Chennai Court May 1927 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.
Karupanna Konar and ors. Vs. Rangaswami Konar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-05-1927
Reported in: 107Ind.Cas.293
Jackson, J.1. Plaintiffs sued for a declaration that a room belonged to the family of defendants and themselves in common. The lower Appellate Court decreed the suit and defendants appeal.2. In the trial Court the District Munsif thought the oral evidence adduced by plaintiffs to be worthless. Witnesses said that they worshipped in the room with no clear idea how or what they worshipped. The lower Appellate Court does not traverse the reasoning of the District Munsif but merely holds that the plaintiffs' evidence is better than that of defendants' which may not necessarily mean that plaintiffs have made out their case. Evidently what chiefly impressed the learned Subordinate Judge was the entry in certain old documents that a boundary was the 'God's house enjoyed in common.' Exhibit E, a partition deed of 1874, Ex. H, a mortgage of 1879, and Exs. A and B, sale deeds of 1881 all contain this recital. Their admissibility as evidence was challenged in the lower Appellate Court and the Sub...
Sri Rajah Rao Venkatakumara Mahipathi Surya Rao Bahadur Varu, Maharaja ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-04-1927
Reported in: (1927)53MLJ329
Wallace, J.1. This is an appeal against the order of Srinivasa Aiyangar, J., refusing to revoke an order giving leave to sue on the Original Side of this Court. The plaintiff is suing to recover from the defendant possession of certain zamindari property. All the property except a bungalow called 'Dunmore House' is outside the jurisdiction of this Court. He filed his suit on the Original Side on what is stated to be the last day before it would be barred here by limitation. Leave to sue was asked for ex parte without notice to the defendant, and, in view of the urgency of the matter, was granted by the learned Judge. Later on the defendant put in an application to revoke the leave, principally on the ground that the inclusion of 'Dunmore House' was specious and mala fide, being a mere device to give the High Court a fictitious jurisdiction in order to get round the bar of limitation, since the suit was already barred by time in the mufassal and could not have been entertained unless th...
The Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. A.T.K.P.L.S.P. Subramaniam Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-04-1927
Reported in: AIR1927Mad841; (1927)53MLJ379
Beasley, J.1. Two questions are referred to us for decision : (1) In the circumstances of this case can the interest on the loans or advances made by the assessee to the partnership firm at Penang be said to be income accruing or arising in British India within the meaning of Section 4, Clause 1 of the Indian Income-tax Act, and (2) If the answer to the above question is in the negative and if the income is one accruing or arising without British India to a person resident in British India, is the income received in British India so as to make it taxable under Section 4 read with Sections 6, 10 and 13 of the Act.2. The assessee has a business of his own in Rangoon carried on by an agent and is interested with another or others in a money-lending business in Penang in which he is the chief partner. From the Rangoon business under his orders a sum of Rs. 78,768-7-3 was transferred in cash to the Penang business. In the books of the Rangoon business a sum of Rs. 12,174 is entered as inter...
Kola Surayya and ors. Vs. Kola Subbamma and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-04-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Mad42; (1927)53MLJ677
1. The first point urged in the Second Appeal is that the suit is not barred by limitation so far as the plaintiffs are concerned, even though it might be barred so far as the 1st defendant is concerned. The eldest brother who had attained majority did not sue in time to set aside the sale made by the second defendant, the paternal grandmother and guardian of the plaintiffs and the 1st defendant during their minority. The point is clearly covered by the decision in Doraisami v. Nondisami I.L.R. (1912) M 118 : 1912 25 MLJ 405, wherein it was held that if the eldest brother, who is naturally the managing member of the family, does not bring a suit within the time to set aside an alienation, any suit by an younger brother would be barred inasmuch as the suit is barred against the elder brother. Mr. Raghava Rao, who appears for the appellants, contends that the authority of Doraisami v. Nondisami I.L.R. (1912) M 118 : 1912 25 MLJ 405 is considerably shaken by the decision of the Privy Coun...
In Re: Vanu Ramachandriah
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-04-1927
Reported in: (1927)53MLJ723
ORDERWallace, J.1. The petitioner has been convicted of an offence under Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 116. His contention is that on the facts found the offence has not been established.2. The facts found are that on 15th November, 1925, he, a Municipal Councillor of the Wallajapet Municipal Council, did, in a letter written to the complainant, who was the manager of the office of the same Municipality, say to him, 'The matter regarding the lock-up shed, Mr. Manicka Seshayya is keen about it. Will you 'just try that job for him? I now here take my full privelege to you to say that he makes an offer of rupees two hundred to you in case he gets it. I shall stand surety for it if you can interfere in the matter and have it settled. If you can assure me, he is prepared to deposit the amount'. The giving of a contract for this lock-up shed lay with the Chairman and the Councillors. I have no doubt what this letter means. The petitioner informs the manager that if h...
In Re: Abbas Ali Sahib and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-04-1927
Reported in: (1927)53MLJ732
ORDER1. The main question raised is this. Three known and named persons were charged with dacoity along with two other unknown men. The jury acquitted one of the three and convicted the other two of the offence with which they had been charged. Mr. Vaz argues that the conviction is illegal as the jury has no jurisdiction to substitute for a man known and named one who was unknown. We are not prepared to go that length. We think that it was quite open to the jury, while holding that one of the accused who was supposed to have been known to the witnesses had not been property identified, to find that the total number of dacoits was five. At the same time we are of opinion that, when they acquitted the 2nd accused, the Judge should have asked them definitely whether they had considered the possible result of the acquittal and whether they still found that the number of robbers was five. Nothing of the sort was, however, done and it is impossible to say what the finding of the jury would h...
Chockalingam Alias Appasami Mudaliar Vs. Duraiswami Alias Rathnasabapa ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-04-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Mad327; 108Ind.Cas.305; (1928)54MLJ479
Kumaraswami Sastri, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit-filed by the plaintiff claiming to be the trustee of the three endowments which are referred to in the plaint as the Chidambaram, Mailam and Alapakkam charities, for a declaration that he has been legally and validly appointed trustee by Murugayya Mudaliar, the previous trustee, for recovery of possession of the properties mentioned in the plaint and situate in British India, for costs and further relief.2. The plaintiff is the son-in-law of the last trustee Murugayya Mudaliar while the 1st defendant is his brother's son. The 1st defendant claims that he is the properly constituted trustee. There is no dispute that Murugayya Mudaliar was the last trustee and that he executed Exhibits I and II appointing the 1st defendant as trustee and revoked the appointment by Exhibits H and H-l appointing the plaintiff as trustee. The Subordinate Judge was of opinion that Exhibit I is invalid but that Exhibit II is valid and binding and that ...
Sri Raja Rao Venkatakumara Mahipathi Surya Rao Bahadur Varu Vs. Sri Ra ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-04-1927
Reported in: AIR1927Mad846
JUDGEMENTWallace, J.1. This is an appeal against the order of Srinivasa Aiyangar, J., refusing to revoke an order giving leave to sue on the original side of this Court. The plaintiff is suing to recover from the defendant possession of certain zamindari property. All the property except a bungalow called 'Dunmore House' is outside the jurisdiction of this Court. He filed his suit on the original side on what is stated to be the last day before it would be barred here by limitation. Leave to sue was asked for ex-parte without notice to the defendant, and, in view of the urgency of the matter, was granted by the learned Judge. Later on the defendant put in an application to revoke the leave, principally on the ground that the inclusion of 'Dunmore House' was specious and mala fide, being a mere device to give the High Court a fictitious jurisdiction in order to get round the bar of limitation, since the suit was already barred by time in the mufussal and could not have been entertained ...
Rama Sastriar Vs. Pakkiri Ambalakaran
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-04-1927
Reported in: AIR1929Mad267
Phillips, J.1. The District Munsif dismissed the suit on the ground that the bond sued on was a slavery bond and its terms are not enforceable. The bond provides for the payment of interest in the shape of work, but the work is to be paid at a certain definite rate which appears to be very low and the work includes that of the executant as well as that of his wife. No provision is made for the repayment and although, of course, a debtor can in law always repay his debt, still in the case of these pannayals it is quite likely that they do not realise this right. The case relied upon by the petitioner which was decided by myself in Ponnusami v. Palayathan [1919] 10 M.L.W. 202 can be differentiated on the ground that in that case the ordinary wages were to be paid for the man's work and that the period was restricted to five years. The Munsif, on the other hand, relied on Ram Sarup Bhagat v. Bansi Mandar [1916] 42 Cal. 742 and I am certainly not prepared to say that he is wrong in this ca...
Bada Kristam Naidu Vs. Durvada Patrudu Alias Janakiramayya Chowdhari a ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-03-1927
Reported in: AIR1927Mad903; (1927)53MLJ568
Odgers, J.1. This is an appeal against the order of the learned District Judge of Ganjam on two E. Ps namely 39 of 1916 and 68 of 1916. In the former Kamalanabham Naidu was the petitioner as transferee and benamidar of the late Parasuramayya Chowdhari stated to be the real owner of the decree. Kamalanabham Naidu having died, the real owner's undivided son, Nandesam Chowdhari, a minor, represented by his next friend Duvvada Butchamma, was the petitioner, and the respondents were Duvvada Patrudu alias Janakiramayya Chowdhari and Duvvada Gusayi Chowdhari. In E. P. No. 68 of 1916 the undivided brother of Kamalanabham Naidu, transferee, is the petitioner and the respondents are the same as in E. P. No. 39 of 1916. The learned District Judge, whose predecessor held that the question which of these two rival petitioners can execute the decree is one to be decided under Section 47, Civil Procedure Code, decided on the merits that the brother of Kamalanabham Naidu is not entitled to execute the...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »