Chennai Court December 1928 Judgments
G.D. John Vs. K.P. Sambamurthy Aiyar (Deceased) and ors. and the Orien ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-21-1928
Reported in: 121Ind.Cas.155; (1929)56MLJ299
ORDERKumaraswami Sastri, J.1. This is an appeal from the order of the Master in garnishee proceedings instituted by the decree-holder in this suit against the Oriental Government Security Life Assurance Company,' Limited, in respect of a policy taken out by one K. P. Sambamurthy Aiyar, the defendant in the suit, who is alleged to have died. It is stated that the policy amount has become due and payable and the money is attached as a debt payable by the Life Assurance Company.2. A copy of the policy has been filed and the terms of the policy are not in dispute. It says:.the sum of Rs. 1,000 or such other sum as shall become due and payable by virtue of these presents, agreeably to the regulations of the Company, on proof to the satisfaction of the Directors of the death of the said assured or that he has completed the age of 50 years and of the title of the person claiming payment.3. The amount of the policy is expressly made payable at Bombay. Rule 1 of Order 20 of the Original Side Ru...
Tag this Judgment!The Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. the Madras Central Urban Bank, Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-21-1928
Reported in: 118Ind.Cas.107; (1929)56MLJ481
Odgers, J.1. This is a case stated for our opinion by the Commissioner of Income-tax at the request of the Madras Central Urban Bank, Limited. This is a Society registered under Act II of 1912 and the question arises from its assessment on interest derived by it from investments in Government securities. The Society contends that it is exempted from paying tax in respect of these investments by a notification in the Finance Department issued under Section 60 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, which corresponds to Section 28 of the Co-operative Societies Act enabling the Governor-General in Council to remit income-tax payable in respect of the profits of the society. The question is whether this interest is part of the profits of the society. The notification Ex. A exemptsthe profits of any Co-operative Society registered under the Co-operative Societies Act, 1912 (II of 1912) or the dividends or other payments received by the members of any such society on account of profits.2. The no...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: T.R. Sriramulu Naidu and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-21-1928
Reported in: (1929)56MLJ554
Waller, J.1. The 1st petitioner has been convicted under Section 467, I.P.C., of forgery. The 2nd petitioner has been convicted of abetment of forgery and of having used the forged document as genuine. The first objection taken is that they should not have been tried together. It is not, in our opinion, sustainable. The offences were parts of one and the same transaction and the 1st petitioner assisted the 2nd at both stages. The second objection is that the 2nd petitioner should not have been convicted of abetment, no separate charge of abetment having been framed against him. We see no reason to enter on a discussion of this somewhat vexed question, for the objection is entirely academic. The Assistant Sessions -Judge, though he convicted the petitioner of abetment of the forgery, passed sentence on him only for using the forged document as genuine; so that, even if we upheld the objection, the result--as far as the petitioner is concerned--would be exactly nothing. The Assistant Ses...
Tag this Judgment!Narasimha Rama Aiyar Vs. Ibrahim and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-21-1928
Reported in: AIR1929Mad419; 118Ind.Cas.302; (1929)56MLJ630
Thiruvenkatachariar, J.1. The question which arises for determination in this petition is whether the suit is barred by limitation against the respondents. The suit is brought on a promissory note executed by one Chinna Babu Rowther on 29th October, 1920, in favour of the appellant (plaintiff). Chinna Babu Rowther died and his estate devolved on his widow, two minor sons and a 'minor daughter as his heirs. On the 22nd October, 1923, the widow Muhammad Beevi Ammal (1st defendant) purporting to act on behalf of herself and her minor children made a payment of Rs. 5 towards interest due on the promissory note. Plaintiff sues all the co-heirs, viz., the widow, sons and daughter of Chinna Babu Rowther for the balance due to him on the pro-note.2. The respondents who were impleaded as defendants 2 to 4 pleaded that the alleged payment of interest is not true, and that even if true, the payment by their mother, the; 1st defendant would not save the suit from the bar of limitation as against t...
Tag this Judgment!J.D. John and ors. Vs. Oriental Government Security Life Assurance Co. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-21-1928
Reported in: AIR1929Mad347
ORDERKumaraswami Sastri, J.1. This is an appeal from the order of the Master in garnishee proceedings instituted by the decree-holder in this suit against the Oriental Government Security Life Assurance Co. Ltd.,. in respect of a policy taken out by one K. P. Sambamurthy Ayyar, the defendant in the suit who is alleged to have died. It is stated that the policy amount has become due and payable and the money is attached as a debt payable by the Life Assurance Company.2. A copy of the policy has been filed and the terms of the policy are not in dispute. It says:. the sum of Rs. 1,000 or such other sum as shall become due and payable by virtue of these presents, agreeably to the regulations of the company, on proof to the satisfaction of the directors of the death of the said assured or that he has completed the age of 50 years and of the title of the person claiming payment.3. The amount of the policy is expressly made payable at Bombay. Rule 1, Order 20,. Original Side Rules, runs as fo...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: T.R. Sriramalu Naidu and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-21-1928
Reported in: 119Ind.Cas.63
1. The 1st petitioner has been convicted under Section 467, Indian Penal Code, of forgery. The 2nd petitioner has been convicted of abetment of forgery and of having used the forged document as genuine. The first objection taken is that they should not have been tried together. It is not, in our opinion, sustainable. The offences were parts of one and the same transaction and the 1st petitioner assisted the 2nd at both stages. The 2nd objection is that the 2nd petitioner should not have been convicted of abetment, no separate charge of abetment having been framed against him. We see no reason to enter on a discussion of this somewhat vexed question, for the objection is entirely academic. The Assistant Sessions Judge, though he convicted the petitioner of abetment of the forgery, passed sentence on him only for using the forged document as genuine; so that, even if we upheld the objection, the result, as far as the petitioner is concerned, would be exactly nothing. The Assistant Sessio...
Tag this Judgment!Chedalavada Subbayya Vs. Chedalavada Ananda Ramayya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-20-1928
Reported in: AIR1929Mad586; 121Ind.Cas.113; (1929)57MLJ826
Ramesam, J.1. This Second Appeal arises out of a suit for partition. The plaintiff is the son of the 1st defendant by the latter's first wife. The 2nd defendant is the son of the 1st defendant by his second wife. The 3rd defendant is the widow of a predeceased brother of the 1st defendant. The 1st defendant: has four daughters by his second wife, of whom the first had been married before and the others were all unmarried at the filing of the plaint. The eldest of these was married while the suit was pending before the District Munsif about four months before his judgment, and the other two still remain unmarried. The seventh issue in the case runs thus:To what provision, if any, is 1st defendant entitled for marriages of his unmarried daughters?2. The District Munsif found that the 1st defendant spent Rs. 2,000 including dowry and expenses for the marriage during the pendency of the suit, and that the 1st defendant was entitled to one-third share from the plaintiff. Similarly he fixed ...
Tag this Judgment!Ayyaswami Aiyar Vs. Mahadeva Aiyar and Two ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-20-1928
Reported in: AIR1929Mad421; (1929)56MLJ441
Phillips, J.1. The appellant is the 1st defendant in a suit brought by the plaintiffs as reversionary heirs of one Gurunatha Aiyar impleading numerous other defendants who have not appealed. The plaintiffs claimed to be the reversioners and this fact was disputed by the defendants but they only put plaintiffs to proof of it. P.Ws. 1 to 7 have all given evidence on the point and their evidence has been believed by the learned Subordinate Judge. Certain criticisms have been put forward in this Court which contain nothing of sufficient importance to discredit the testimony of the witnesses who have been believed by the Trial Judge who had the opportunity of seeing and hearing them give their evidence. It is also significant that defendants 1 to 3 were not prepared to go into the witness box and swear that the plaintiffs were not members of their family, a fact which must be within their knowledge. We must, therefore, accept the finding that the plaintiffs are reversioners.2. The second fi...
Tag this Judgment!Krishna Bhatta and ors. Vs. Subbanna Sastri and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-20-1928
Reported in: AIR1929Mad611
Reilly, J.1. In this case plaintiff 2 with plaintiff 1 as his vendee sued for partition and recovery of a half share of the property concerned, with mesne profits. The plaintiffs' claim is that plaintiff 2 and defendant 2 are the reversioners to the estate of one Gopalakrishna, who died in 1878 leaving a widow, Padmavati. It is admitted that the property with which we are con-corned was the self-acquired property of Gopalakrishna. The defendants contend that in 1895 Padmavati by Exs. 8 and 9 surrendered her widow's estate in that property to Anantha, the adoptive brother of her deceased husband, and that Anantha, who died in 1900, devised the property by will to the father of defendant 1. Defendant 3 is sued as the tenant in possession under a vaidegeni lease granted to his predecessor-in-title by Padmavati. The District Munsif and the Subordinate Judge have both dismissed the suit, holding that Exs. 8 and 9 effected a valid surrender of Padmavati's interest. The plaintiffs contest tha...
Tag this Judgment!Ramalinga Mudali and anr. Vs. T.S. Ramasami Ayyar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-20-1928
Reported in: AIR1929Mad529
Ramesam, J.1. This is a suit by the plaintiff to eject defendants from the suit lands which are situate in Puliyampatti village, Chingleput District and for mesne profits. The District Judge decreed the suit in respect of items 2 and 3, and as to item 1 he found that the suit is 'premature. The defendants appeal in respect of items 2 and 3 and there Is a memorandum of objections by the plaintiff in respect of item 1. We have first to consider the case as regards items 2 and 3. These are Survey Nos. 986 and 985.2. Puliyampatti village in which the suit lands are situate and Nombal village together constituted what the plaintiff describes as a sarva inam jagir, and it will be convenient now to refer to the history of this sarva inam jagir.3. The District of Chingleput was under the sovereignty of the Nawab of Carnatic up to the year 1763. In that year the Nawab made a grant of these two villages to a lady of the family Khairun-Nissa Begum. Subsequently in the same year 16th October 1763,...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »