Chennai Court April 1926 Judgments
(Peetikappurath) Raman Menon and ors. Vs. (Puthiyatath Peetikappurath) ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-28-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Mad244
Ramesam, J.1. In this case the plaintiffs sue for the redemption of the suit property which was held by the 1st defendant on a kanom, dated 14th February 1908. The 2nd defendant is the karnavan of the plaintiffs' tarwad. The plaintiffs claim under a Will executed by Krishna Menon in 1911 of which the Letters of Administration is filed as Ex. E. The question is whether Krishna Menon was competent to dispose of the property by a Will. The District Munsif found:for 30 years the property was enjoyed by a junior member of the tarwad in his own right; any right that the tarwad had has been lost. hold that the property had become Krishna Menon's private property and that under his Will plaintiffs are entitled to the same.2. This paragraph implies that Krishna Menon enjoyed it in his own right adversely to the tarwad and this made it his self-acquisition by prescription.3. On appeal by the 2nd defendant, the karnavan, the District Judge says that he cannot agree with the District Munsif's stat...
Tag this Judgment!The Madras and Southern Mahratta, Railway Co., Ltd. Vs. the Municipal ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-26-1926
Reported in: (1927)52MLJ108
V.V. Srinivasa Aiyangar, J.1. The Madras and Southern Mahratta Railway Company, Ltd., has instituted this action against the Municipal Council of Cuddappah for a declaration that certain levies as for assessments made by the defendant Council were illegal and not leviable or recoverable by the Council against or from the plaintiff-company, and that,on such a declaration, a decree should be passed for the refund to the plaintiff-company of the sum of Rs. 2,079-11-0, which is stated to have Been paid by the plaintiff-company to the defendant Council under protest. The suit was originally instituted in the District Munsif's Court of Cuddappah but was transferred by an order of this Court to the Original Side of this Court for trial and disposal. No question has been raised or argued in this case with regard to the right of the plaintiff-company to recover the amount alleged to have been paid by it under protest to the defendant-Council, if, as a matter of fact, the Court should find that ...
Tag this Judgment!Mandavilli Seetharamamma and anr. Vs. Attivilli Suryanarayana, Late a ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-26-1926
Reported in: AIR1926Mad1184; 97Ind.Cas.615; (1926)51MLJ466
Ramesam, J.1. I have had the advantage of perusing the judgment of my brother Venkatasubba Rao, J. I will add a few reasons for agreeing with it.2. In the first place I agree with him in thinking that the phrase ' express authority of the husband ' so often used in decisions means nothing more than an affirmative indication enabling the widow to adopt, which can be traced to the mind of the husband. The word ' express ' is used in opposition to the state of the law in Bombay where non-forbidding of adoption by the widow is taken as equivalent to authorisation. In Sri Virada Pratapa Raghunada Deo v. Sri Brozo Kishoro Patta Deo (1876) I.L.R. I M 69 (P C) we have got the words ' express authority' in two places at page 77, and at page 78 'express permission'. The Judicial Committee then referred to Justice Holloway's opinion in the Ramnad case and to the manner in which it was dealt with by the Judicial Committee. They said:It pointed out that on the question--who are the kinsmen whose as...
Tag this Judgment!The Madras and Southern Mahratta Railway Co., Ltd. Vs. the Municipal C ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-26-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Mad363; 100Ind.Cas.280
Srinivasa Ayyangar, J.1. The Madras and. Southern Mahratta Railway Company, Ltd., has instituted this action against the Municipal Council of Cuddapah for a declaration that certain levies as for assessments made by. the defendant-Council were illegal and not. leviable or recoverable by the Council against or from the plaintiff-Company, and that, on such a declaration, a decree should be passed for the refund to the plaintiff-Company of the sum of Rs. 2,079-11 which is stated to have been paid by the plaintiff-Company to the defendant-Council under protest. The suit was originally instituted in the District Munsif's Court of Cuddapah. but was transferred by an order of this Court to the Original Side of this Court for trial and disposal. No question has been raised or argued in this case with regard to, the right of the plaintiff-Company to re-cover the amount alleged to have been paid by it under protest to the defendant-Council if, as a matter of fact, the Court, should find that the...
Tag this Judgment!T.S. Balavenkataseetharama Chettiar and anr. Vs. the Official Receiver ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-26-1926
Reported in: AIR1926Mad994; 97Ind.Cas.825; (1926)51MLJ269
Krishnan, J.1. The point for decision in this appeal is whether the Official Receiver in whom the property of an insolvent Hindu governed by the Law of Mitakshara is vested under the Provincial Insolvency Act V of 1920 is entitled to sell the joint family property of the insolvent and his sons for his debts, they being neither illegal nor immoral. The lower Court has held that he could and has upheld the sale by him. The appellants contend that he has no such power.2. The rulings of this Court have been in favour of recognising such power and holding such sales to be valid both in the Presidency Town and in the Mofussil. [See Official Assignee of Madras v. Ramachandra Aiyar 68 Ind. Cas. 898 : 46 M. 54 : 16 L.W 559 : (1922) M.W.N. 653 : 1923 43 M.L.J. 569 : A.I.R. 1923 Mad 55, In re Balusawmy Ayyar : AIR1924Mad411 Sankaranarayanan Pillai v. Rajamani : (1924)46MLJ314 and Kuppusami Goundan v. Marimuthu Goundan : AIR1925Mad52 . There was a difference of opinion as to whether the power to s...
Tag this Judgment!The Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Mangalagiri Sri Umamaheswara GIn an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-23-1926
Reported in: AIR1926Mad1032; 97Ind.Cas.850; (1926)51MLJ360
Murray Coutts Trotter, Kt. C.J.1. The assessees in this case are a limited company registered on the nth January, 1921, which is the owner of a mill equipped with machinery for the milling of rice. The company elected not to work its mill on its own account but leased it out to another firm in consideration of Rs. 1,500 per annum which it is entitled to do under the provisions of its memorandum and articles of association. I think it is clear that the assessees cannot come to Court and ask for deductions on the footing that they are carrying on a business of rice milling. The business they are carrying on is that of lessors of a building which derives its lettable value from the fact that it is equipped with certain machinery which is available for the purpose of milling rice. And of course it is on that lettable value that the lessors have been assessed. It seems to me that this is the not infrequent case of the same building and its contents being taxable both in the case of the less...
Tag this Judgment!Ramanathan Chettiar Through His Agent Harihara Aiyar Vs. Karuppayya Na ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-23-1926
Reported in: AIR1926Mad1104; 97Ind.Cas.1020; (1926)51MLJ436
Wallace, J.1. This appeal is against the order of the Subordinate Judge of Dindigul in the following circumstances2. The appellant had in execution of a decree attached certain moveables belonging to his judgment-debtor (2nd defend-ant) in his suit O.S. No. 960 of 1920. The 2nd defendant in order to recover the moveables deposited in the executing Court Rs. 80 on 22nd November, 1921, and again Rs. 120 three days later, and the money remained in Court to the credit of the appellant's suit. An application by the judgment-debtor that the decree was otherwise satisfied was pending. This application ended in favour of the judgment-debtor on 26th January, 1922. The appellant appealed against that order but failed to obtain a stay of further proceedings pending the decision of the appeal. On nth November, 1922, the appeal ended in appellant's favour and the application was remanded for further enquiry as to whether the decree was really satisfied.3. The respondent holds a decree against the 2...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Sri Sri Krishna Chandra Gajapathi Narayana Deo Maharajulugaru, Zam ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-23-1926
Reported in: (1926)51MLJ510
Phillips, J.1. The plaintiff-appellant, who is the Zamindar of Parlakimedi, brings this suit as trustee o Gods Sri Ramaswami and Sri Jagannathaswami, to whom the suit village of Kosamala was given as an inam either in 1500 or 1700 A.D. The plaint alleges that the grant consisted of both melvaram and kudivaam of the village and that originally rent was paid in kind on the varam system. For a long period, the Parlakimedi estate, including this inam village of Kosamala, was under the control of the Court of. Wards, and in 1869 after the estate had been surveyed a settlement was effected and in that settlement certain money rents based on the nature of the soil and other advantages were fixed. This settlement has continued in force until the date of suit. The plaintiff sues for a declaration that this settlement was beyond the powers of the Court of Wards as trustee of the Gods and is not binding on the plaintiff. He also prays for a declaration that he is entitled to claim rent in kind fr...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Sri Sri Krishna Chandra Gajapathi Narayan Deo Maharajulugaru Vs. Y ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-23-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Mad10
Phillips, J.1. The plaintiff-appellant, who is the Zamindar of Parlakimedi, brings this suit as trustee of gods Sri Ramaswami and Sri Jagannathaswami, to whom the suit village of Kosamala was given as an inam either in 1500 or 1700 A. D. The plaint alleges that the grant consisted of both melvaram and kudivaram of the village and that originally rent was paid in kind on the varam system. For a long period, the Parlakimedi estate, including this inam village of Kosamala, was under the control of the Court of Wards; and in 1869, after the estate had been surveyed a settlement was effected, and in that settlement certain money rents based on the nature of the soil and other advantages were fixed. This settlement has continued in force until the date of suit. The plaintiff sues for a declaration that this settlement was beyond the powers of the Court of Wards as trustee of the gods and is not binding on the plaintiff. He also prays for a declaration that he is entitled to claim rent in kin...
Tag this Judgment!T. Enaytulla Sahib Vs. J. N. Roy and Co.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-22-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Mad661
1. This is a suit by the plaintiff to recover Rs. 2,550 with costs and further interest claimed in respect of wool sold to the defendant's firm, J. N. Roy & Co. The case of the plaintiff is that one J. N. Roy carried on business as a partner of the firm. Summons was served on the firm and also on J. N. Roy personally. The firm is ex parte. J. N. Roy filed a written statement stating that he ceased to he a partner of the firm on 13th July 1921, that he was not a partner of the firm at the date of the transaction mentioned in the plaint, that he knew nothing about it and that he is not liable.2. The following issues were settled:1. Is J. N. Roy not liable in the suit contract, for the reasons stated in the written statement?2. To what relief is the plaintiff entitled?3. So far as the claim against the firm is concerned it is clearly proved by the evidence of the plaintiff that the wool was sent to the defendant firm at the request of the defendants, that Rs. 1,000 was paid by the defenda...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »