Chennai Court March 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.
Swaminathan Vs. V. Subramania Ayyar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-26-1928
Reported in: AIR1928Mad1082
Devadoss, J.1. Respondent 1 obtained a decree for damages only against respondent 2 in a suit brought by him for specific performance against respondent 2 and his son, the appellant. He applied for execution of the decree against the shares of both the father and son in the family property. The appellant objected to execution against his share on the ground that there was no decree' against him. The Subordinate Judge, overruled his objection and directed execution to proceed against his share also. Hence this appeal.2. Respondent 2 adopted the appellant on 11th April 1917 and made a gift of his property to him by an adoption deed, Ex. 12, executed on the same date. He had contracted on 8th April 1916 for the sale of his property to respondent 1 who brought a suit for specific performance of the agreement and obtained a decree in this Court for the advance paid and damages only against the father, respondent 2. Though this Court held that the son's share was not affected by the contract...
Nanduru Sobhanadracharyulu and ors. Vs. Nanduru Venkata Narasimhachary ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-23-1928
Reported in: AIR1928Mad1062; 113Ind.Cas.552
Kumaraswami Sastri, J.1. This second appeal arises out of a suit for rent filed under Section 77, Estates Land Act. The Deputy Collector decided issues 1 and 2, viz.:(1) whether the plaintiff is entitled to a share of wet crop raised on the suit land and(2) whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover rent for the use of water by the defendants from the tank which is the irrigation source for the suit land,against the plaintiff but passed a decree in his favour for Rs. 10 which was admitted, with interest at 6 per cent per annum, and dismissed the rest of his claim.2. On appeal the District Judge decided issues 1 and 2 in favour of the appellant and remanded the suit for disposal as regards the amount due. The order of the District Judge was in these terms:It is ordered that the decree of the lower Court be and the same hereby is sot aside, and the suit remanded to the lower Court, that the Deputy Collector of Nuzvid division do restore the suit to its original number in the register o...
President, Union Board of Thiruvettiyore Vs. Atchu Achary
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-23-1928
Reported in: 111Ind.Cas.855
ORDERDevadoss, J.1. These two applications are for revising the order of the First Class Bench Court of Thiruvettiyore acquitting the respondent in a prosecution launched by the President of the Union Board, Tiruvettiyore for burying dead bodies in a place not licensed for burial. The Bench acquitted the respondent on the ground that he had obtained an oral permission from the Taluq Board and, therefore, he was not guilty of an offence under Section 141 of the Local Boards Act. Section 141 requires a license of the Taluq Board or of the Union Board for opening a new place of burial and the application shall be in writing and shall be accompanied by a plan of the place etc. The contention of the respondent is that an application was made to the President of the Taluq Board but as there was no time to obtain a written license, he gave an oral permission to him to bury the dead in the place for which he wanted the license. Section 214 of the Local Boards Act says 'All licenses, notices an...
In Re: M. Venkataratnam Naidu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-21-1928
Reported in: (1928)55MLJ38
Waller, J.1. This case raises a somewhat difficult question. The insolvent has drawn out the deposits that stood to his credit in the Railway Provident Fund. With part of them he redeemed some of his wife's jewellery and the balance he handed over to her. The question is whether the Official Assignee has any claim on them. It is strenuously contended on behalf of the insolvent and his wife that the Official Assignee has no such claim. Section 3(1) of the Provident Funds Act of 1925 is, no doubt, very widely expressed, but it seems to me that the short answer to the question propounded is that the subsection is intended to protect compulsory deposits only so long as they remain deposited in the fund. A number of decisions has been cited, but most of them do not touch the point that has now arisen. Veerchand v. B.B. and C.I. Railway I.L.R. (1904) B. 259 was the case of a depositor who had retired from service, but had not yet drawn out his deposits. The decision was that they could not b...
Mt. Amir Bi Vs. Abdul Rahim Sahib and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-21-1928
Reported in: 110Ind.Cas.276; (1928)55MLJ266
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. A preliminary issue has been raised:Has the Court jurisdiction to try the suit?2. This involves a consideration of three points:(1) Is this an administration suit?(2) Is an administration suit a suit for land?(3) If it is held that it is not, can the Court, in such a suit, where the land is wholly outside jurisdiction, decide questions of title to such land?3. I shall first deal with the question : 'Is this an administration suit?' Abdul Razaak Saheb, a Mahomedan, who was trading in Madras, died in 1920, leaving large assets consisting of moveables within the city and a few items of immoveable property wholly outside 'this Court's jurisdiction. In this suit, which his widow has brought, she asks that the extent of Abdul Razaak's property may be ascertained, that his outstandings may be realised, that his estate may be administered, that her mahar may be paid and that the residue divisible among his heirs may be divided according to their shares under the law. The...
The Secretary of State for India in Council Represented by the Collect ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-21-1928
Reported in: (1929)1MLJ24
Phillips, J.1. This appeal relates to the Kuthalanathaswami temple at Kuttalam of which the plaintiffs (respondents) are the trustees. The suit is brought for a declaration that the plaint property belongs to the plaint temple and the Government has no right to levy any assessment on the same. The plaint property is Survey No. 482 of Kuttalam and the temple itself stands in this survey number. In 1874 the field was undivided and in the settlement register, Ex. V, it is classed as poramboke, while in the remarks column is the word 'pagoda.' The field itself is about 27 acres in extent. In the re-survey of 1908 the field has been sub-divided into 51 sub-divisions. The sites of the temple and of some mantapams and other buildings intimately connected with the temple have been left as poramboke, but in respect of the other sub-divisions the Government (defendant) issued inam pattas, but these pattas were refused and accordingly ordinary assessment has been levied on these items. The respon...
(Bethapudi) Tandavamurti Vs. (Bethapudi) Durgamba and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-21-1928
Reported in: AIR1928Mad1154; 113Ind.Cas.260
1. This appeal is preferred by the decree-holder in O.S. No. 52 of 1909 on the file of the Temporary Subordinate Court of Gantur against an order of that Court dismissing Ms application for execution of the decree by attachment and sale of immovable properties of the judgment-debtors; The material facts of the case are as follows. The decree in the suit was passed on 27th June 1910. The appellant who had already filed two execution applications which had been disposed of filed execution petition No. 1 of 1921 on 23rd December 1920 for the execution of the decree by attachment and sale of the moveable properties of the judgment-debtors. The attachment was effected. Thereupon a claim was preferred to the attached properties by certain third parties. The claim was disallowed and thereafter the claimants brought a regular suit to establish their right to the attached properties. In that suit an injunction was issued directing stay of sale of the attached properties pending the disposal of ...
The Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. A.L.S.P.P.L. Subramanian Chettiar a ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-20-1928
Reported in: AIR1928Mad923; 110Ind.Cas.889; (1928)55MLJ416
Murray Coutts Trotter, Kt., C.J. and Ramesam, J.1. This case has been referred to us under Section 66(3) in pursuance of an order of this Court requiring the Commissioner of Income-tax to state a case and refer it.2. The facts of the case are as follows: - According to a deed of partnership, dated 29th July, 1921, Exhibit A, A.L.S.P.P.L. Subramanian Chettiar and A.R.S.S.P. Subramanian Chettiar entered into a partnership according to the terms of which the former contributed Rs. 15,750 as his % share of the capital and the latter contributed Rs. 5,250 being J share of the capital, the initial capital agreed being Rs. 21,000 and they were to share the profit and loss in the ratio of 3 to 1. The document also contemplates that, if necessary, further sums may be contributed by either party towards the additional capital of the business and that interest should be charged on it. The Commissioner has found that the senior partner advanced a sum of Rs. 4,01,251 as additional capital in parts ...
Krishnaswamy Asari and anr. Vs. Muthulakshmi Ammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-20-1928
Reported in: AIR1928Mad1097
Kumaraswami Sastri, J.1. Defendants 1 and 2 are the appellants. This appeal arises out of a suit filed to set aside a decree passed by consent and for partition of the suit property and for half share in the property. The plaintiff and defendant 2 are the daughters of one Mookan Asari who left a widow named Chinnammal. The plaintiff's case is that the decree in O.S. No. 1264 of 1915 on the file of the District Munsif's Court of Kulitalai which was a decree passed on a compromise entered into between Chinnammal and defendants 1 and 2 and the present plaintiff is not binding on her; that Chinnammal had only a widow's estate in the suit lands which were the property of Mookan Asari and that the plaintiff and defendant 2 are the daughters entitled to equal shares. The District Munsif held that there was no fraud so far as the decree was concerned and that it was binding on the plaintiff and dismissed the plaintiff's claim for one half of the property. On appeal the Subordinate Judge was of...
S. Vijayaraghavachariar and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-20-1928
Reported in: AIR1928Mad1268
ORDERDevadoss, J.1. This is an application for quashing the proceedings now pending before the Stationery Sub-Magistrate, Dharmapuri. In order to understand the contention of the petitioners, it is necessary to mention a few facts. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate, of Dharmapuri was informed by a mother and daughter of the commission of serious offences. He sent the daughter to the Medical Officer and on the 24th November he took a sworn statement from the mother and from the daughter. He forwarded the complaint of the daughter to the Sub-Magistrate, Dharmapuri, on the 24th, as he thought that an offence or offences triable exclusively by a Court of Sessions were disclosed in the sworn statement. He took the mother's case on his file and issued bailable warrants to the accused. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate who happened to go to Salem on some business mentioned to the District Magistrate and the District Superintendent of Police about the complaint made to him by the mother and the daught...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »