Chennai Court January 1926 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.
Acha Vs. Sankaran and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-18-1926
Reported in: AIR1926Mad768; (1926)50MLJ497
Phillips, J.1. This is an application to revise the order of the Subordinate Judge of South Malabar directing the plaintiff to pay additional Court-fee.2. The first question for determination is whether this Court will interfere with such an order under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code. No doubt in Sudali Muthu Pillai v. Sudalimuthu Pillai (1922) 17 LW 623 Oldfield, J., held that such a case did come within Section 115 and he accordingly passed an order under that section. It may be observed however that in that particular case the order demanding additional Court-fee was coupled with an order dismissing the appeal in case of default. In the present instance, we have no such conditional dismissal but time was granted for the payment of the fee. In the Patna High Court it has consistently been held that the Court would not interfere in such' a case vide Musammat I.achmibati Kumari v. Nand Kumar Singh (1920) 5 Pat LJ 400 and the same view was taken by a Bench of the Calcutta High ...
Obla R. Nahasimha Iyer Vs. Gunna V. Rangachari and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-18-1926
Reported in: 95Ind.Cas.444
1. In this case the petitioner was released on giving security under Section 55 (4) of the C. P. C. Under that section, he has to file his petition in insolvency within 30 days of the order but he did not do so in the present instance and applied for extension of time on the ground that he had been ill for the latter half of the one month allowed. The lower Appellate Court has held that the Court had no jurisdiction 1o increase the time of 30 days allowed by Section 55. It is now contended that under Section 148 the time may be extended, but under Section 148 the time that can be extended is a period fixed or granted by the Court. In an order under Section 55 (4) there is no question of the period being fixed or granted by the Court, for the period is fixed by the Code itself and consequently Section 148 would not appear to be applicable.2. Reliance is, however, placed on a decision of the Privy Council in Burjore and Bhawani Pershad v. Bhagana (1) in which it was held that the lower C...
Ramabhadra thevar and ors. Vs. Arunachalam Pillai and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-15-1926
Reported in: AIR1926Mad601; 95Ind.Cas.108; (1926)50MLJ468
ORDERPhillips, J.1. The first point for consideration is the construction of the mortgage deed executed by the father of the defendants Nos. 1 to 3 in favour of the 1st plaintiff's manager, 4th defendant. The 1st plaintiff on his own behalf and on behalf of his minor son, 2nd plaintiff, sold certain property to the father of 1st defendant under Ex. 1 on nth September, 1909. There was a prior mortgage on this property, dated 9th February, 1908. As there was this prior mortgage and also because one of the vendors was a minor, the 1st defendant's father did not pay the whole of the purchase money, but retained a sum of Rs. 4,625. On the 15th September, 1909 the 1st defendant's father hypothecated the property he bought for this amount and stipulated that the 1st plaintiff should execute a security bond for Rs. 6,000 on or before the 14th September, 1910. The relevant provisions in this mortgage deed which we have to construe are as follows:I shall pay the aforesaid amount of principal tog...
Vellathusseri Chakkalakumpil Raman Menon Vs. Vellathusseri Chakkalakum ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-15-1926
Reported in: AIR1926Mad952; (1926)50MLJ563
Madhavan Nair, J.1. The question involved in this appeal is whether the judgment-debtor, who is the appellant before me, is bound to pay interest on the mesne profits decreed against him.2. The decree, so far as it relates to mesne profits, runs as follows:That he (defendant) do pay to plaintiff Rs. 375 for kannipattom of the year 1092 and future mesne profits from 8th Dhanu 1092 at 638 paras of paddy and Rs. 338 a year lending' with 7th Dianu until surrender, or until the expiration of three years from this date.3. In the light of, the decision in Girish Chunder Lahiri v. Shoshi Shikkareswar Roy 10 M L J 356 (PC) the learned District Judge decided that interest on mesne profits should be allowed unless expressly excluded and allowed it at the rate of two per ten.4. I think that case is clearly distinguishable. There, the Trial Court did not fix the amount of mesne profits but directed that it should be ascertained on enquiry at the time of the execution of the decree and it was held t...
The Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Mothay Ganga Raju and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-12-1926
Reported in: (1927)52MLJ273
1. On the direction of the learned Judge several separate questions have been framed for our determination. In our opinion the answers to the first three dispose of the whole matter and preclude us from going into the others. The first question is whether four applications are necessary in this case for taking action under Section 66(2) of the Act. That is the section which says that the Income-tax Commissioner is to state a case when a proper application is made accompanied by the proper fee--which is Rs. 100 as matters stand. These applicants were four persons. They had once been an undivided family and, had they remained so, different considerations might arise, but they had in fact become separated and they were separately assessed. Nevertheless an attempt was made to have a case stated regarding them all on a single fee of Rs. 100. That of course was an impossible attitude to take up and as they were divided the result was that it was an application by four people each of whom, as...
Narayana Sah Vs. Sankara Sah and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-12-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Mad53; (1926)51MLJ621
Kumaraswami Sastri, J.1. This is a suit by the plaintiff for a partition of joint family properties, and for the delivery of his share. One Munuswami Sah, Sankar Sah (1st defendant), Chinnaswami Sah and Ponnuswami Sah were four brothers. The Ist defendant is one of the above four who is alive. Munuswami Sah had three sons and a daughter. The eldest son Sudaf-sana Sah filed C.S. No. 63 of 1910, got his share and got himself divided from the family. The decree in that suit is marked as Ex. A. The second son Chender Sah is the 10th defendant. He has a son and two daughters who are respectively the nth, 20th and 21st defendants. The third son Narayana Sah is the plaintiff in this suit and the daughter Lakshmi Bai is the 17th defendant. Sankar Sah, the 1st defendant, has five sons and two daughters. Krishna Sah, the eldest son, is the 2nd defendant and he has a minor daughter who is the 18th defendant. The second son Kasi Sah is dead and the 6th defendant is his minor son. The third son Gaj...
The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Mothey Ganga Raju and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-12-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Mad545; 100Ind.Cas.291
Victor Murray Coutts Trotter, C.J.1. On the direction of the learned Judge several separate questions have been formed for our determination. In our opinion the answers to the first three dispose of the whole matter and preclude us from going into the others. The first question is whether four applications are necessary in this case for taking action under Section 66(2) of the Act. That is the section which says that the Income Tax. Commissioner is to state a case when a proper application is made accompanied by the proper fee which is Rs. 100, as matters stand. These applicants were four persons. They had once been an undivided family and, had they remained so, different considerations might arise, but they had in fact become separated and they were separately assessed. Nevertheless, an attempt was made to have a case stated regarding them all on a single fee of Rs. 100. That, of course, was an impossible attitude to take up and as they were divided the result was that it was an appli...
The Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. thevara Patasala by Manager, Arunac ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-11-1926
Reported in: AIR1926Mad949; (1926)51MLJ123
Murray Coutts Trotter, C.J.1. The facts in this case are quite sufficiently set out in the case stated by the Commissioner, and they are shortly these, that a Hindu joint family entered into a partition and agreed among themselves that Rs. 15,000 of the family property should be set aside for a trust purpose, which purpose was to establish a Thevara Patasala, that is, a school for teaching Hindus Tamil hymns, and that the income from the balance of the amount after erecting a building was to be used for the upkeep and carrying on of the school.The direction was that that balance was to be invested in the purchase of lands and that it was on the income arising from those lands the Patasala should be run. Now in these circumstances we entertain no doubt that there was a creation of a valid trust and one from which none of the parties or its members could possibly have resiled without committing a breach of trust. The question now arises in consequence of what the trustees did. Instead of...
Suryadevara Mahalakshmamma Vs. Suryadevara Ramaswami and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-08-1926
Reported in: AIR1926Mad641; 94Ind.Cas.950; (1926)50MLJ651
Spencer, J.1. This is an idle suit and an idle appeal. The plaintiff, who was the daughter of the last rnale-holder, brought this suit to set aside an alienation made by her mother on the 24th February, 1900, of immoveable property which belonged to her deceased father and to recover the same. At the trial, it came out that the land in question was sold because it was situated far away from Kollur, which was the plaintiff's mother's residence, in order to buy better land in Kollur itself. Both the District Munsif and the District Judge found that the sale was valid and binding on the plaintiff, because the lands sold were situated in an out-of-the-way village and yielded very little and because the object of the sale was, with the aid of the proceeds of the sale and some other money contributed by the plaintiff's mother, to purchase in plaintiff's name better land which was more convenient for cultivation. The suit was therefore dismissed.2. Now it is argued in second appeal that the d...
Sivapuram Venkata Subbayya Vs. Muhammad FalauddIn Khaji and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-08-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Mad611; 101Ind.Cas.893; (1927)52MLJ651
ORDERPhillips, J.1. It appears that for some years past there has been considerable friction between the Hindu and Muhammadan inhabitants of Nellore. This was due to the objections taken by the Muhammadans to music being played outside their mosques while the Hindus were taking religious processions through the streets. In 1917 the then District Magistrate considered the question and advised the Hindus to file a suit to establish their rights. They accordingly filed a suit in the Munsif's Court in the same year and obtained a decree on 2nd October, 1918. That decree was subsequently confirmed by the District Judge on appeal. In this decree their right to take procession with music outside the mosques was declared, subject to certain conditions as to time. Accordirigly in 1919, a procession was taken but owing to the action of some of the Muhammadans there was a riot and three persons were killed and other injuries inflicted.2. Since that time, no procession has been taken by the Hindus...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »