Chennai Court October 1925 Judgments
Appu Bhatta Vs. Uma Sundari Amma and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-30-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Mad668; 94Ind.Cas.42; (1926)51MLJ734
Spencer, J.1. The plaintiff in this suit claimed the-property of his deceased great-grandmother on the strength of a will executed by her in 1883. The testatrix died in 1886. The plaintiff was born in 1899 and he must have come of age in 1917. The suit was brought in 1920. The will (Ex. II) provided that the testatrix's grandson Subraya, who is the 2nd defendant in this suit and his wife, Yamuna Bai, should manage the estate as agents for the testatrix, collect the amount due to her under a mortgage and out of it pay off mortgages due by her and meet the expenses of her funeral ceremonies and maintain their children and lastly, without alienating the property in any manner, they should deliver all the properties, moveable and immoveable, to the greatgrandchildren of the testatrix upon their attaining their majority. At the time when the will was made and also when Laxmi died, no great-grandchildren had been born. The will on the face of it is in favour of a person unborn at the decease...
Tag this Judgment!The Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. King and Partridge
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-29-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Mad368; (1926)50MLJ176
ORDER1. This is a reference under Section 66(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act (XI of 1922) and the question submitted for our opinion is whether profession tax paid under Section 111 of the Madras City Municipal Act should be allowed as a proper deduction from the taxable income ' as an expenditure incurred solely for the purposes of the profession' of the assessees within the meaning of Section 11 of the Income-tax Act.2. The assessees are a firm of attorneys practising in 'Madras and they claim that they are entitled to the deduction above mentioned. The Commissioner of Income-tax was of opinion that the deduction claimed was not an allowable item.3. The answer to the question put to us depends in our opinion upon the nature of the profession tax levied by the Municipality. If the profession tax is a contribution from the income of the assessee to the Municipality it will stand on the same footing as income-tax itself which is such a payment to the Government. It is clear in assessing...
Tag this Judgment!Venkatakrishna Reddi and ors. Vs. Krishna Reddi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-29-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Mad586; (1926)50MLJ485
Devadoss, J.1. The plaintiff in O.S. No. 451 of 1922, on the file of the District Munsif's Court of Villupuram died pending the suit and the respondent herein applied to be brought on record as the legal representative of the plaintiff. The District Munsif held that the will under which the respondent claimed the property of the deceased plaintiff was not genuine and dismissed his petition. The respondent preferred an appeal to the District Court of South Arcot. A preliminary objection was raised by the appellants herein to the appeal on the ground that no appeal lay against the order of the District Munsif. The District Judge overruled the pre-liminaVy objection and held that the will under which the respondent herein claimed was a genuine will, set aside the order of the District Munsif dismissing his application for being added as the 2nd plaintiff and remanded the suit for disposal according to law. Against that order the defendants have preferred this appeal.2. It is contended by ...
Tag this Judgment!Venkatakrishnan Reddi and ors. Vs. Krishna Reddi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-29-1925
Reported in: 95Ind.Cas.489
Devadoss, J.1. The plaintiff, in O. S. No. 451 of 1922, on the file of the District Munsif s Court of Villupuram died pending the suit and the respondent herein applied to be brought on record as the legal representative of the plaintiff. The District Munsif held that the Will under which the respondent claimed the property of. the deceased plaintiff was not genuine and dismissed his petition. The respondent preferred an appeal to the District Court of South Arcot. A preliminary objection was raised by the appellants herein to the appeal on the ground that no appeal lay against the order of the District Munsif. The District Judge overruled the preliminary objection and held that the Will under which the respondent herein claimed was a genuine Will, set aside the order of the District Munsif dismissing his application for being added as the 2nd plaintiff and remanded the suit for disposal according to law. Against that order the defendants have preferred this appeal.2. It is contended b...
Tag this Judgment!Rama Reddy Vs. Ranga Dasan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-28-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Mad769; (1926)50MLJ589
Devadoss, J.1. This is an appeal against the judgment of Madhavan Nair, J., giving a decree to the plaintiff. The 3rd defendant has preferred this Letters Patent Appeal. The question for determination is whether the suit is barred by Article 134 of the Limitation Act. The plaintiff is the trustee of a temple. The finding is that the property is the property of the temple. The contention of Mr. Ramachandra Aiyar is that the suit is barred under Article 134 inasmuch as the suit was brought more than 12 years after the date of the alienation. Article 134 gives a period of 12 years for the recovery of possession of immoveable property conveyed or bequeathed in trust or mortgaged and afterwards transferred by the trustee or mortgagee for valuable consideration. The argument advanced is that the suit is barred by Article 134 if the transferor is held to be a trustee and if he is not a trustee, then the suit is barred by reason of Article 144 of the Limitation Act. The finding that the transf...
Tag this Judgment!Addepalli Venkata Gurunadha Rama Seshayya Vs. Sri Tripurasundari Cotto ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-28-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Mad615; 94Ind.Cas.515; (1926)50MLJ520
Venkalasubba Rao, J.1. This is a letters Patent Appeal from the judgment of Wallace, J. One Subba Rao was a shareholder of the 2nd defendant company. A money decree was passed against him and in execution of it certain shares belonging to him together with the dividends that had accrued were attached and sold. The plaintiff who became the purchaser at the Court-sale has instituted the present suit for the recovery of the dividends. The short question to be decided is: What is the article of the Limitation Act that is applicable to the case? The defendant company contends that the period of limitation is three years, whereas the plaintiff urges that the period is six years. Wallace, J. was of the opinion that the suit would have been in time had the plaintiff been a shareholder but that the plaintiff would not fall under that article. The ground of his decision is that Ripon Press and Sugar Mill Co., Ltd. v. Nama Venkatarama Chetty : (1918)35MLJ256 which lays down that a suit for return...
Tag this Judgment!Shanmugam Pillai Vs. Panchali Ammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-28-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Mad683; 95Ind.Cas.209; (1926)50MLJ681
Spencer, J.1. The second plaintiff in the suit, who is the first respondent in this appeal, is the second wife of one Ganapathia Pillai (deceased), who was the assignee of the rights of one Sankararama Aiyar, auction-purchaser of a house which belonged to the joint family of one Ramalingam Pillai and the first and the second defendants and which was attached in execution of a money decree obtained by one Narayanaswami Aiyar against Ramalingam Pillai. The present suit is for partition by metes and bounds of a block of houses belonging to the joint family and for delivery to the plaintiff of the share of the minor son of Ramalingam Pillai, who is now dead. The question to be decided in second appeal is whether the suit is barred by reason of its having been instituted more than one year after an order which was passed on 7th September, 1915, under Order 21, Rule 101 of the Civil Procedure Code re-delivering the property to the possession of defendants 1 and 2 after the plaintiff's husban...
Tag this Judgment!Meenakshisundaram Pillai Vs. Chandrakasa Naicker and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-28-1925
Reported in: AIR1927Mad550
Curgenvan, J.1. The plaintiff, who is now the petitioner, sued three persons in the following circumstances. In a previous suit a decree had been obtained against the undivided brother of the 2nd and 3rd defendants and in execution of that decree a house supposed to belong to the judgment-debtor was purchased by the 1st defendant. The latter sold this house to the plaintiff for Rs. 1,500 but the plaintiff was obstructed from obtaining possession by the 2nd and 3rd defendants, claiming each 1/3 share. He therefore sued the three defendants to obtain delivery of the house together with mesne profits and in the alternative, if delivery were not decreed, to recover the purchase money from the 1st defendant. When the suit came on for trial, the 2nd and 3rd defendants were ex parte and the plaintiff compromised with the 1st defendant, with the result that a decree was passed against all the defendants for possession and for a sum of Rs. 405 as mesne profits, this part of the decree being exe...
Tag this Judgment!(Valluri Srivat) Sanka Rao Vs. the Ryots of Kalagampudi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-28-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Mad480
1. The revenue officer for the settlement of rents in the villages of Kalagampudi and Pedamamipalli, Narasapur Taluk, Kistna District made a record of rights under Chapter XI of the Estates Land Act. The appeal of the proprietor of....Pedamamipalli to the Board of Revenue against the record of sights made by the revenue officer has been dismissed. He now moves the High Court to revise the order of the Board of Revenue.2. Two points arise for decision in this case : (1) Has the High Court revisional jurisdiction over the orders of the Board passed under Sections 171 and 172 of the Estates Land Act and (2) If the question of jurisdiction is answered in the affirmative, should the High Court exercise its revisional jurisdiction in this case 3.The first point has been fully argued by Mr. Ramadoss for the petitioner and Mr. Venkatrayaliah for the respondents. We have also heard the Government Pleader to whom we gave notice to appear for the Board of Revenue as it was represented to us that ...
Tag this Judgment!Vice-chairman, Chidambaram Municipality Vs. Ganasambandham Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-28-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Mad798
Jackson, J.1. The petitioner seeks to set aside two orders of the District Munsif of Chidambaram, one ordering the production and the other ordering the attachment and seizure of the ballot boxes in the election of a Councillor for the 4th ward of the Chidambaram Municipality. There is no ground for presumption from the record at this stage of the proceedings that the District Munsif had any jurisdiction to interfere with the final election. It seems that when the final list of valid nominations was posted in accordance with Election Rule 5, the respondent found that his name had been omitted. Accordingly he filed O.S. No. 502 of 1925 in the Court of the District Munsif of Chidambaram. His remedy would have been to refer the matter to the Local Government under Rule 31 or to have filed an election petition under Rule 1 of the Election Dispute Rules. As Mr. Justice Wallace observes in Sarvothama Rao v. Chairman Municipal Council Saidapet A.I.R. 1923 Mad. 475. it is impossible in decidin...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »