Chennai Court October 1929 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.
Duvoor Venkatarama Reddi (Died) and ors. Vs. Gomatam Doddachariar and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-09-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Mad353; (1930)58MLJ207
Wallace, J.1. The point for decision in this appeal is one of limitation. The plaintiff applied for a final decree in a redemption suit. The preliminary decree was obtained on 29th June, 1918, the application for final decree was made on 22nd October, 1923, more than three years after the preliminary decree. The preliminary decree, however, was taken upon first appeal and second appeal. The first appeal was disposed of on 29th November, 1919 and the second appeal on 8th February, 1922. The application is, therefore, beyond three years of the first appeal decree and within three years of the second appeal decree. The original court has held that it was in time, the Lower Appellate Court that it was not, and the plaintiff appeals.2. The Article applicable is Article 181 and the terminus a quo is the date when the right to apply accrued. The plaintiff's contention is that the preliminary decree now is the High Court's decree in second appeal and that his right to apply accrued only on the...
Raja Rama Vs. FakuruddIn Sahib and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-09-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Mad218; (1930)58MLJ210
Cornish, J.1. This appeal raises the question whether a suit to recover money due on promissory notes against the defendants who are the sons, widows and a daughter of the deceased executant of the notes is barred by limitation.2. It appears that the two notes in question were executed by one Hajee Imamuddin on the 10th January, 1917 and on the 21st February, 1918, for Rs. 1,600 and Rs. 300, respectively. Imamuddin died in 1919. The plaintiff filed his suit against the defendants on 4th September, 1923, to recover the amount due on the notes. The suit was, therefore, out of time unless, in the meanwhile, there had been an effectual acknowledgment of the liability so as to give a fresh starting point for limitation. It is alleged by the plaintiff, who is the appellant before us, that such an acknowledgment is to be found in a petition filed in this Court on the 9th October, 1919, for a grant of letters of administration, by defendants 1, 2 and 3, of whom defendants 1 and 2 are sons and ...
In Re: Firm, P.L.S.K.R.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-09-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Mad104
1. In this application under Section 66, Sub-section 3, Income-tax Act, 1922, the Commissioner of Income-tax has been given notice to show cause why he should not refer certain questions of law for the determination of this Court.2. The facts are in brief that the assessed firm had a branch or agency operating in Ipoh, Federated Malay States. There had been an older firm there, but this was wound up and the assets, in the shape of outstandings, divided between the partners. One half of these assets in this way fell to the share of the partners in the assessed firm and were shown as a credit in its general balance. During the income-tax year 1926-27 the Ipoh branch remitted four sums of Rs. 30,000, Rs. 1,20,000 in all, to British India. The contention which the firm raises is that these remittances were derived from realizations of the old firm's outstandings, and were therefore mainly capital. The Income-tax department has declined to accept this explanation, and has acted upon the ord...
(Vatakkam Chirayil Parkum) Kurundaliammal Vs. T.P.E.N. Kunhi Kannan an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-09-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Mad141
Anantakrishna Ayyar, J.1. The plaintiff as the endorsee of a promissory note, Ex. C executed by defendants 1, 2 and 3 in favour of defendants 4 and 5 instituted the original suit against all the defendants to recover the amount due on the promissory note. The plea of defendants 1, 2 and 3 was that there was no consideration for the promissory note, that it was executed on account of fraud practised upon them by defendants 4 and 5 and that plaintiff was not a holder in due course as he knew the defect of the title of defendants 4 and 5 to the promissory note. Defendant 4 did not appear in the suit and defendant 5 supported the plaintiff. The trial Court came to the conclusion that there was no fraud and that the amount must be taken to have been due. It gave a decree in favour of the plaintiff against all the defendants for the amount due on the promissory note. Defendants 1, 2 and 3 preferred an appeal to the lower appellate Court. The learned Subordinate Judge came to the conclusion t...
In Re: P.L.S.K.R. Firm
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-09-1929
Reported in: 129Ind.Cas.654
1. In this application under Section 66, Sub-section 3, Income Tax Act, 1922, the Commissioner of Income-tax has been given notice to show cause why he should not refer certain questions of law for the determination of this Court.2. The facts are in brief that the assessed firm had a branch or agency operating in Ipoh, Federated Malay States. There had been an older firm there, but this was wound-up and the assets, in the shape of outstandings, divided between the partners. One half of these assets in this way fell to the share of the partners in the assessed firm and were shown as a credit in its general balance. During the income-tax year 1926-27 the Ipoh branch remitted four sums of Rs. 30,000, Rs. 1,20,000 in all, to British India. The contention which the firm raises is that these remittances were derived from realizations of the old firm's outstandings and were, therefore, mainly capital. The Income-tax Department has declined to accept this explanation, and has acted upon the or...
In Re: Peram Chennamma
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-08-1929
Reported in: 122Ind.Cas.337; (1930)58MLJ195
1. The plaintiff applied to the High Court to be allowed to appeal in forma pauperis. The application was rejected by a Judge of this Court and the plaintiff files this Letters Patent Appeal.2. Order XLIV, Rule 1, says that the Court shall reject the application unless, upon a perusal thereof and of the judgment, it sees reason to think that the decree is contrary to law or some usage having the force of law, or is otherwise erroneous or unjust. The learned Judge who heard the application rejected it, quoting the words of this section and merely observing that its requirement has not been fulfilled. The lower Court dismissed the plaintiff's suit holding that the claim is barred under Article 93 of the Limitation Act. The question to be decided is, what is the Article applicable to such claim, Article 93 as that Court has held or Article 144 or Article 142 as the appellant contends.?3. The lower Court; discusses the question at great length and refers to various authorities. It says tha...
Lakkaraju Anandarao Vs. Yellamraju Venkatasubba Rao and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-07-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Mad287; (1930)58MLJ127
Anantakrishna Aiyar, J.1. The lands described in the plaint belonged to the last male holder Lakshmayya, who died about 20 years prior to the suit, leaving his widow the second defendant, and a daughter Subbamma, the mother of the plaintiff and the third defendant. On Lakshmayya's death, the 2nd defendant inherited the property. The daughter of the 2nd defendant (the mother of the plaintiff and the 3rd defendant) died a year after Lakshmayya's death. The plaintiff and the 3rd defendant as the daughter's sons of the late Lakshmayya are the nearest reversioners to the estate of Lakshmayya. On 20th November, 1918, the 2nd defendant sold the suit properties to the 1st defendant for Rs. 1,500; the chief item of debt incurred by the 2nd defendant to discharge which she sold the properties to the 1st defendant was thus described in the sale deed:Rs. 885-1-8, being the debt contracted by me and by my eldest grandson Suryapragasa Rao (3rd defendant) for our family expenses and for the Upanayana...
Ranganayaki Bai Ammal Vs. B. Shivarama Dubay and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-07-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Mad216; (1930)58MLJ104
Curgenven, J.1. Two trustees of a certain charitable and religious trust sued their co-trustee for removal and for accounts in the District Court of Madura, The learned District Judge framed two preliminary issues with the first of which only we are here concerned. It runs thus: 'Whether the suit is maintainable under Section 92, C.P. Code or under Section 73 of Madras Act II of 1927.' This Civil Revision Petition has been preferred by the defendant against an affirmative finding upon this issue.2. It is objected that a decision upon a preliminary issue relating to jurisdiction is not open to revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The familiar argument in favour of revision is that if the petitioner is successful the trial of the rest of the suit would be saved, and the special objection to it is that, if the petitioner waits until the suit has been disposed of, he will have a right of appeal. The subject has come up most frequently in connection with court-fees and...
Renganatha Aiyangar (Minor) Through His Next Friend Krishna Aiyangar V ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-07-1929
Reported in: (1930)58MLJ651
Jackson, J.1. In this case the District Munsif of Devakotta found that the petitioner's suit on revaluation was beyond his jurisdiction. He ordered him to pay the deficient Court-fee within 15 days and when that was not done he rejected the plaint under Order 7, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure.2. There is some divergence of opinion as to what is the proper course in these circumstances, but the only case in the authorised reports is Kannuswami Pillai v. Jagathambai : (1918)35MLJ27 which in my opinion accords with the plain reading of the statute. If a Court finds a suit beyond its jurisdiction it cannot do more than order it to be presented in the proper Court.3. The District Munsif in this case had no jurisdiction to reject the plaint and I cancel the order. He is directed to return the plaint. The petition is allowed with costs....
Sree Minakshi Mills Ltd. Vs. T.C. Anantarama Ayyar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-07-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Mad654
Ramesam, J.1. This is an appeal against the judgment and decree of our brother Waller, J., decreeing the plaintiff's suit with costs. The suit is by the plaintiff for damages for wrongful dismissal by the Sri Meenakshi Mills, Limited, of Madura. The plaintiff is a Graduate in Arts and in Engineering, of the Madras University. He was employed in the Public Works Department for some time, but lost his employment on account of retrenchment in that department and, at the time the events which are the subject of this suit took place, was out of employ. In about October 1921 a limited company was formed, called the Sri Minakshi Mills Ltd., and Messrs. Theagaraja Chetti & Co. were its Managing Agents. In October 1923 Mr. Theagaraja Chetti had an interview with the plaintiff in connexion with employing him as engineer for constructing mill buildings. But at that time Mr. Theagaraja Chetti was attempting to get the services of Mr. V.T. Srinivasa Ayyangar who was still in Government service. Unt...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »