Chennai Court October 1923 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.
Mohieswara Rao Minor by Guardian Rangamma and anr. Vs. Ayyadevara Durg ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-17-1923
Reported in: (1924)ILR47Mad308
1. In this case the plaintiff is the widow of the deceased brother of the first defendant's father and she brought this suit for maintenance and obtained a decree. The defendants now appeal.2. When the plaintiff brought her suit originally she ignored the existence of certain documents executed in 1913, Exhibits II and IV, whereby her right to maintenance was fixed at Rs. 75 per annum but after the written statement was filed she amended her plaint and alleged that these documents were not binding on her and that she was entitled to maintenance at a higher rate. The Subordinate Judge found that the documents of 1913 were not obtained by undue influence and that the plaintiff had executed her counterpart with full knowledge of its contents and effect; but he held that the stipulation in that document that she would not claim any higher rate of maintenance in the future was not binding on her apparently because the first defendant's father had not similarly undertaken that he would never...
Savanna Venka Ana Runa Vellayappa Chettiar Vs. M.L.M. Ramanathan Chett ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-15-1923
Reported in: (1924)46MLJ80
1. This appeal is from an insolvency proceeding before the District Judge of Madura. The Official Receiver seems to have made an attempt to sell certain properties, on which the appellant before us put forward a claim that such properties belonged to him and not to the insolvent and should not be sold. These properties were included in a mortgage decree obtained by the respondent against the insolvent. Strangely enough, the Official Receiver thought that he had power to dispose of a petition like this and thinking that a prima facie title had been made out by the claimant, he passed 'an order releasing the properties from sale, holding that the properties belonged to the claimant. On this the mortgage decree-holder conceiving that he was somehow or other aggrieved by the order put in an appeal to the District Judge. The District Judge thereupon came to the conclusion and rightly, in our opinion, that the secured creditor, the mortgage decree-holder, was not in any way bound by any proc...
Savanna V.A.R. Vellayappa Chettiar Vs. M.L.M. Ramanathan Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-15-1923
Reported in: (1924)ILR47Mad446
1. This appeal is from an insolvency proceeding before the District Judge of Madura. The Official Receiver seems to have made an attempt to sell certain properties, to which the appellant before us put forward a claim that such properties belonged to him and not to the insolvent and should not be sold. These properties were included in a mortgage-decree obtained by the respondent against the insolvent. Strangely enough, the Official Receiver thought that he had power to dispose of a claim petition like that and thinking that a prima facie title had been made out by the claimant, he 'passed an order releasing the properties from sale, holding that the properties belonged to the claimant. On this the mortgagee (decree-holder), conceiving that he was somehow or other aggrieved by the order put in an appeal to the District Judge. The District Judge thereupon came to the conclusion, and rightly in our opinion, that the secured creditor, the mortgagee (decree-holder), was not in any way boun...
Akkanna Chetti Vs. Chandu Chetty
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-15-1923
Reported in: 78Ind.Cas.1007
1. This appeal raises the question whether the respondent, the tenant, has lost his right to hold possession of the property by forfeiture. The suit was brought by the landlord, the appellant before us, for recovery of rent and also for enforcing the right of forfeiture which he had under the lease-deed for non-payment of rent. The first Court decreed a certain sum of money for rent and directed that if that amount was paid within one month from the date of the decree-the forfeiture would be relieved against. Accordingly, the tenant paid a sum over Rs. 200 into Court in time: but, unfortunately for him, there was an appeal to the Sub-Court and that Court increased the amount of rent payable by about Rs. 21. The question we have to consider in this case is whether by the decree of that Court, the payment of Rs. 21 within one month from the date of that Court's decree was a condition precedent to the forfeiture being relieved against or not. The Munsif held that it was, and the money not...
S.V.A.R. Vellayappa Chettiar Vs. M.L.M. Ramanathan Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-15-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Mad529
1. This appeal is from an insolvency proceeding before the District Judge of Madura. The Official Receiver seems to have made an attempt to sell certain properties, on which the appellant before us put forward a claim that such properties belonged to him and not to the insolvent and should not be sold. These properties were included in a mortgage decree obtained by the respondents against the insolvent. Strangely enough, the Official Receiver thought that he had power to disposed of a petition like this and thinking that a prima facie title had been made out by the claimant, he passed an order releasing the property from sale, holding that the properties belonged to the claimant. On this the mortgage decree-holder conceiving that he was somehow or other aggrieved by the order put in an appeal to the District Judge. The District Judge thereupon came to the conclusion and rightly, in our opinion, that the secured creditor the mortgage decree holder, was not in any way bound by any procee...
Akkamma Shetti Vs. Chandro Shetti
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-15-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Mad649
1. This appeal raises the question whether the respondent the tenant has lost his right to hold possession of the property by forfeiture. The suit was brought by the landlord, the appellant before us, for recovery of rent and also for enforcing the right of forfeiture which he had under the lease-deed for non-payment of rent. The first Court decreed a certain sum of money for rent and directed that if that amount was paid within one month from the date of the decree, the forfeiture would be relieved against: accordingly the tenant paid a sum of over Rs. 200 into Court in time: but unfortunately for him, there was an appeal to the Sub-Court and that Court increased the amount of rent payable by about Rs. 21. The question we have to consider in this case is whether by the decree of that Court, the payment of the Rs. 21 within one month from the date of that Court's decree was a condition precedent to the forfeiture being relieved against or not. The Munsif held that it was, and the money...
Savanna Venka Anaruna Vellayappa Chettiar Vs. M.R.M. Ramanathan Chetti ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-14-1923
Reported in: 78Ind.Cas.1017
1. This appeal is from an insolvency proceeding before the District Judge of Madura. The Official Receiver seems to have made an attempt to sell certain properties to which the appellant before us put forward a claim that such properties belonged to him and not to the insolvent and should not be sold. These properties were included in a mortgage-decree obtained by the respondent against the insolvent. Strangely enough, the Official Receiver thought that he had power to dispose of the claim petition like that and, thinking that a prima facie title had been made out by the claimant, he passed an order releasing the properties from sale, holding that the properties belonged to the claimant. On this the mortgagee decree-holder, conceiving that he was somehow or other aggrieved by the order, put in an appeal to the District Judge. The District Judge thereupon came to the conclusion, and rightly in our opinion, that the secured creditor, the mortgagee decree-holder, was not in any way bound ...
The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. M. Ar. Ar. Arunachalam Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-12-1923
Reported in: (1924)46MLJ68
Walter Salis Schwabe, K.C., C.J.1. The question referred is, ' Where a person carries on two different trades one individually and the other as a member of an unregistered firm, is he entitled to set off (that is, for income-tax purposes), the loss incurred by him in respect of the partnership trade against the profits made by him in his individual trade? '2. The facts are that the assessee has an income from trade profits in two distinct and separate businesses of his own and from other property, has made losses in other businesses of his own, and also has incurred losses in two distinct businesses in which he is a partner and which businesses are not registered.3. The question for decision is a difficult one, the difficulty arising from the wording of the Income Tax Act. If our decision is not in accordance with the real intention of the legislature, it is for the legislature to make that intention clear hereafter. The relevant sections for consideration are 6, 10 and 24, and the dif...
Chettiyotan Kannan Kutty and anr. Vs. Elaya Veettil Velu Alias Elaya C ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-12-1923
Reported in: (1924)46MLJ122
Ramesam, J.1. The suit property belongs in jenmam to Kannancheri Devaswam of which the Uralans are the plaintiff and the 3rd defendant. Plaintiff's predecessor and the 3rd defendant leased it to the 1st defendant for a period of 12 years under Ex. A on 10-8-1897. Plaintiff brought the suit to recover the property on behalf of the Devaswam. The Munsif dismissed the suit. The Subordinate Judge decreed it. The 1st and 3rd defendants appeal.2. The first point argued is that the suit filed by the plaintiff (one of the Uralans) without consulting the 3rd defendant is not maintainable. It is true that, in any transaction which creates or destroys rights, all the Uralans must be consulted [V. A. Istoop v. V. K. Ayappan (1913) 16 IC 435 a case of demise; Chandu v. Kuttiyil Rayiru : AIR1922Mad2 a case of melcharth]. But this principle does not apply to suits, provided the other Uralans are also parties (Mariyil Raman Nair v. Narayanan Nambudripad ILR (1902) M 461; Kunhan v. Moorthi 20 MLJ 951 )....
The Official Assignee of Madras Vs. N. Rajabadar Pillai (Minor) and or ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-12-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Mad458; (1924)46MLJ145
Walter Salis Schwabe, K.C., C.J.1. This is an appeal from the judgment of Krishnan, J. in a partition suit--from so much of his decree as directed that the first defendant should account for a sum of Rs. 6,500 shown to have come into his hands as part of the joint family assets. The 1st defendant was the manager of a joint Hindu family governed by the Mitakshara Law, the other persons interested being a minor brother, and their mother and sister who were entitled to rights of maintenance. The 1st defendant has become an insolvent and the Official Assignee of Madras on behalf of his creditors represents his interest. The facts so far as they are relevant are that Rs. 6,500 which formed part of the ancestral property were deposited in a Bank, and, some years ago, drawn out by the 1st defendant. Of that amount Rs. 2,500 were deposited with Messrs Beardsell & Co., as security for the honesty of the 1st defendant who was entering the service of that firm as cash-keeper. The balance has disa...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »