Chennai Court February 1925 Judgments
Deivachilai Aiyangar Vs. Raghupathi Venkatachariar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-05-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Mad46; (1925)49MLJ317
Spencer, J.1. Plaintiff is the appellant. He brought this suit for recovery of ancestral property that had come into possession of his step-mother's brothers' families through her will, dated 9th December, 1903. The plaintiff's father died on 30th July, 1900, while plaintiff was a minor. The plaintiff's mother, Nachiar Ammal, was his father's junior wife and Chinnappen Janaki was the name of the senior wife. The 1st defendant and the 3rd defendant's husband are brothers of Chinnappen Janaki, the plaintiff's step-mother. The 2nd defendant is the 1st defendant's son. On 23rd July, 1900, the plaintiff's father executed a written will appointing his junior wife Nachiar Ammal, his sister Alagu Janaki and his aunt's son Ranga Aiyangar as managers of his properties after his death and guardians of the minor plaintiff. In case of difference of opinion among them the decision of Nachiar Ammal was to be final. There was a bequest of 1 acre 63 cents in favour of Ranga Aiyangar and there was also ...
Tag this Judgment!Valluru Appalasuri and ors. Vs. Sasapu Kannamma Nayuralu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-05-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Mad6; (1925)49MLJ479
1. This Second Appeal arises out of a suit by one of two Hindu widows for partition of her husband's property and possession of a share. The 1st defendant is the co-widow and she sold a part of the property under Ex. IV to the 2nd defendant who married the daughter of a deceased co-wife of plaintiff and 1st defendant, and another part to the 3rd defendant under Ex. VI. The 4th defendant is the undivided brother of the 3rd defendant. The 1st and 2nd defendants lived in the same house. The District Munsif decreed the suit. On appeal, the Subordinate Judge remanded the suit for fresh trial. On remand, the District Munsif again passed a decree in favour of the plaintiff. In the interval the 1st defendant died. There was again an appeal to the Subordinate Judge. The plaintiff prayed for an amendment of the plaint and prayed for possession of the entire estate as the result of the 1st defendant's death. The amendment was allowed. The Subordinate Judge granted a decree to the plaintiff for po...
Tag this Judgment!Dharman and ors. Vs. Jagaveerarama Venkateswara Ettappa Nayakkar Ayyan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-05-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Mad539
Phillips, J.1. The question for determination is whether the respondent is entitled to charge varam rates as rent for the land occupied by the appellants. The estate was under the management of the Court of Wards from 1872 to 1878 and from 1893 to 1899. During the first period of management, from 1872 to 1878, the Court of Wards levied a fixed rent of Rs. 14 per kottah of land in lieu of varam but when the management came to an end, the tenants asked the proprietor to revert to the varam rate, and he consented to it, making it a condition that they should admit that they had not got occupancy rights. When the Court of Wards again came into management they reverted to the money rent, and, when. that management terminated, the proprietors again reverted to varam. It is admitted by the defendants that prior to 1872 there was varam tenure on the lands; for they asked for a return to varam tenure in 1878 or 1879. The proprietor has a right to varam' tenure unless it is proved that there is ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. P.A.P.M.T.K. Thilai Chidambaram Nadan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-05-1925
Reported in: AIR1925Mad1048; 90Ind.Cas.549
Coutts-Trotter, C.J.1. It is with the greatest difficulty that I could extract a question of law of any sort in this case; but, if there is any, I suppose it is case; but, if there is any, I suppose it is this, as to whether under Section 23(2) of the Income-tax Act 'the person who made the return in the case of a firm means the identical person who made the original re-turn. Coommon sense would indicate that the only requisite is that the firm who made the return should, as a firm, have the notice properly delivered to them. That is a matter of general law and it is obviously a question of fact in most cases whether the notice was such as to reach the legal entity known as the firm. Here it was addressed to one of the partners and by the ordinary law and the specific provision of Section 63(2) of this very Act each partner is an agent for all the others in the firm. The question must be answered in this way: the assessee must pay the costs of this reference, Rs. 150 (Rupees One hundre...
Tag this Judgment!The Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Thillai Chidambaram Nadar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-05-1925
Reported in: (1925)ILR38Mad602
Murray Coutts Trotter, C.J.1. It was with, the greatest difficulty that I could extract a question of law of any sort in this case ; but, if there is any, I suppose it is this whether under Section 23(2) of the Income-tax Act 'the person who made the return' in the case of a firm means the identical person who made the original return. Common sense would indicate that the only requisite is that the firm who made the return should, as a firm, have the notice properly delivered to them. That is a matter of general law and it is obviously a question of fact in most cases whether the notice was such as to reach the legal entity known as the firm. Here it was addressed to one of the partners and by the ordinary law and the specific provision of Section 63(2) of this very Act each partner is an agent for all the others in the firm. The question must be answered in this way. The assessee must pay the costs of this reference, Rs. 150 (Rupees one hundred and fifty).Krishnan, J.2. I agree to the...
Tag this Judgment!Chelasani Ratlayya Vs. Anne Brahmayya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-05-1925
Reported in: 91Ind.Cas.572
ORDER1. This is an application for leave to appeal to His Majesty in Council. The value of the subject-matter of the suit in the Court of first instance and the value of the subject-matter in dispute on appeal to His Majesty, in Council must be Rs. 10,000, or upwards: (Section 110, C.P.C). The suit was for setting aside an adoption and an alienation. The alienated properties were set forth in the schedule to the plaint and were valued at Rs. 5,000 in para. 4 of the plaint. That there are other properties affected by the adoption and by the suit is admitted and the value of all the properties was described in para. 3 of the plaint as Rs. 10,000, 30 years ago. The plaintiffs finally valued the suit for purposes of jurisdiction at Rs. 10,000 (see para. 7 of the plaint). This value must be the market value of the subject-matter of the suit. It cannot be the artificial valuation prescribed under Section 7 of the Court Fees Act which is inapplicable to the case as the suit is for declaration...
Tag this Judgment!Devihilai Iyengar Vs. Raghupathi Venkatachariar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-05-1925
Reported in: 88Ind.Cas.967
Charles Gordon Spencer, J.1. Plaintiff is the appellant. He brought this suit for recovery of ancestral property that had came into possession of his step-mother's brother's families through her Will dated 9th December 1903. The plaintiff's father died on 30th July 1900 while plaintiff was a minor. The plaintiff's mother Nachiar Ammal was his father's junior wife and Chinnapen Janaki was the name of the senior wife. The 1st defendant and the 3rd defendant's husband are brothers of Chinnapen Janaki, the plaintiff's step-mother. The 2nd defendant is the 1st defendant's son. On 23rd July 1900 the plaintiff's father executed a written Will appointing his junior wife Nachiar Ammal, his sister Alagu Janaki and his aunt's son Ranga Iyengar as managers of his properties after his death and guardians of the minor plaintiff. In case of difference of opinion among them the decision of Nachiar Ammal was to be final. There was a bequest of 1 acre (53 cents, in favour of Ranga Ayyanagar and there wa...
Tag this Judgment!Metta Rama Bhatlu Vs. Metta Annayya Bhatlu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-04-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Mad144; (1925)49MLJ152
Phillips, J.1. In S.A. No. 750 of 1922: This is an appeal by the 3rd defendant against the decree for specific performance of a contract of sale entered into by defendants 1 and 2 in favour of the plaintiffs. It has been found that the contract was a valid contract and that the 3rd defendant (appellant) purchased property from defendants 1 and 2 with notice of the contract. The only question argued in the appeal is that the! contract is not one of which performance can be enforced by virtue of Section 21 of the Specific Relief Act (1 of 1877),because it is a contract for the non-performance of which compensation in money is an adequate relief. Under Section 12 of the Act, 'unless and until the contrary is proved, the Court shall presume that the breach of a contract to transfer immoveable property cannot be adequately relieved by compensation in money. ' This rule would prima facie apply here ; but it is argued that, as there is a condition in the contract for the payment of damages in...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Parankusam Venkayya Garu and ors. Vs. Bandaru Satyanarayanamurthi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-04-1925
Reported in: AIR1925Mad1235; (1925)49MLJ271
Phillips, J.1. This appeal relates solely to costs. The plaintiff brought a suit for partition impleading his co-sharer, the 1st defendant, and a large number of defendants who are alleged to be in possession of the land sought to be partitioned. The Subordinate Judge held that the plaintiff ought to have paid additional stamp duty in respect of his claim against the defendants other than the 1st defendant. The plaintiff did not pay this amount and his suit was dismissed with costs. It appears that in the decree the costs have been taxed as if the suit had been dismissed after contest ; but inasmuch as the suit has been dismissed for default of payment of stamp 'duty and as there has been no trial of the suit although the pleadings have been filed and issues framed, the case would appear to come under Rule 278(b) of the Civil Rules of Practice ; and the fees should be calculated in accordance with that rule.2. It also appears that separate costs have been awarded to a very large number...
Tag this Judgment!Appa Pai (Dead) and ors. Vs. Somu and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-04-1925
Reported in: AIR1925Mad1017; 90Ind.Cas.754; (1925)49MLJ327
Odgers, J.1. In this case the plaintiffs brought a suit to oblige the defendants to accept a mortgage amount which plaintiffs deposited in Court under Section 83 of the Transfer of Property Act. There is no dispute as to the amount. The defendants are the sons of the original mortgagee and consist of two brothers, a major and a minor respectively. The petition under Section 83 was presented on the 17th March, 1920, and prayed ' that the undermentioned amount may be ordered to be paid to the counter-petitioners after obtaining security for the minor, if necessary, etc.' The first counter-petitioner filed a statement in answer to this petition on the 21st of April, 1920, in which he stated that he was the Ejaman of the family, that the petitioner had refused to pay the amount to him and had deposited it in Court and that the petitioner is not entitled to ask for security. He adds, ' If the petitioner is willing to pay the said amount to me, I consent to receive the amount.' On this, the ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »