Chennai Court April 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.
The Board of Revenue Vs. Moopanna Somarazu and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-21-1926
Reported in: AIR1926Mad1038; 97Ind.Cas.993; (1926)51MLJ354
Spencer, J.1. The question before us is whether documents, of which we have a specimen form here, are mortgage deeds of the description defined in Article 33(a), Scheduel I-A of the Madras Stamp Act (VI of 1922) in these words:Mortgage deed... when possession of the property or any part of the property comprised in such deed is given by the mortgagor or agreed to be given.2. In the Stamp Act (XVIII of 1869) the description ran differently. It was a mortgage deed of this class only when possession of property comprised therein was given by the mortgagor at the time of execution. Then in Act I of 1879, the words 'at the time of execution' were transposed from the end to the beginning of the sentence and the description ran thus:When at the time of execution possession of the property or any part of the property comprised in such deed is given by the mortgagor or agreed to be given.3. In the present Act, the words 'at the time of execution' have been altogether dropped. Therefore we have ...
The Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. the Nedungadi Bank Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-21-1926
Reported in: AIR1926Mad1048; (1926)51MLJ403
Spencer, J.1. The first question referred to us relates to the liability to income-tax of the profits of the Nedungadi Bank at Calicut which are asserted to have been earned in Cochin and Travancore. This Bank has these two branches outside the limits of British India. under Section 4(2) of the Income-tax Act the profits and gains of a business accruing or arising outside British India may be deemed to have accrued or arisen in British India, provided that they are received or brought into British India within three years or the end of the year in which they accrued. The balance sheet of this Bank for the year ending 31st December, 1923 shows Rs. 1,38,460 as net profits of the Bank. No separate account has been drawn up to show what the profits in its branches amounted to. There is only one account and no separate profit and loss account of the branches. This sum of Rs. 1,38,460 is shown in the appropriation account on the credit side, and the unappropriated balance of the previous yea...
G.P. Satyanarayanamurthi, Agent to Sri Sri Sri Srinivasa Rajamani Raja ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-21-1926
Reported in: AIR1926Mad1143; (1926)51MLJ401
ORDERwallace, J.1. The chief point in this case is whether the accused resisted 'a distraint duly made' under Act I of 1908. The facts are that the agent of petitioner for arrears of rent seized certain cattle said to belong to accused, and was proceeding to drive them out of accused's pen, when accused interfered and prevented him from doing so. Petitioner contends that this was resistance to a distraint. I am inclined to agree. No doubt a learned Judge of this Court held in Narayana Reddi v. Dyvadeenachar 48 M L J 215 that cattle are not 'produce' within the meaning of Section 212(b), but the offence regarding produce is forcibly or clandestinely removing. it. after it has been duly distrained. In the present case my view is that the distraint was not complete when accused interfered and therefore it is not a case on all fours with Narayana Reddi v. Dyvadeenachar 48 M L J 215. The essence of a distraint, I take it, is the act of taking out of the possession of the real owner, and suc...
Ramalinga Iyer Vs. Parvathathammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-21-1926
Reported in: AIR1926Mad1122; 97Ind.Cas.759
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. I am clearly satisfied that the judgment of the lower Court is correct. One Veera Rama Aiyar and his widow made certain alienations. The plaintiff as the reversionary heir' impeaches these transactions. Certain pro-parties were left by the deceased and it is sufficient for the purpose of this judgment to state that by Exhibits I--C and by Exhibit A she sold certain portions of the land and utilized the proceeds for the payment of her husband's debts. This fact is not disputed. She then found herself in possession of 47 cents nanja and acres 1 44 punja. She sold this panja land in 1916 for Rs. 600 by Exhibit I--B. The nanja land amounting to 47 cents. she sold under Exhibit I for another sum of R3. 600 in the year 1918, We are concerned with the validity of the latter sale. It is not disputed that out of this Rs. 600 realized the widow paid Rs. 150 to the plaintiff in discharge of a valid debt. On these facts, can the sale under Exhibit I be impeached on the groun...
Nallaya Goundan Vs. Palani Goundan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-21-1926
Reported in: AIR1926Mad1154
Ramesam, J.1. The facts out of which this second appeal arises may be briefly stated. One Chellapa Goundan had some mis-understanding with his wife and to spite her and his minor son he executed a sale deed of his property to his nephew the defendant in this case, Ex. II, dated 23-11-1917 For a portion of the consideration of the sale a promissory note, Ex. A, was executed. The promissory note has been endorsed in favour of the plaintiff and the endorsement bears the date 23-1-19. On 5th May 1919 Chellappa Goundan's son filed a suit for partition and recovery of his half share of the property. Before the suit came on for trial, there seems to have been a compromise of the suit but before this compromise could be recorded the defendant fell il and an ex parte decree was passed in favour of the plaintiff therein for half the property. The defendant afterwards applied to set aside the ex-parte decree, but the matter was again compromised. The defendant also says that he sold the lands to ...
Thatha Seetharama Chetty Vs. the Administrator-general of Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-16-1926
Reported in: AIR1926Mad1026; 97Ind.Cas.722; (1926)51MLJ334
Krishnan, J.1. The question for decision in this appeal relates to the commission payable to the Administrator-General. The estate he was administering in the present case consisted in part of immoveable properties. Administration having been completed he has been directed by the Court to hand over the two shops in question here to the heir. He claims a 5 per cent commission on their estimated value under Section 52 of Act II of 1874, that Act being admittedly the governing Statute. The heir-at-law, the appellant, denied the claim and has appealed to us against the order of the learned Judge on the Original Side allowing it.2. On obtaining letters of administration vesting the estate of the deceased in him, the Administrator-General took possession of all the properties belonging to the estate and has been administering them for over 10 years now. He sold some of them and paid off debts and claims. He leased out the two shops now in question from time to time to tenants and collected t...
Ponnaia alias Arulanandudayan and Ors. Vs. the Right Hon'ble the Secre ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-16-1926
Reported in: AIR1926Mad1099; 97Ind.Cas.471; (1926)51MLJ338
Spencer, J.1. Before calling for a finding as to the facts connected with the payment of compensation for the property concerned in this appeal, I stated my reason for considering that a payment by Government of one anna out of a sum of Rs. 3,352-5-o was a mere evasion of the law which requires that before a declaration can be legally made that any particular land is needed for a public purpose, the compensation to be awarded must either be paid by a company or wholly or partly out of public revenues or some fund controlled or managed by a local authority. In a case where land has to be acquired for a company the Act permits the whole of the cost of acquisition being met out of the funds of the company, and all that is required by Section 40 of Act I of 1894 is that the Local Government should be satisfied upon an enquiry made by an officer appointed by them that the acquisition is needed for the construction of some work which is likely to prove useful to the public. The present acqui...
Yepuri Venkamma Vs. Pabbisetti Parthasarathi and Brothers, by Managing ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-16-1926
Reported in: AIR1926Mad1081; (1926)51MLJ391
Odgers, J.1. In this appeal the questions of law are short though the facts are complicated. The suit was to declare that a decree in O.S. No. 1154 of 1925 brought by the 2nd defendant against three persons, viz., 1st defendant, K. Rangayya and S. Kannayya was obtained by fraud and does not bind the plaintiff in the present suit. He also asks for possession. The defences set up are Section 47, Civil Procedure Code, limitation and lis pendens. Both the Courts have now held that defendants 2 and 3 are the benamidars of S. Kannayya, the father of the 1st defendant and the original owner of the house in question. This question which was the subject of issues 1 and 2 was strenuously fought in both the Lower Courts, and being a question of fact cannot be raised in second appeal. But the learned vakil for the appellant (3rd defendant) now wants to take advantage of that finding and say that a benamidar is either a party or the representative of a party under Section 47, Civil Procedure Code. ...
Swaminatha Aiyar and anr. Vs. Ramaswami Aiyar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-16-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Mad1155
Kumaraswami Sastri, J.1. The only question argued in this second appeal is whether, on a proper construction of the deed of partition dated the 19th November 1887, the right to manage the family charity vests in the eldest member of all the four branches of the family or in the eldest member of the senior line.2. The founder of the charity was one Annavier, who died leaving four sons Subramania Iyer, Muthusami Iyer, the father of defendants 1 and 2, Ramasami Iyer, the plaintiff, and Vengappier. The sons divided the family properties by the deed of partition dated 19th November 1887, (Ex. 1). As regards the family charity the deed provides that Subramania Iyer who was the eldest member should exercise supervision and perform the acts therein mentioned. The deed then states:After Subramania Iyer above named, those that come next in the order of seniority should take the charity property in due course and manage the charity properly.3. Both the Munsif and the District Judge are of opinion...
S. Suryanarayana Sastrigal Vs. K.S. Viswanatha Aiyar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-16-1926
Reported in: AIR1926Mad1207
Phillips, J.1. This suit to recover a sum of money acknowledged to be due by the defendant to the plaintiff has been rejected on the ground that the Subordinate Judge of Palghat had no jurisdiction to try the same. This acknowledgment and promise to pay, Ex. A., was executed at Bombay where the defendant was temporarily a clerk in the Bombay Secretariat. The plaintiff resides at Palghat and alleges that the defendant's permanent place of residence was in Palghat, and inasmuch as the money had to be repaid at Palghat part of the cause of action arose there. Under Section 20, Expl. 1, of the Civil Procedure Code:Where a person has a permanent dwelling at one place and also a temporary residence at another place, he shall be deemed to reside at both places in respect of any cause of action arising at the place where he has such temporary residence.2. It is not disputed that the defendant's family house is at Palghat and no enquiry has been held as to whether that is his permanent place of...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »