Chennai Court July 1928 Judgments
In Re: Gnanambal Ammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-31-1928
Reported in: AIR1928Mad1171; (1928)55MLJ516
ORDER1. This woman got an order for maintenance against her husband from the Court of Mayavaram. Her husband fell into arrears as they generally do and she then went to the Mayavaram Court to get the order enforced. The Magistrate for some reason which it is difficult to fathom said he was not going to enforce the order although it was made in his own Court but she must get it enforced by the Court within whose jurisdiction the husband then resided. It would be intolerable that such a burden should be put upon holders of maintenance orders. They would have to rush about the country pursuing the absconding husband, it may be, to wherever he chooses to go before the order could be enforced. We upset the order of the Magistrate and direct that a warrant for the amount issue....
Tag this Judgment!B. Raja Rajeswara Sethupathi Avergal Alias B. Muthu Ramalinga Sethupat ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-31-1928
Reported in: AIR1929Mad179; (1928)55MLJ770
1. This appeal is by the Rajah of Ramnad against the decree of the Additional Subordinate Judge of Ramnad at Madura dismissing his suit for the recovery of certain amounts paid by him as income-tax for three years. The Rajah of Ramnad was asked by the Income-tax Officer to make a return of his income taxable under the Income-tax Act (VII of 1918) under Section 17(2) read with Section 2, Clause (13). He submitted a return for the years 1919-1920, 1920-1921 and 1921-1922, in which he showed the income derived by him from forests and fisheries. The Income-tax Officer, on the basis of the return, proceeded to assess the income from forests and fisheries under Section 18 of the Act. The Rajah paid the tax on 5th July, 1920, 25th April, 1921, and 21st April, 1922. He brought the suit on 22th June, 1925 for the recovery of the three sums paid on the dates abovementioned on the ground that the income from forests and fisheries derived from his permanently settled zamindari was not taxable unde...
Tag this Judgment!N.S. Ramaswami Mudaliar and ors. Vs. Gopalasubba Nayakan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-31-1928
Reported in: AIR1928Mad1109
Devadoss, J.1. This appeal is against the decree of the Subordinate Judge of Dindigul dismissing the plaintiffs' suit for recovery of the principal and interest due on a mortgage bond. The facts of the case are: The plaintiffs' father and defendant 4 were the Karaswoms or stake-holders of a half-yearly auction chit to which defendant 1 was a subscriber. He bid for and obtained the chit in an auction and executed and registered a hypothecation bond on 3rd February 1906 for Rs. 2,000 as security for payment of future instalments. Defendants 1 and 2 are members of an undivided Hindu family. They executed a simple mortgage dead in favour of defendant 3 for Rs. 4,000 on 15th February 1909 (Ex. 1). On 1st February 1913, defendants 1 and 2 executed three sale-deeds in favour of third persons, Exs. B, C, and D with the direction that the vendees should pay off the mortgage amount due to the plaintiffs and the amount due to defendant 3. The vendees not having paid the amount due under Ex. 1, de...
Tag this Judgment!(Trivangalath Nelliyotan) Paidal Nair and ors. Vs. (Niroliparkam Punno ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-31-1928
Reported in: AIR1928Mad1237
Reilly, J.1. I cannot agree with Mr Ramakrishna Ayyar's contention for the plaintiff that the provision in Ex. A (of 1906) regarding the rate of compensation to be paid for improvements then existing is saved by the proviso to Section 19, Malabar Compensation for Tenants Improvements Act. In my opinion 'settling the amount of compensation' in that proviso does not include settling the rate of compensation Go be paid for existing improvements at some future date if they survive.2. The District Munsif has awarded compensation in accordance with the lease,' Ex.-C of 1884 for improvements made before the date of the next renewal, Ex.-B, in 1897. The learned District Judge's view is that the entire force of the contract of 1884 has been destroyed by the renewal of 1897. He is not accurate in speaking of the renewal in 1897 as implying a surrender of the lease of 1884 as the term of that lease had already expired and we have no evidence of any year to year tenancy having come into force afte...
Tag this Judgment!B. Raja Rajeshwara Sethupathi Avergal Alias B. Muthu Ramalinga Sethupa ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-31-1928
Reported in: 114Ind.Cas.829
1. This appeal is by the Rajah of Ramnad against the decree of the Additional Subordinate Judge of Ramnad at Madura dismissing his suit for the recovery of certain amounts paid by him as income-tax for three years. The Rajah of Ramnad was asked by the Income Tax Officer to make a return of his income, taxable under the Income Tax Act (VII of 1918) under Section 17(2) read with Section 2, Clause 13. He submitted a return for the years 1919-1920, 1920-1921, and 1921-1922 in which he showed the income derived by him from forests and fisheries. The Income Tax Officer, on the basis of the return, proceeded to assess the income from forests and fisheries, under Section 18 of the Act. The Rajah paid the tax on 5th July, 1920, 25th April 1921, and 21st April, 1922. He brought the suit on 22nd June, 1925, for the recovery of the three sums paid on the dates above mentioned on the ground that the income from forests and fisheries, derived from his permanently settled zemindary, was not taxable u...
Tag this Judgment!N.S. Ramaswamy Mudaliar and ors. Vs. Gopalasubba Nayakan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-31-1928
Reported in: 113Ind.Cas.666
1. This appeal is against the decree of the Subordinate Judge of Dindigul dismissing the plaintiffs' suit for recovery of principal and interest due on a mortgage-bond. The facts of the case are: The plaintiffs' father and the 4th defendant were the Karaswoms or stakeholders of a half yearly auction chit to which the 1st defendant was a subscriber. He bid for and obtained the chit in an auction and executed and registered a hypothecation bond on the 3rd February, 1906, for Rs. 2,000 as security for payment of future instalments. Defendants Nos. 1 and 2 are members of an undivided Hindu family. They executed a simple mortgage-deed in favour of the 3rd defendant for Rs. 4,000 on the 15th February, 19l)9. (Ex. 1). On the 1st February, 1913, defendants Nos. 1 and 2 executed three sale deeds in favour of thirds persons, Exs. B, C and D with the direction that the vendees should pay off the mortgage amount due to the plaintiffs and the amount due to the 3rd defendant. The vendees not having ...
Tag this Judgment!Goculdoss Jumnadoss and Co. and anr. Vs. N.M. Sadasivier and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-30-1928
Reported in: AIR1928Mad1091; (1928)55MLJ671
ORDERCurgenven, J.1. This is an application to withdraw I.E. No. 100 of 1927 from the file of the Subordinate Judge of Madura and transfer it for trial and disposal to the Original Side of the High Court. The preliminary objection is raised that such an application will not lie. The provision of law under which the application is made is Section 24 of the Civil Procedure Code, and I propose first to consider its maintainability under that section, referring subsequently to some clauses of the Letters Patent which have alternatively been relied upon.2. Under Section 5(2) of the Provincial Insolvency Act, the High Court has the same power in regard to proceedings under the Act as it has in regard to civil suits; and under Section 24(1)(b), Civil Procedure Code, it may at any stage withdraw any suit, appeal or other proceeding pending in any Court subordinate to it, and (i) try or dispose of the same; or (ii) transfer the same for trial or disposal to any Court subordinate to it and compe...
Tag this Judgment!Messrs. Goculdass Jumnadoss and Co. and anr. Vs. M.N. Sadasiva Iyer an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-30-1928
Reported in: 114Ind.Cas.352
Curgenven, J.1. This is an application to withdraw I.P. No. 100 of 1927, from the file of the Subordinate Judge of Madura and transfer it for trial and disposal to the Original Side of the High Court. The preliminary objection is raised that such an application will not lie. The provision of law under which the application is made is Section 24 of the Civil Procedure Code and I propose first to consider its maintainability under that section referring subsequently to some clauses of the Letters Patent which have alternatively been relied upon.2. Under Section 5(2) of the Provincial Insolvency Act the High Court has the same power in regard to proceedings under the Act as it has in regard to civil suits, and under Section 24(1)(b), Civil Procedure Code, it may at any stage withdraw any suit, appeal or other proceeding pending in any Court subordinate to it, and (i) try or dispose of the same; or (ii) transfer the same for trial or disposal to any Court subordinate to it and competent to...
Tag this Judgment!(Palepu) Narayanamurty Vs. Mallapudi Subrahmanyam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-27-1928
Reported in: AIR1928Mad1197; 114Ind.Cas.655
Reilly, J.1. S.A. 751 and 885 of 1925 are cross appeals in O.S. 196 of 1923 on the District Munsif's file. It is not disputed before me that the plaintiff, Narayanamurty, and the defendant, Subrahmanyam, in that suit and Achanta Satyanarayana and Kamali Chandrayya were partners in a firm formed for the purpose of selling toddy. It is contended for the plaintiff that that partnership was illegal But the cases relied on Marudathamuthu Pillai v. Rangasami Mooppan [1901] 24 Mad. 01, Thithi Pakurudasu v. Bheemudu [1903] 26 Mad. 430, and Brahmayya v. Ramiah [1920] 43 Mad. 141, though they lay down that a partnership entered into in contravention of a license or of any rule under the Abkari Act is void and that a licensee of a toddy or arrack shop cannot legally take a partner without sanction, do not go so far as to lay down that it is illegal for persons to enter into a partnership for the purpose of carrying on a toddy shop business, for which they hope at a future date to obtain a license...
Tag this Judgment!V.R. Ramasubba Raju Vs. Seshamma and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-27-1928
Reported in: AIR1929Mad242
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. This is an administration suit in which a preliminary decree has already been passed. The question that I am now called on to decide is, whether claimant 4, who is a creditor of the estate has a lien in respect of unpaid purchase money.2. The suit relates to the estate of Mr. P.V. Ramachandra Raju, deceased, who was a vakil of this Court. The claimant No, 4 Thayamanaswami sold to Mr. Raju on the 24th December 1921, certain immovable property at Madras. The deed of sale mentions that the price settled was Rs. 30,000 of which Rs. 18,000 is stated to be the amount received by the vendor in cash. In regard to the balance of the purchase money there is the following recital in the sale-deed:Deducting the said sum of Rs. 18,000, I have agreed and undertaken to deliver the title deeds relating to these properties and after delivering the same to you receive from you the balance of Us. 12,000 for purchasing other properties as stated above.3. One of the questions to be t...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »