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and reliance is placed on Sultanat Jahan Begam v. Sunday 42 A. 409. In that case, however, the order sought to. be revised was an order of stay and not a refusal to stay and thus the Court has not assumed jurisdiction which it did not possess. If the decision is meant to apply to all orders under Section 10, Civil Procedure Code, I...
Malayath Veetil Raman Nayar and ors. Vs. Krishnan Nambudripad
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-18-1922
Reported in: (1922)ILR65Mad900
Walter Salis Schwabe, Kt., K.C. C.J.1. The District Munsif held in this suit that the true construction of a service grant was clear and that evidence of the consideration for that grant and of whether services were in fact rendered or not was irrelevant. On appeal, the Subordinate Judge, took a different view of the construction of the grant and held that such evidence was relevant. He accordingly remanded the case with that direction to be determined according to law. On appeal to the High Court from that order of remand a preliminary objection is taken that no appeal lies, and it was also contended that the Subordinate Judge had no power to remand the case. The High Court has referred those matters for determination to a Full Bench. The questions are of general interest as they raise points of procedure which have frequently arisen and have resulted in a conflict of judicial decision.2. The right of appeal is by Section 104 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, expressly limited to cas...
Manicka Vachaka Desika Gyana Sambanda Pandara Sannadhi Vs. A. Vaithili ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-18-1922
Reported in: 74Ind.Cas.115
1. These appeals arise out of a suit under Section 92 of the Civil Procedure Code for framing a scheme with regard to the administration of the temple of Sri Thyagarajaswami at Tiruvalur in the Tanjore District. There are various trusts instituted for the purpose of either supporting the services in the temple or of carrying on charities in the name of the deity, known as Katlais. Each Katlai has its own trustee and separate properties are endowed in connection with each Katlai. There are thirteen of them now and a list of these is given in Schedule A of the plaint. The most important of these are the first four viz., (1) Ulthurai, (2) Abisheka, (3) Annadhana, and (4) Rajan. The fifth and sixth are practically identical with the fourth. The trustees of the first, (Ulthurai) are defendants Nos. 1 to 3. The trusteeship of the second (Abisheka) and the third (Annadhana) is vested in the head of the Vellukurichi Mutt (in the Tinnevelly District) for the time being, now the 12th defendant. ...
M.V.D. Gyana Sambanda Pandara Sannathi Vs. A. Vaithilinga Mudaliar and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-18-1922
Reported in: AIR1924Mad168
1. These appeals arise out of a suit under Section 92 of the Civil Procedure Code, for framing a scheme with regard to the administration of the temple of Sree Thyagarajaswami, at Tiruvalur in the Tanjore District. There are various trusts instituted for the purpose of either supporting the services in the temple, or of carrying on charities in the name of the deity, known as Katlais. Each Katlai has its own trustee and separate properties are endowed in connection with each Katlai. There are thirteen of them now and a list of these is given in Schedule A of the plaint. The most important of these are the first four, viz. (1) Ulthuraj, (2) Abhisheka, (3) Annadana, and (4) Rajan. The 5th and 6th are practically identical with the fourth. The trustees of the first (Ulthuraj) are defendants 1 to 3. The trusteeship of the 2nd (Abhisheka) and the 3rd (Annadana) is vested in the head of the Velukurichi Mutt (in the Tinnevelly District) for the time being, now the 12th defendant. Similarly th...
Secretary to the Board of Revenue (income Tax) Vs. Muhammad Sheriff Hu ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-12-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Mad34; (1922)43MLJ434
Walter Salis Schwabe, K.C., C.J.1. This reference, under Section 51 of the Income Tax Act and Section 6 of the Super Tax Act now in force, is as to 'whether an adjustment can be made during a financial year in which the Collector's certificate of Registration under Section 12A is in force in respect of the income of a firm for the previous year in which the Firm was not registered.' In my judgment it clearly can. The whole scheme of income tax and super-tax in this country is based on the principle that the tax is assessed at the beginning of the year on an anticipated income and is paid in anticipation on the assessment; but when the year is over and the actual earnings have been discovered, there is not a fresh assessment but an adjustment. As far as super tax is concerned a registered firm is exempt from supertax as a firm, although the partners are personally liable for super-tax, if their separate incomes are large enough to bring the provisions of the Super-tax Act into operation...
K.V. Muniswami Mudaliar Vs. Rajaratnam Pillai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-12-1922
Reported in: 71Ind.Cas.126; (1922)43MLJ375
Walter Salis Schwabe Kt., K.C., C.J.1. The question raised by the preliminary point taken in this appeal is whether an appeal lies to the Division Bench of the Appellate Side hearing appeals from the Original Side of the High Court, Madras from an order of a single Judge sitting on the Original Side giving under Section 195 Cr.P. Code sanction for prosecution in respect of an alleged offence committed in relation to proceedings before him. It has been fully argued before us by the learned Advocate General that no such appeal lies on three grounds, first that under the Letter Patent, Clause 15, no appeal lies to the High Court from the decision of a Judge of that Court in the exercise of criminal jurisdiction and that this is a matter-in the exercise of criminal jurisdiction; secondly that under the same clause no appeal lies from anything at all except judgments and that the order sanctioning this prosecution is not a judgment. On both these points there would be some conflict of autho...
Govindasami Padayachi (Minor) by Next Friend and anr. Vs. R. Sami Pada ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-12-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Mad114; (1922)43MLJ579
Oldfield, J.1. The decisions in these Small Causes come before us in revision. In S.C. No. 166 of 1920 corresponding with C.R.P. No. 58 of 1921 we are asked to interfere on the ground that there was no evidence on record to justify the lower court's decision in favour of one of the endorsements of payment relied on by the plaintiff in connection with limitation. That endorsement stands on the suit promissory note and was explicitly relied on in the plaint. There was no denial of it in the written statement and nothing except as usual, a statement that facts not expressly admitted must be proved. As regards that statement we should be unwilling to treat it as necessarily safeguarding the defendant's interest in any conclusive manner in the absence of anything in the course of the trial to justify suspicion that he was taken by surprise or that there was misunderstanding as to what the party had to prove. In the present case, however, there is something more substantial. The 1st defendan...
Palaniandi Servai and ors. Vs. Sammandi Ammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-12-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Mad87; 71Ind.Cas.128
ORDERWilliam Ayling, J.1. In this case the [Magistrate has passed an Order making all the counter--petitioners in a possession case liable for petitioner's costs in the Shape of Vakil's fee.2. This order was passed some six weeks after the possessory order, apparently immediately on the presentation of a petition by the successful party to the possession case and the counter-petitioners seem to have had no opportunity of being heard.3. I am not prepared to say that the delay in passing the order necessarily affected the jurisdiction of the Magistrate, but it certainly could not be passed without notice to the other side affected by, it, and the present petitioners who did not claim possession had a special case for exemption from liability for costs' which called for consideration.4. The Magistrate's order dated 29th April 1921, awarding costs is set aside he will restore the petition (presented under Section 148 of the Code of Criminal Procedure bearing order of 29th April 1921) to fi...
Sami Mudaliar and anr. Vs. Muthiah Chetti Alias Veerappa Chetti
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-11-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Mad212; (1922)43MLJ293
1. The facts antecedent to this appeal are fully set out in the order of the Subordinate Judge in M.P. No. 991 of 1920 printed in C.M.A. No. 33 of 1921. The short question before us is this; In a mortgage suit (Original Suit No. 34 of 1911, Plaghat Sub-Court) on which a preliminary decree for sale had been passed in 1911, the 4th defendant died in April 1912; the final decree was dated 30th January 1913. No legal representative was brought on the record in the application for a final decree and no such application for the per pose of bringing him on was in fact made till September 1916, when notice was issued to 5th respondent (4th defendant's son) in connection with a petition (M.P. No. 2348 of 1916) for transfer of the decree for execution to the Coimbatore Sub-Court to show cause why he should not be brought on as legal representative of his father. The notice was affixed but the son did not appear. The decree was transferred from Palghat to Coimbatore for execution, and in Septembe...
Brahmandam Venkata Lakshminarayana Rao Vs. Allamneni Venkayya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-05-1922
Reported in: AIR1922Mad441; 95Ind.Cas.689; (1922)43MLJ284
Spencer, J.1. The question of law before us is whether the 14th defendant who purchased mortgaged properties from the original owners is entitled by subrogation to priority over the plaintiff, a prior mortgagee, because out of the consideration for the sale the whole of the mortgage decree in O.S. No. 17 of 1905 on the file of the District Court, Guntur and a portion of the mortgage decree in O.S. No. 16 of 1905 on the file of the same court were satisfied.2. The Subordinate Judge seems to have been of opinion that the principle enunciated in Hanumanthaiyan v. Meenatchi Naidu I.L.R.(1911) Mad. 183, that in order to sustain a claim for priority there must be a complete discharge of the prior mortgage and that partial discharge creates no equitable rights of priority would only apply to cases referred to therein of advances being made by a number of persons which would give rise to difficulties in working out the rights of several parties all claiming to rank as first incumbrancers; and ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »