Chennai Court August 1925 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.
Dewan Bahadur G. Krishnamachari Vs. the Municipal Council Represented ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-19-1925
Reported in: 91Ind.Cas.933
Viswantha Sastri, J.1. Petition by the plaintiff in S.C.S. No. 5450 of 1922 on the file of the Court of Small Causes, Trichinopoly, to revise the decree dated 16th April 1923.2. The suit was to recover back professional tax collected from the plaintiff. The plaintiff is a resident of Hyderabad and has a house within the Municipal limits of Srirangam where he comes and spends a portion of his vacation. He was called upon to pay professional tax for carrying on money-lending business at Srirangam and paid a sum of Rs. 50, under protest. It was urged before me that as he did not reside within the Municipal limits of Srirangam, for 60 days in the half year for which the, tax was collected, he was not liable to be assessed, It was conceded that during the half year for which the tax was levied, the plaintiff did come and reside at his house at Srirangam for some days Such being the case, he was a person liable to be assessed, in case he came under Section 95 of the District Municipalities A...
Karipineni Rajayya Vs. Kalpatapu Annapurnamma Minor by Guardian Mangam ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-19-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Mad138; 92Ind.Cas.308
Phillips, J.1. The main question for consideration in this appeal is whether the sale in execution of the property of the deceased judgment-debtor is a mere irregularity or a nullity. It appears that in this case an order for the sale of the judgment-debtor's property was made and that before the sale took place, the judgment-debtor died. His legal representative were not impleaded. There are two cases of this Court which are exactly applicable, one reported in Raghunathaswami Iyengar v. Gopaul Rao 15 L.W. 12 and the other in Doraisami v. Chidambaram Pillai 75 Ind. Cas. 46 : 45 M.L.J. 413 : (1923) M.W.N. 817. The decisions being directly opposed to, one another, it is suggested for the appellant that in view of this difference of opinion this second appeal should be referred to a Bench but, as I will explain, I do not think that is necessary.2. In Raghunathaswami Iyengar v. Gopaul Rao 68 Ind. Cas. 667 : 41 M.L.J. 547 : (1921) M.W.N. 732 : 15 L.W. 12 : A.I.R. (1922)(M.) 307 Oldfield and...
Veerasami Mudali Vs. P.R. Venkatachala Mudali and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-18-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Mad18; 92Ind.Cas.20; (1926)50MLJ102
Jackson, J.1. Plaintiffs in two connected suits Nos. 475 and 476 of 1922 on the file of the Court of the District Munsif of Poonamallee brought under Section 9 of the Specific Relief Act were unsuited on the ground that on the date of the suits, the plaint-lands although trespassed upon by defendants were leased to others and therefore only their lessees and not plaintiffs themselves were entitled to sue. This petition is brought in order to revise that decision.2. Plaintiffs have their remedy by way of suit and in such circumstances this Court will not ordinarily interfere by way of revision Devata Sri Ramamurthi v. Venkata Sitarama-chandra Row (1914) M.W.N. 95. But if the remedy is clear, the parties will not necessarily be driven to another suit Sri Krishnadoss v. Chanduk Chand I.L.R. (1908) Mad 334. Therefore the question for determination in this case resolves itself into whether there is clear authority supporting or controverting the decision of the District Munsif.3. There has ...
Parasurama Mudaliar Vs. Muthuswami Pillai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-18-1925
Reported in: AIR1925Mad1209; (1926)50MLJ100
Jackson, J.1. The petitioner seeks to revise the award decreed by the District Munsif, Tirukoilur, in O.S. No. 37 of 1922 on the ground that he was a party interested and never signified his agreement that the matter should be referred to arbitration. It is not disputed that the petitioner never agreed. He was 'ex parte in the suit and only those who put in an appearance signed in token of their consent. Nor can it be said that by remaining ex parte he waived his right to be consulted in the matter. There is some conflict of judicial opinion on this point, the Calcutta High Court holding that even though he be ex parte the party interested must be consulted and the Allahabad High Court holding the contrary view. Girija v. Kanai (1917) 27 C.L.J. 339 and Ajudhia Prasad v. Badar-ul-Husain I.L.R. (1917) All 489. The ruling case in this Court is Potita Pavana Panda v. Nanasinga Panda I.L.R. (1919) Mad. 632 to which I defer.2. It remains to consider whether the petitioner was a party interes...
In Re: (Tiruvangalath Nellyoton) Paidal Nayar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-18-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Mad225
Phillips, J.1. This is a reference under Section 5 of the Court-fees Act. The plaintiff filed a suit for redemption of a kanom. He obtained a decree for recovery of possession of property, subject to payment of the kanam amount and the value of improvements. In appeal, there is no dispute as to plaintiff's right to redeem, but he appeals against the value allowed for improvements. The question is: What is the proper Court-fee payable on the memorandum of appeal.2. The reference has been made because, as a matter of practice, the Taxing Officer has been following the decision in Reference under Court Fees Act, Section 5 [1900] 23 Mad. 84 where it was held that the claim for improvements being merely incidental to the decree for possession, the Court-fees payable was that prescribed by Section 7, Clause (9) of the Court-fees Act, viz., on the principal amount of the mortgage. It appears, on a reference to the papers in that case, which was an ejectment suit that the right to eject was in...
Mahalakshmi Ammal Vs. Venkata Naicker and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-18-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Mad345
Madhavan Nair, J.1. The plaintiff-petitioner asked the lower Court to issue a commission for examining one Srinivasa Aiyar on the ground that the witness was residing in Madras.2. The application was supported by an affidavit stating this fact. A counter affidavit was filed, wherein it was stated that the witness was understood to be in the Coimbatore District, where the suit had been instituted. The learned Subordinate Judge says: ' It is not clear that the witness is a resident of Madras'; on that ground, as well as on the ground that the application was vexatious, he dismissed it. The Subordinate Judge has not distinctly found whether the witness resides in Madras or not; and there is nothing to show that the application is vexatious. I set aside the order of the Subordinate Judge and remand the application to the lower Court. It is not denied that the witness is a material one. The Subordinate Judge is at liberty to take fresh evidence if he is requested to do so as regards the res...
AmIn Mallikarjuna Vs. Bangle Becran Kunhi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-18-1925
Reported in: AIR1925Mad1212
Madhavan Nair, J.1. An amin of the District Munsif's Court of Kaaargod is the petitioner. He was deputed by the District Munsif in the course of the execution of the decree in O.S. No. 331 of 1922, to inspect the locality and estimate the quantity of paddy and straw heaped at the place and to attach the same. It was alleged that, in discharging his duty, he misappropriated a portion of the paddy and straw. On that ground an application was made by the aggrieved party (the defendant in the suit) to the Munsif to take action against the amin under Section 151, Civil Procedure Code for abusing the process of Court. The District Munsif inquired into the matter and came to the conclusion, that the misappropriation complained of was true. Ha therefore directed the amin to make good to the petitioner 52 paras of paddy and 1,000 bundles of straw, valued at Rs. 57 and Rs. 5 respectively.2. This order is now sought to be revised on the ground that the learned District Munsif had no jurisdiction ...
Medai Dalavoy Kaliani Anni Vs. Medai Dalavoy Thirumalayappa Mudaliar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-18-1925
Reported in: AIR1927Mad115; 92Ind.Cas.355
Viswanatha Sastri, J.1. Appeal by plaintiff against the decree of the Court of the Additional Subordinate Judge of Tinnevelly, in O.S. No. 39 of 1919. The facts which gave rise to the suit are as follows: One Shanmuga Kumaraswami Mudaliar died on January 15th, 1892, leaving two widows Parasakti Vadivu Anni,. and Kaliani Anni (plaintiff) as his heirs. The two widows 'to suit their convenience', divided some of the properties into equal moities, and the income from other properties was also similarly divided, as also debts due to the family. Parasakti died on December 10th, 1915, and, on her death, all the properties which she was enjoying accrued to plaintiff by right of survivorship. The properties which were in the enjoyment of Parasakti yielded an annual income of Rs. 6,000. The 1st defendant who is the next reversioner, fraudulently induced Parasakti to execute a sale-deed in his favour with respect to the properties specified in some of the schedules ; and he also induced her to ex...
In Re: Tiruvangalath Nellyoton Paidal Nayar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-18-1925
Reported in: 92Ind.Cas.624
Phillips, J.1. This is a reference under Section 5 of the Court Fees Act. The plaintiff filed a suit for redemption of a kanom. He obtained a decree for recovery of possession of property, subject to payment of the kanom amount and the value of improvements. In appeal, there is no dispute as to plaintiff's right to redeem but he appeals against the value allowed for improvements. The question is:--What is the proper Court-fee payable on the memorandum of appeal?2. The reference has been made, because as a matter of practice, the Taxing Officer has been following the decision in Reference under Court Fees Act Section 5, (1) where it, was held that the claim for improvements being merely incidental to the decree for, possession, the Court-fees payable was that prescribed by Section 7, Clause ix of the Court Fees Act, viz., on the principal amount of the mortgage. It appears, on a reference to the papers in that case, which was an ejectment; suit that the right to eject was in dispute, in...
The Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Sri Krishna Chandra Gajapathi Naray ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-17-1925
Reported in: (1926)50MLJ63
Victor, J.1. The short point here is whether certain bungalows which belong to the Rajah of Parlakimedi are or are not assessable under Section 9 of the Indian Income-tax Act (XI of 1922). The sub-section material to this question is sub-section I (7):In respect of vacancies such sum as the Income-tax Officer may determine, having regard to the circumstances of the case, is to be the tax payable by the assessee.2. The question we have to determine is what the section means by 'vacancies'. The executive authorities have issued for the guidance of their officers a Manual and this case has been put forward in the form of asking us to say whether Section 32 of the Manual is in consonance with the words of the Act. Ordinarily we should not view the matter from that point of view because; the Manual, which is called notes of instructions, is obviously merely a document for the guidance of officials. All we have to determine is two short questions: first, whether these bungalows in the circum...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »