Chennai Court February 1928 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.
Palaniyandi and anr., Minors by their Guardian Vellammal Vs. Veyilamut ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-03-1928
Reported in: AIR1929Mad93; (1928)55MLJ579
Kumaraswami Sastri, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit filed by the plaintiffs as the reversioners of one Sankaralingam Pillai, who died in 1872. Sankaralingam Pillai left a widow Kanthimathi Ammal and a daughter Than-gammal. Thangammal died in 1902 and Kanthimathi Ammal died on the 29th December, 1911. The reversioner according to the plaintiffs at the date of the death of Kanthimathi Ammal when the reversion opened was one Subbiah Pillai, who died on the 1st October, 1917, leaving three sons, the 1st, 2nd and 3rd plaintiffs. The 2nd and 3rd plaintiffs were minors and the 1st plaintiff was a major at the date of the suit. The 1st plaintiff died in 1913 and the 2nd and 3rd plaintiffs continued the suit. It is not disputed that the suit was to declare the plaintiffs as reversioners and set aside the alienations made by the widow and daughter or the widow alone. It is not disputed that these lands which form the subject-matter of the appeal form part of a karnam inam. Sankaralingam Pi...
(Kypreth) Moithiyan Kutti Vs. (Natukandy) Puthiapurayil Mammali and or ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-03-1928
Reported in: AIR1928Mad870; 110Ind.Cas.480
Krishnan, J.1. The question argued in this second appeal is whether, when a, follower of Marumakkathayam law makes a gift of property to his wife and children, she having already children living by a former husband, the donees take the property with the incidents of tarwad property such as impartibility attached to it, or only as ordinary donees each entitled to an equal share as tenant-in-common.2. Three cases have been cited to us as having a bearing on the question: Kunhacha Umma v. Katti Mammi Hajee [1893] 16 Mad. 201, Chakra Kunnan v. Kunhi Pokker [1916] 39 Mad. 317, Imvichi Beevi Umma, v. Raman Nair [1919] 42 Mad. 869. It was laid down in 16 Mad., that when a Marumakkathayam man's property is given to his wife and children without any expression of intention how they were to enjoy it, they must be held to have taken it with the incidents off property held by a tarwad. It will be noted that in this case the wife and children constituted a tavazhi consisting of a woman and all her ...
Pydah Venkatachalapathi Vs. Guntur Cotton, Jute and Paper Mills Co. Lt ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-03-1928
Reported in: AIR1929Mad353
Wallace, J.1. This is a connected series of four appeals arising out of a suit by the Guntur Cotton, Jute and Paper Mills Co. Ltd., against the two defendants, their former secretaries and treasurers, for a declaration that these defendants ceased to hold office from 31st March 1918, for an injunction restraining them from interfering with the management of the company, and for correct accounts and damages for the loss sustained by the company by reason of their several acts of fraud and. misappropriation. A preliminary judgment in the case was passed on 24th April 1922 and the final judgment on 4th April 1924. Defendant 1 had not appealed, but he was heard in his own case on the appeals by plaintiffs. Defendant 2 has preferred Appeal No. 75 of 1923 against the preliminary decree and Appeal No. 237 of 1924 against the final decree. The company has preferred Appeal No. 215 of 1923 against the preliminary decree and Appeal No. 457 of 1924 against the final decree.2. Various matters fall ...
(Garapati) Bulliraju and ors. Vs. (Garapahi) Butchi Seetayyamma and or ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-03-1928
Reported in: AIR1930Mad412
Kumaraswami Sastri, J.1. The plaintiffs are the appellants. Defendant 1 is the widow of one Subbarayudu who died on 21st March 1919 leaving a will which is alleged to have been executed on 10th March 1919. It is conceded that this will gave the widow absolute rights. The next reversioners filed O.S. No. 50 of 1920, for a declaration that the will which was set up by the widow, defendant 1, was a forgery. The suit was filed on 19th November 1920. Ex. B is the proceedings in that suit and it appears from the diary of the proceedings that the suit was on 25th July 1922 withdrawn by the plaintiffs unconditionally, each party bearing his own costs. It appears also that from 3rd March there was a talk of compromise. We find from the diary that some adjustment was hoped for on 3rd March. Then on 29th April we find an entry A compromise is hoped for. On request the suit is allowed to stand over to 10th July 1922.' Then there is a note on 10th July, 'as some time is requested for settlement, it...
Rao Bahadur Pydah Venkatachalapathi Vs. the Guntur Cotton, Jute and Pa ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-03-1928
Reported in: 115Ind.Cas.486
Wallace, J.1. This is a connected series of four appeals arising out of a suit by the Guntur Cotton, Jute and Paper Mills Company, Limited, against the two defendants, their former secretaries and treasurers, for a declaration that these defendants ceased to hold office from 31st March, 1918, for an injunction restraining them from interfering with the management of the Company, for correct accounts and damages for the loss sustained by the Company by reason of their several acts of fraud and misappropriation. A preliminary judgment in the case was passed on 24th April, 1922, and the final judgment on 4th April, 1924 Defendant No. 1 has not appealed but he was heard in his own case on the appeals by plaintiffs. Defendant No. 2 has preferred Appeal No. 75 of 1923 against the preliminary decree and Appeal No. 237 of 1924 against the final decree. The Company has preferred Appeal No. 215 of 1923 against the preliminary decree and Appeal No. 457 of 1924 against the final decree.2. Various ...
The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Rao Saheb A.S. Alaganan Chetty of B ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-02-1928
Reported in: AIR1928Mad902; 110Ind.Cas.629; (1928)55MLJ66
Murray Coutts Trotter, Kt., C.J.1. The Chief Justice--The facts in this case are simple and raise a point in a very clean form. The assessees were persons who used to try for and frequently obtain contracts from a large tea-growing company for the cartage of their tea down to Kodaikanal Road station for entrainment. The contracts were made at a flat rate which varied from year to year, so much per ton. In the year we are concerned with there was, and apparently there had been in, fonder years also a rival contractor who is referred to as Mr. X who was obviously regarded as likely to be a very dangerous competitor for the contract; and in order to induce him not to compete the assessees paid him down a sum of Rs. 12,000. That they say they are entitled to recover as being expenditure not in the nature of capital expenditure incurred solely for the purpose of earning such profits or gains. The result was that as Mr. X did not compete, they had the whole field to themselves, they got the ...
The Public Prosecutor Vs. Ramayya Mudaliar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-02-1928
Reported in: (1928)55MLJ573
ORDERWallace, J.1. The Public Prosecutor does not press these appeals except to elicit from this Court an expression of opinion as to the propriety of the proposition of the Lower Court that Section 223 of the Madras Local Boards Act, 1920, must be read as limited by Section 24. I am clear that the persons who can be expressly authorised under Section 223 to file complaints are not confined to those to whom the President may delegate his authority under Section 24. Had that been the intention, I think Section 223 would have read 'expressly authorised under Section 24.' The proper procedure, I take to be this. The Union sanctions the prosecution and the President of the Union Board then expressly authorises some person, usually some responsible subordinate, to file the complaint. The authority should naturally be produced with the complaint, so that the Court may be satisfied of the authorisation, which alone gives it power to entertain the complaints. With these remarks the appeals are...
Rengan, Minor, by Guardian Ramasami Aiyangar Vs. Palaniyandi and anr., ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-02-1928
Reported in: (1929)56MLJ66
Kumaraswami Sastri, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit filed by the plaintiffs as the reversioners of one Sankaralingam Pillai to set aside the alienations made by his widow. Sankaralingam Pillaitlied in 1872 leaving his widow Kanthimathi Ammal, who died in 1911 and daughter Thangammal, who died in 1902. On Sankaralingam Pillai's death, Kanthimathi Ammal succeeded to the properties and she made the alienation now complained of to the appellant's father, the 35th defendant in the suit. Two questions were raised : (1) Whether the plaintiffs are the reversioners of Sankaralingam Pillai, and (2) If so, whether the alienation in favour of the 35th defendant is binding. The Subordinate Judge was of opinion that the plaintiffs were the reversioners and that the alienation was not binding. It is contended for the appellant that the plaintiffs' father who was the next presumptive reversioner received Rs. 600 and executed a deed of release Ex. IV in favour of Kanthimathi Ammal, the widow and ...
Vettakke Kakkattu Manakkal Parameswaran Nambudripad and anr. Vs. Sesha ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-01-1928
Reported in: 110Ind.Cas.518; (1928)55MLJ156
1. The facts of this case may be stated as follows: - In O.S. No. 476 of 1913 on the file of the District Munsif's Court of Palghat the 1st respondent obtained a decree against one Narayanan Akkitheripad who was the Karnavan of the Kakkat Mana (a Nambudri family). The decree was dated 16th March, 1914. By M.P. No. 1068 of 1914 the decree-holder applied to arrest the defendant. He was arrested on 27th July 1914, but was let off some time after, to take insolvency proceedings, on furnishing security. The judgment-debtor then filed I.P. No. 11 of 1914. He was adjudicated an insolvent on 31st August 1914. In 1916 the junior members of the defendant's family filed a suit impleading the Official Receiver for a declaration that the property in the hands of the said Narayanan belonged to the family, that the debt was his personal debt and that the family was not liable for it. That suit was filed on 18th December, 1916, in the Subordinate Judge's Court of Calicut. It was afterwards transferred...
The Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. T.K.E. Ibrahimsa Ravuttar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-01-1928
Reported in: AIR1928Mad543; 110Ind.Cas.207; (1928)54MLJ524
Srinivasa Ayyangar, J.1. The question referred in this case for the opinion of the High Court is as follows: 'If an assessee takes a usufructuary mortgage from a mortgagor and leases it back again to that person receiving rent from him, is that rent assessable to income tax?' When the case came on at first before three of us, on hearing arguments to some extent, it became clear that the decision and opinion of the three judges of this Court in Income-tax Referred Case No. 18 of 1925 required re-consideration and it was thereupon this case was directed to be posted for being heard before a bench of five judges. It is correct as pointed out by the Income-tax Commissioner in his letter of reference that the question proceeds on the assumption that the subject-matter of the mortgage is land used for agricultural purposes and either assessed to land revenue in British India or subject to a local rate assessed and collected by Officers of Government as such in the language of Section 2 (1) (...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »