Chennai Court February 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.
immidisetti Dhanaraju and ors. Vs. Motilal Daga, Trading Under the Nam ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-19-1929
Reported in: AIR1929Mad641; (1929)57MLJ264
1. The question referred to the Full Bench is:Is the procedure to be adopted by the High Court in case of an equal division of opinion between the Judges to be governed by Clause 36 of the Letters Catent or by Section 98 of the Code of Civil Procedure?2. The Letters Patent were issued in 1862 and were modified in 1865 but previously a section like Section 98 had been introduced into the Civil Procedure Code of 1859 by the Amending Act of 1861. Between 1865 and 1877, it could not be suggested that the Civil Procedure Code prevailed over the Letters Patent. It was obvious that the Letters Patent prevailed over the Civil Procedure Code. In case of difference of opinion between two Judges, the procedure in the Letters Patent was the only procedure to be followed. This was accordingly held in Nundeeput Mahta v. Mr. Alexander Shaw Urquhart. (1870) 13 W.R. 209 A fresh Civil Procedure Code was passed in 1877 and another in 1882 and in these Codes Section 575 similar to Section 98 of the presen...
K. Piramanayakam Pillai Vs. Krishnaswamy Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-18-1929
Reported in: 121Ind.Cas.492
1. In this appeal, the 10th defendant is the appellant before us. The suit was brought by the reversioner to the estate of one Isakki Adumperumal Pillai, the last admitted male owner who died in 1862. The original plaintiff was the daughter's son; while the suit was pending in the Court below, he died and his son was afterwards added as the 2nd plaintiff. When Isakki Adumperumal Pillai died in 1862, he left surviving him five daughters and a daughter's son by his first wife. This daughter's son afterwards died in 1887, predeceasing the last of the five daughters. The last of the daughters, Subbammal, died in 1921, leaving her son, the original plaintiff as the only reversioner. In the plaint, the plaintiff questions the validity of the depositions made by Pira-muthu Ammal, the widow of Isakki Adumperumal Pillai, under her Will dated 9th January, 1879. She died on the 8th February, 1879. Under this Will, she gave all the properties she was then possessed of, to her five daughters absolu...
B. Iswarayya Vs. Swarnam Iswarayya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-15-1929
Reported in: (1930)58MLJ29
Reilly, J.1. In 1921 the respondent in A.S. No. 169 of 1927 obtained a decree under the Indian Divorce Act of judicial separation from her husband, the appellant. The husband was then ordered to pay Rs. 120 a month to the wife for her own maintenance and Rs. 30 a month to her for the maintenance of each of their four children. In O.P. No. 44 of 1926 on the District Judge's file the wife prayed that the amount to be paid for her maintenance by the husband should be increased to Rs. 260 a month, and in O.P. No. 43 of 1926 the children applied for an increase of the maintenance allowances to be paid by their father for them to Rs. 300 a month in all. The District Judge disposed of both petitions in one judgment. He found that the children were no longer minors under the Indian Divorce Act and that therefore their father could not be ordered to pay maintenance allowances for them under Section 42 of the Act. But he made an order raising the alimony to be paid to the wife to Rs. 310 a month...
(Vellanki) Lakshmi Narasayamma Rao Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-15-1929
Reported in: AIR1929Mad598
Wallace, J.1. The only question in this case is whether the legacy received by the assessee under the terms of her father's will and in respect of which she got a decree is exempt from the payment of income-tax being agricultural income. Her father was the zamindar of Gannavaram and he executed a will which is annexed as Ex. O. Under the will he appointed his wife as the executrix, gave her a life-estate in the property and directed her to give his daughters a sum of Rs. 600 each per month. This sum of Rs. 600 was not paid and it fell into arrears. The daughter got a decree for Rs. 80,000 in the Sub-Court of Bezwada and this sum is taxed as income.2. It is argued for the assessee that she got a rent charge on the income of the estate in respect of the amount that the (executrix had to pay and that this sum of Rs. 600 should be treated as agricultural income as defined in Section 2, Clause 1. We think that this legacy cannot be brought under that clause and that she was rightly assessed...
(Chava) Indrammal Vs. Emperor
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-14-1929
Reported in: AIR1929Mad667
Waller, J.1. The appellant has been convicted of the murder of his wife, That they were on bad terms is abundantly clear. They lived together for several years, but he ill-treated her and in 1926 sent her back to her parents. In February 1928 her parents sent her back to him, being apprehensive that he was going to marry a second wife. Fifteen days later she was murdered. At the time there were living in the house appellant, his wife and his mother (P. W. 5) but on the actual night of the murder the appellant and his wife were alone. P.W. 5 spent that night with her brother. When she left, the appellant was on the outside pial, while his wife was inside the house. Early the next morning she returned and found her daughter-in-law dead and her son absent. The medical evidence discloses that the woman's death was due to throttling by manual pressure. Whatever the motive for her murder may have been, it was certainly not robbery, for all the jewellery she was wearing was found intact.2. Th...
M.R.M. Rama Pillai Vs. Kasamuthu Nadar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-14-1929
Reported in: AIR1929Mad715; 121Ind.Cas.485
Anantakrishna Ayyar, J.1. Civil Revision Petition 1233 of 1927. One Vala Subramaniam Pillai was decree-holder in Small Cause Court Suit No. 661 of 1923 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Tuticorin. The decree is dated 4th May 1923. The decree-holder Vala Subramania Pillai was subsequently adjudged insolvent on 21st January 1925 on an application filed on 22nd December 1924. It is said that a special receiver was appointed on 30th, March 1926. The outstandings including decrees due to Vala Subramania Pillai were sold in auction and the petitioner Rama Pillai became the purchaser on 12th June 1926, and the deed of assignment Ex. A, was executed in favour of Rama Pillai by the special receiver on 27th August 1926. Rama Pillai filed an application for execution of the decree in Small Cause Suit No. 661 of 1923 on 17th November 1926. This application has been dismissed by the learned Subordinate Judge on the ground of limitation and it is against that order that Rama Pilla...
K.M. Krishna Kurup Vs. A. Veeran Kutty
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-14-1929
Reported in: 116Ind.Cas.143
1. The plaintiff is the petitioner before me. He filed S.C.S. No. 124 of 1927 on the file of the District Munsif of Tirur to recover a sum of Rs. 32-3-0 being the purappad (rent) and revenue due to the plaintiff from the defendant, a tenant. When the suit was pending the parties compromised the matter in dispute in the suit and also other connected matters. The compromise petition was signed and put into Court. The defendant, however, objected to a decree being passed in terms of the compromise on the grounds that he did not sign the compromise petition and that the compromise contained unlawful and illegal terms. The learned District Munsif raised two points for consideration.1. Whether the defendant has signed the alleged compromise petition? and2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get a decree in accordance with the compromise?2. On the first issue the learned District Munsif recorded a finding in the affirmative and found that the defendant did sign the alleged compromise petiti...
In Re: Chava Indramma Alias Tata Vs. Emperor
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-14-1929
Reported in: 118Ind.Cas.817
1. The appellant has been convicted of the murder of his wife. That they were on bad terms is abundantly clear. They lived together for several years, but he ill-treated her and in 1926 sent her back to her parents. In February, 1928, her parents sent her back to him, being apprehensive that he was going to marry a second wife. Fifteen days later she was murdered. At the time there were living in the house appellant, his wife and his mother (P. W. No. 5), but on the actual night of the murder the appellant and his wife were alone, P. W. No. 5 spent that night with her brother. When she left, the appellant was on the outside pial, while his wife was inside the house. Early the next morning she returned and found her daughter-in-law dead and her son absent. The medical evidence discloses that the woman's death was due to throttling by manual pressure. Whatever the motive for her murder may have been, it was certainly not robbery, for all the jewellery she was wearing was found intact.2. ...
The Municipal Council Vs. the Madras and Southern Mahratta Railway Co. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-12-1929
Reported in: AIR1929Mad746; (1929)57MLJ471
Murray Coutts Trotter, Kt., C.J.1. Under Section 135 of the Indian Railways Act (IX of 1890) it is laid down that a Railway Administration shall not be liable to pay any tax in aid of the funds of any local authority unless the Governor-General in Council has, by notification in the Official Gazette, declared the Railway Administration to be liable to pay the tax. This tax is sought to be imposed by virtue of Act V of 1920, the District Municipalities Act, whereby Municipal Councils are entitled to levy property tax under Section 81. In fact, no notification has been issued by the Government of India since Madras Act V of 1920 came into force and the Municipal Councils can only rely upon a notification of the 24th November, 1911, which was issued under the previous Act. It is said that the new section of the Act of 1920 amounts to no more than a compressing into one category of what under the old Act had fallen under three. To my mind that argument is unsound. Taxing statutes are to be...
(Laguduva) Vasudeva Ayyar Vs. (Laguduva) Sundararaja Ayyar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-12-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Mad38
Odgers, J.1. This is an appeal against the order of the Second Additional Subordinate Judge of Madura holding that a certain award is invalid. Defendant 1 had five sons, one by his first wife and four by his second. The father had begun life in a small way with family property apparently worth only Rs. 300 or 400 but he made a considerable fortune in Sunnadi dye. He had originally two sons by his first wife but his eldest son, Ramasami, died at the age of 18 and according to the plaintiff from about 1913 his family had been in comfortable circumstances and in 1922 there was an attempt at partition in the family. This partition did not get further than a partition of moveables. Consequently, on 16th September 1923 the family made a reference to five arbitrators to divide the family property, Ex. V. Three of the arbitrators were relations and two of them P.W. 1 and D.W. 2 were intimate friends of the family with a knowledge of all its circumstances. The reference is very short and runs a...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »