Chennai Court September 1925 Judgments
L. Rathan Singh Vs. the Commissioner of Income-tax to the Government o ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-08-1925
Reported in: 92Ind.Cas.1051
1. This Reference raises two points. The assessee's business is that of an owner of motor-cars plying for hire. Only two points were raised before the learned Judge, though the first was raised under two heads. We propose first to dispose of the second contention.2. The assessee was the owner of a new car which very shortly after it was purchased met with an accident and had to be sold as scrap iron and the learned Judge has held that this entitles him to claim a deduction under Section 10(2)(vii) of the Indian Income Tax Act of 1922 on the footing that this may be treated as having become in the words of the Act 'obsolete.' It seems to us that this is contrary to the plain meaning of the language used. 'Obsolete machinery' means machinery which though it is able to perform its function has become in common parlance out of date and performs its function so indifferently or at such a cost that a prudent man instead of continuing to use such machinery would discard it and instal more lab...
Tag this Judgment!S.R. Subramania Aiyar Vs. L.A. Krishna Iyer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-08-1925
Reported in: 92Ind.Cas.833
Charles Gordon Spencer, J.1. The respondent having attached the appellant's immoveable properties before judgment, obtained a decree for Rs. 2,224-12-0 against him and his mother on 28th January 1919. Afterwards he applied through E.P. No. 35 of 1924 for sale of the properties which were attached before judgment. In the interval two petitions for executing the same decree had been rejected owing to the execution petitioner's fault. The appellant filed C.M.P. No. 722 of 1924 on November 18th 1924, asking (1) that the auction-sale fixed for November 24th, 1924, should be stopped, (2) that the whole proceedings in the pending E.P. R. No. 35 should be vacated, and (3) that E.P.R. No. 35 should be dismissed. The Subordinate Judge of Coimbatore refused these reliefs and dismissed the C.M.P. From that order the appellant has filed an appeal and a revision petition to the High Court on March 2nd, 1925. The sale took place on February 9th, 1925, and awaits the lower Court's order of confirmatio...
Tag this Judgment!Ramaswami Goundan Vs. Alagia Singaperumal Kadavul and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-07-1925
Reported in: (1926)50MLJ42
1. This suit was brought by a male reversioner to the estate of the founder of a trust for the temple of Alagia Singaperumal Kadavul to recover property alienated in favour of 1st defendant by the act of the founder's wife, who is 2nd defendant. The District Munsif held that the plaintiff was not entitled to maintain the suit and dismissed it. The Additional Subordinate Judge was of a contrary opinion and ordered the suit to go on.2. He relied on two cases, Cunniah Chetty v. T. Ramanuja-chari : (1913)24MLJ48 and Srinivasacharlu v. Subuddhi (1888) 23 M.L.J. 348. Both of these decisions were given in suits instituted when the Civil Procedure Code of 1882 was in force. When the amended Act of 1908 came into force it contained a new provision in Clause 2 of Section 92 barring suits in respect of charitable and religious trusts without first obtaining the permission of the Advocate-General.3. We have been referred, in the course of the arguments, to two other cases, Subramania Aiyar v. Naga...
Tag this Judgment!Sethu Konar Vs. Ramaswami Konar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-07-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Mad484; 94Ind.Cas.526; (1926)50MLJ205
Spencer, J.1. O.S. No. 320 of 1918 was a suit brought by the 1st respondent upon a mortgage. The suit was decreed and the plaintiff purchased some of the suit property in Court auction. The 2nd defendant in the suit thereupon filed an application to set aside delivery of the items purchased on the ground that he had a paramount title which prevailed over the title of the mortgagor in consequence of more than 16 years' possession after the property had been surrendered to him by the owner. The District Munsif found in favour of the petitioner and directed release of the property. On appeal to the Subordinate Judge by the decree-holder purchaser, the District Munsif's order was set aside and the petition was dismissed. It is now contended that no appeal lay to the Subordinate Judge on the ground that the appellant, though made a party to the suit, Was exonerated as he set up a title paramount to that of the mortgagor, and consequently the decree-holder's remedy, if any, against the Distr...
Tag this Judgment!Kunkalakunta Veniah Vs. Mandlem Guraviah and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-07-1925
Reported in: (1926)50MLJ669
Spencer, J.1. These two appeals arise out of connected suits O.S. No. 1440 of 1919 was a suit brought by M. Guravayya and the minor sons of his deceased brother Ramaguruvayya to recover possession of lands in the possession of the defendant. O.S. No. 199 of 1920 is a suit by the defendant in O.S. No. 1440 for specific performance of a contract to sell entered into by Ramaguruvayya, father of plaintiffs 2 and 3 in O.S. No. 1440. In the first of these suits the plaintiffs alleged that the suit lands were taken on lease by one Nowlpor Periah, that the defendant got into possession and was paying rent for some years but afterwards refused to pay rent or to surrender possession. Both the Lower Courts found against the truth of the alleged lease in favour of the defendant. The District Munsif found that the father of plaintiffs 2 and 3, Ramaguruvayya, had purchased the suit lands under Ex. II from Nowloor Periah, to whom the family had previously sold the same property, in discharge of debts...
Tag this Judgment!Kunkalagunta Venkiah Vs. Mandlem Guraviah and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-07-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Mad757; 96Ind.Cas.290
Charles Gordon Spencer, J.1. These two appeals arise out of connected suits. Original Suit No. 1440 of 1919 was a suit brought by M. Guravayya and the minor sons, of his deceased brother Ramaguruvayya to recover possession of lands in the possession of the defendant. Original Suit No. 199 of 1920 is a suit by the defendant in O.S. No. 1440 for specific performance of a contract to sell entered into by Ramaguruvavya, father of the plaintiffs Nos. 2 and 3 in O.S. No. 1440. In the first of these suits, the plaintiffs alleged that the suit lands were taken on lease by one Nowloor Periah, that the defendant got into possession and was paying rent for some years but afterwards refused to pay rent or to surrender possession. Both the lower Courts found against the truth of the alleged lease in favour of the defendant. The District Munsif found that the father of plaintiffs Nos. 2 and 3, Ramaguruvayya, had purchased the suit lands under Ex. II from Nowloor Periah, to whom the family had previo...
Tag this Judgment!Ramasami Goundan Vs. Alagia Singaperumal Kadavul and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-07-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Mad280; 92Ind.Cas.823
1. This suit was brought by a male reversioner to the estate of the founder of a trust for the temple of Aligia Singaperumal Kadavul to recover property-alienated in favour of first defendant by the act of the founder's wife, who is 2nd defendant. The District Munsif held that the plaintiff was not entitled to maintain the suit and dismissed it. The Additional Subordinate Judge was of a contrary opinion and ordered the suit to go on.2. He relied on two cases, Savala Cunniah Chetly v. Thiruvengada Ramanujachariar 24 M.L.J. 348 and Kadavibi Srinivasacharlu v. Durlabha Subuddhi 23 M.L.J. 348. Both of these decisions were given in suits instituted when the C.P.C. of 1882 was in force. When the amended Act of 1908 came into force, it contained a new provision in Clause (2) of Section 92 barring suits in respect of charitable and religious trusts without first obtaining the permission of the Advocate General.3. We have been referred in the course of the arguments to two other cases Subramani...
Tag this Judgment!(Koduri) Venkataramayya Vs. (Thumulluri) Punnayya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-04-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Mad607; 94Ind.Cas.853
Reilly, J.1. Plaintiff and his elder brother sold certain property to defendant under Ex. 1 in 1915. He has sued for a declaration that Ex. 1 is void so far as it relates to his 1/2 share of the property on the ground that he was a minor when he joined his brother in executing it and for the partition and recovery of his half share. The District Munsif dismissed the suit; but on appeal the Subordinate Judge has made the declaration prayed for and has decreed that the property be divided and plaintiff's half share be delivered to him but he has made all this conditional on plaintiff depositing in Court within 3 months Rs. 1,250, that is half the amount of the purchase money paid by defendant, failing which the suit will be dismissed. - Defendant appeals to this Court.2. It has been found by both the lower Courts that plaintiff was a minor when he executed Ex. 1 but that he dishonestly represented to defendant at that time that he was a major and that defendant believed that representati...
Tag this Judgment!Gonnabathula Thammayya, Being Minor by His Natural Father and Next Fri ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-04-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Mad282; 92Ind.Cas.594
Odgers, J.1. The question in this suit was whether the plaintiff had been adopted by one Chinnayya before his death in September 1918. The District Munsif came to the conclusion on the evidence before him that the plaintiff was so adopted. On appeal to the Subordinate Judge, the Subordinate Judge came to a different conclusion on the evidence. It is contended in second appeal that the conclusion, which, the Subordinate Judge Game to was influenced by the reception in evidence of Ex. A and Ex. II. These were attempted to be put in before the learned District. Munsif but were rejected. Therefore, application was made to the Subordinate Judge to admit these. Exhibit A is a, public copy of the deposition of P.W. No. 3 (4th defendant herein) before the Revenue Inspector. The request to admit this Ex., A was made by the respondent, and on that application the learned Subordinate Judge makes this note:P.L.N., who argues the case for the appellant's learned Vakil, has no objection to have the ...
Tag this Judgment!Maruthavanaswami Alias Desika Pandaka-sannadhi Vs. Subramania Thambira ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-03-1925
Reported in: (1925)ILR38Mad716
1. These Revision Petitions have been filed in respect of two orders of the Subordinate Judge of Mayavaram, dated 29th March and 2nd May 1924 The proceedings before him were under Section 16, Clause (7) of Madras Regulation III of 1802 and the learned Judge by his first order directed that affidavit evidence should be adduced and by his second order refused permission to the petitioner before us to cross-examine the deponents to the affidavits.2. The facts are shortly these. The Pandara Sannadhi of Dharmapuram Mutt died on or about the 28th October 1923. The Sub-Magistrate having jurisdiction over the locality, locked and sealed the rooms containing some movables belonging to the Mutt and sent up a report to the Collector of Tanjore and he directed the Sub-Magistrate to hand over the keys of the rooms to the Subordinate Judge of Mayavaram, who was requested by the Collector to take proceedings under Regulation III of 1802. The present petitioner who is the Pandara Sannadhi of Swargapur...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »