Chennai Court September 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.
The Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. R.E. Muhammad Kassim Rowther of R.E ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-16-1927
Reported in: (1928)54MLJ219
William Phillips, Kt., Officiating C.J.1. The first question referred is 'whether there was a genuine and valid partnership'. This depends upon the construction of the agreement, dated the 11th of April, 1922, executed by 33 persons in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner has been treated as the sole proprietor of his firm and been assessed accordingly, and he contends that these 33 persons who have executed the agreement of April 1922 (Ex. A) are his partners in the business. The Commissioner has found that this agreement does not constitute a partnership agreement and we entirely agree. Apparently there is a provision that each of the executants is to have a certain share in the profits of the business when ascertained at the end of the two years during which it is to be in force. No provision is made for their liability in case of loss and the complete control of the business is retained by Muhammad Kassim, who contributed the whole capital. Not only is he to have the control of...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. R. E. Mahomed Kassim Rowther
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-16-1927
Reported in: AIR1927Mad1053
ORDERPhillips, Offg. C. J.1. The first question referred is 'whether there was a genuine and valid partnership.' This depends upon the construction of the agreements dated the 11th April 1922 executed by 33 persons in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner has been treated as the sole proprietor of his firm and been assessed accordingly, and he contends that these 33 persons who have executed the agreement of April 1922 (Ex. A) are his partners in the business. The Commissioner has found that this agreement does not constitute a partnership agreement and we entirely agree. Apparently there is a provision that each of the executants is to have a certain share in the profits of the business when ascertained at the end of the two years which it is to be in force, No provision is made for their liability in case of loss and the complete control of the business is retained by Muhammad Kassim, who contributed the whole capital. Not only is he to have the control of the business but even pe...
Kadiyam Rayudu and ors. Vs. Kamarsu Veerraju and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-16-1927
Reported in: 112Ind.Cas.257
Srinivasa Ayyangar, J.1. Some vary interesting and difficult questions have been raised in the course of the discussion of this second appeal. The suit from which the second appeal has arisen was one, as first instituted, for specific performance of contract to sell immoveable property made by defendants Nos. 1 and 2. Defendants Nos. 3 to 6 were impleaded in the suit by the plaintiffs on the ground that they were tenants under defendants Nos. 6. and 2 in occupation of the suit property. The defendant was subsequently made a party to the suit on the ground that he claimed to be the transferee of the property from defendants Nos. 3 to 6. The prayers is the plaint included not merely one for specific performance of the contract by the execution of; a proper deed of conveyance by defendants Nos. 1 and 2, but also a prayer for possession of the property against all the defendants. Mr. Alladi Krishnaswami Aiyar on behalf of the appellants has raised two contentions before us. One argument of...
Sukhdevdoss Ramprasad Vs. Mt. Choti Bai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-14-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Mad118
Phillips, Offg. C.J.1. I have had the advantage of reading the judgment about to be pronounced by my learned brother and I entirely agree in his conclusions that the estate left by her husband to the: plaintiff was an absolute estate and not a. mere widow's estate, and that there was. no prohibition by the husband against the adoption of a son. I also agree that an adoption is not necessarily invalid on the ground that the father to whom the adoption is made left no estate. In the present case therefore, the adoption was valid; and if my learned brother 'is right in holding that the adoption did not divest the widow of her absolute estate, I agree with him that the estate has now vested in the adopted son by reason of a deed executed by her-Ex. 3. I am, however, inclined to think that, although the widow held an absolute estate from her husband, the adoption of defendant 1 would have the effect of vesting that estate in him. In a recent case from this Court it has been held by their Lo...
Sukdevdoss Ramprasad Vs. Musammat Choti Rai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-14-1927
Reported in: 109Ind.Cas.5
William Watkins Phillips, Officiating C.J.1. I have had the advantage of reading the judgment about to be pronounced by my learned brother and I entirely agree in his conclusions that the estate left by her husband to the plaintiff was an absolute estate and not a mere widow's estate, and that there was no prohibition by the husband against the adoption of a son. I also agree that an adoption is not necessarily invalid on the ground that the father to whom the adoption is made left no estate, In the present case, therefore, the adoption was valid; and if my learned brother is right in holding that the adoption did not divest the widow of her absolute estate, I agree with him that the estate has now vested in the adopted son by reason of a deed executed by her, Ex. III, I am, however, inclined to think that, although the widow held an absolute estate from her husband, the adoption of the 1st defendant would have the effect of vesting that estate in him. In a recent case from this Court ...
Srinivasam Pillai Vs. Rukmani Ammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-13-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Mad964; 117Ind.Cas.791; (1928)55MLJ330
Curgenven, J.1. The plaintiff (now respondent) sued on a promissory note and in the appeal from the dismissal of her suit the defendant applied for and obtained an order directing her to furnish security for costs. The property which was tendered for this purpose was found insufficient and the Court gave her further time to supply the deficiency up to 13th February, 1926. This was not done and on that date neither she nor her pleader was present. The Subordinate Judge, therefore, passed an order.Appellant and her Vakil are absent, security not given. The appeal stands dismissed with costs.2. That order was actually passed on the application (IA. No. 2202 of 1925) for security filed by the defendant, but it of course involved also the dismissal of the appeal. On 16th March, 1926, the plaintiff applied for a review of the order passed on I.A. No. 2202 and the learned Subordinate Judge granted it, at the same time restoring the appeal and allowing another petition by the plaintiff for fur...
A.V. Srinivasalu Reddy and anr. Vs. S. Kuppuswami Goundar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-13-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Mad253; 108Ind.Cas.212
Curgenven, J.1. The facts necessary for the disposal of this civil miscellaneous appeal are briefly these. There was a vacant seat upon the Tindivanam Taluk Board, and three candidates offered themselves for the election, the plaintiff, defendant 2, and one Narayanaswami Pillai. On the day fixed for the scrutiny of nomination papers, the President of the Taluk Board (defendant 1), it is said upon an objection made to them by defendant 2, rejected the nomination paper of the plaintiff on the ground that he was an Honorary Magistrate and so disqualified for the election under Section 55 (2)(iv), Madras Local Boards Act, 1920. Later, another of the candidates, Narayanaswami Pillai, withdrew. There was thus left only defendant 2, as a candidate for the seat, and in accordance with the terms of Rule 7 (1) of the rules for the conduct of elections, framed under the Act, he was deemed to be elected. The plaintiff, 'after endeavouring to obtain redress in some other ways, then filed a suit in ...
Sathapan Ambalam Vs. Vadivelu Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-13-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Mad450
Srinivasa Ayyangar, J.1. In this second appeal I have arrived at the conclusion that it should be allowed. The defendant who is the appellant before us was the purchaser of certain properties described as a fractional share in a certain village. The plaintiff has claimed on partition a share as assignee from one of the members of the family to which these properties originally belonged. The District Munsif dismissed the plaintiff's suit, but on appeal that was reversed and a decree for partition was made by the lower appellate Court and hence this appeal.2. The learned vakil for the appellant has drawn our attention to two decisions of their Lordships of the Judicial Committee in 'Sri Krishan Das v. Nathu Ram and Niamat Rai v. Din Dayal . The legal principle that emerges from a careful consideration of these two decisions of their Lordships is that when the question that arises is whether a sale by either the father or the manager of a joint family entitled only in certain circumstance...
A. Rangaswamy Pillai Vs. C.R.P. Kuppuswamy Deekshatar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-13-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Mad637
Thiruvenkatachariar, J.1. This appeal is preferred by defendant 4 in a mortgage suit brought to enforce the mortgage security for the recovery of: the amount due to the plaintiff as assignee of the mortgage from the mortgagees. The mortgage bond is dated 22nd January 1908 and it was for the sum of Rs. 6,000. The material portion of the bond to which reference has to be made in connexion with the questions arising in this appeal is as follows:As the total sum of Rs. 6,000 has been received by us as per particulars mentioned above, we shall pay before 22nd January of each year the interest arrived at on the said amount at the rate of 3/4 per cent per mansem and pay the principal sum within a period of five years from this date. In default of payment of interest or principal on such due dates we agree to your adding to the principal sum the interest due each year from the date of default and recovering (the total amount) with interest at the said rate, without regard to the due date for (...
A. Rangaswamy Pillay Vs. C.R.P. Kuppuswamy Dookshatar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-13-1927
Reported in: 107Ind.Cas.650
1. This appeal is preferred by the fourth defendant in a mortgage suit brought to enforce the mortgage security for the recovery of the amount due to the plaintiff as assignee of the mortgage from the mortgagees. The mortgage-bond is dated the 22nd January, 1908, and it was for the sum of Rs. 6,000. The material portion of the bond to which reference has to be made in connection with the questions arising in this appeal is as follows: 'As the total sum of Rs. 6,000 has been received by us as per particulars mentioned above, we shall pay before the 22nd January of each year the interest arrived at on the said amount at the rate of 3/4 per cent. per mensem and pay the principal sum within a period of 5 years from this date. In default of payment of interest or principal on such due dates, we agree to your adding to the principal sum the interest due each year from the date of default and recovering the total amount with interest at the said rate, without regard to the due date for (payme...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »