Chennai Court March 1929 Judgments
(Kantipudi) Ramayya Vs. Garapati Ramayya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-27-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Mad329; 118Ind.Cas.779
Anantakrishna Ayyar, J.1. Defendants 5 to 8 are the appellants in this second appeal. Defendants 1 to 4 are the daughter's sons of Seetharamudu on whose death Gangalakshmi his widow took possession of those properties. In the case of an ordinary family governed by Mitakshara Law the presumption will be that Gangalakshmi had only a life-estate (widow's estate) in the properties that came to her on the death of Seetharamudu. The appellants, that is, defendants 5 to 8 who are the alienees from Gangalakshmi and her daughters Rattama and Narasamma, set up a custom in the family of the parties by which in the properties inherited by a female, she would have absolute rights. The plaintiff claims as vendee from the daughters' sons, namely defendants 1 to 4. Under the ordinary Hindu Law the plaintiff as purchaser from the daughters' sons would be entitled to the property on the death of their mothers, namely daughters of Gangalakshmi. It is upon the appellants who claim as purchasers from the w...
Tag this Judgment!V.R.S.A.R. Arunachalam Chettiar Vs. the Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-26-1929
Reported in: AIR1929Mad769; (1929)57MLJ300
Kumaraswami Sastri, J.1. The assesset prior to the 5th November, 1925, was a member of a joint undivided family consisting of his father and brothers. The joint family so constituted was entitled to 50|/6ths share in a money-lending business carried on at Taiping in the Federated Malay States. On the 5th of November there was a partition amongst members of the joint family and in that partition the interest of the family in the Taiping' business as a going concern fell to the share of the assessee. Prior to the date of the partition there had been a remittance to the joint family of Rs. 29,218 in the year Krodhana (13th April, 1925 to 12th April, 1926). Subsequent to the partition there was a further remittance of Rs. 15,037. These sums were remitted not in one lump sum, but that makes no difference.2. The year of account in the present case is Krodhana (13th April, 1925 to 12th April, 1926), and the year of assessment 1926-27. The accounts were kept on cash basis.3. The Income-tax Off...
Tag this Judgment!P.L.S. Firm Through Its Partner P.L.S. Lakshmanan Chetti Vs. M.R.M.S. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-26-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Mad140; (1929)57MLJ459
Odgers, J.1. These appeals, Appeal No. 349 of 1924 and Appeal No. 47 of 1928, were originally heard by myself and Curgenven, J., but owing to the latter's illness before he left the Court last year we were unable to deliver our judgments. In the meantime an informal application was made to me which is now put in the form of a petition that we should ask Mr. Brook Elliot, a member of the Ceylon Bar, to either appear as an amicus curiae or as a witness to help us in the elucidation of the Ceylon Procedure in this case as contained in the Ceylon Procedure Code. We have given very careful consideration to this request and we are indebted to Mr. Brook Elliot for so readily placing his services and knowledge at our disposal. But we consider that the only way in which Mr. Brook Elliot could be of any real assistance would be if he were asked his opinion as to the very question that we have to decide. An expert in foreign law is called, as I understand it, to state what the law of a foreign co...
Tag this Judgment!N.P.L. Palaniappa Chetty Vs. N.M.R. Nagappa Chettiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-26-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Mad146; 123Ind.Cas.600
Odgers, J.1. This appeal and Appeal No. 47 of 1928 were originally heard by myself and Curgenven, J., but owing to the latter's illness before he left the Courts last year we were unable to deliver our judgments. In the meantime an informal application was made to me which is now put in the form of petition that we should ask Mr. Brook Elliot, a member of the Ceylon Bar to either appear as an amicus curice, or as a witness for help us in the elucidation of the Ceylon procedure in this case as contained in the Ceylon Procedure Code, We have given very careful consideration to this request and we are indebted to Mr. Book Elliot for so readily placing his services and knowledge at our disposal. But we consider that the only way in which Mr. Brook Elliot could be of any real assistance would be if he were asked his opinion as to the very question that we have to decide. An expert in foreign law is called as I understand it to state what the law of a foreign country on a particular point is...
Tag this Judgment!V.R.S.A.R. Arunaohalam Chettiar Vs. the Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-26-1929
Reported in: 122Ind.Cas.793
Kumaraswami Sastri, J.1. The assessee prior to the 5th November, 1925 was a member of a joint undivided family consisting of his father and brothers. The joint family so constituted was entitled to 50 76ths share in a money-lending business carried on at Taiping in the Federated Malay Statee. On the 5th of November there was a partition amongst members of the joint family and in that partition the interest of the family in the Taiping business as a going concern fell to the share of the assessee. Prior to the date of the partition there had been a remittance to the joint family of Rs. 29,218 in the year Krodhana (13th April, 1925 to 12th April, 1926). Subsequent to the partition there was a further remittance of Rs. 15,037. These sums were remitted not in one lump sum, but that makes no difference.2. The year of account in the present case is Krodhana (13th April, 1925 to 12th April, 1926), and the year of assessment 1926-27. The accounts were kept on cash basis.3. The Income Tax Offic...
Tag this Judgment!Ralli Brothers Vs. Perumal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-25-1929
Reported in: AIR1929Mad698; 118Ind.Cas.770; (1929)57MLJ88
Murray Coutts Trotter, Kt., C.J.1. The facts in this case are fortunately not in dispute and are stated in the order of the Commissioner. I can shortly summarise them as follows:--The applicant, the injured workman, who, it is agreed for the purposes of this case, is to be treated as being in the employment of Messrs. Ralli Brothers, the appellants before us, was employed in a warehouse which was within the premises of the Port Trust and leased by that body to Messrs. Ralli Brothers. The godown was about a quarter of a mile away from the wharf alongside which steamers are moored. Into that godown were stored various goods, the property of Messrs. Ralli Brothers, some awaiting shipment to Europe and some ready to be entrained at the neighbouring railway station to be conveyed to various destinations in British India. The injuries to the workman were caused by a bale of cotton being lowered from the upper floor of the godown by a crane to the lower floor in which he was waiting to receiv...
Tag this Judgment!Ganapathi, Minor by Mother and Guardian Vellayammal Vs. Subramaniam Ch ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-25-1929
Reported in: AIR1929Mad738; (1929)57MLJ374
Phillips, J.1. In this suit the 1st defendant is the father of the 1st plaintiff and the 2nd defendant by different mothers. Plaintiffs 2 and 3 are the minor sons of the 1st plaintiff and defendants 3 and 30 are the minor sons of the 2nd defendant. The suit was instituted by the 1st plaintiff on behalf of himself and his minor sons for a partition. It is alleged that the 1st plaintiff wished to effect a partition in 1915 or 1916 but no partition appears to have been effected before this suit was filed in 1920 and it has not been shown that there was any separation in status. During the pendency of this suit, the 1st defendant died on 26th October, 1923, and in June, 1924, the 1st plaintiff died. On the,1st plaintiff's death, the 2nd plaintiff who had attained majority, elected to continue the suit on behalf of himself and his minor brother the 3rd plaintiff. At the end of the trial the 3rd plaintiff's mother applied to be made guardian of her minor son the 3rd plaintiff and stated that...
Tag this Judgment!Sir Gulam Muhammad Ali Sahib Bahadur Khan Bahadur Vs. the Corporation ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-19-1929
Reported in: (1929)57MLJ536
1. The questions referred to us under Rule 17 of the Taxation Rules of the Madras City Municipal Act of 1919 are three in number:(1) Whether the payments made by the Government to the Prince of Arcot are in the nature of pension and he is therefore a person in receipt of a pension within the meaning of Explanation 2 to Section 111 of the City Municipal Act, 1919(2) Does the liability of any person to pay profession tax for any half-year arise immediately on the expiry of the sixty days mentioned in Section 113, or does it arise only upon his being assessed by the Commissioner for that half-year under Rule 8 of the Taxation Rules and served with notice of such assessment?(3) Is the assessment to profession tax of the Prince oi Arcot under Rule 8 of the Taxation Rules and Section 113 of the City Municipal Act made on the 5th of September, 1926 invalid for the ten half-years commencing from the second half-year of 1920-21?2. The first question is whether the periodical payments made by th...
Tag this Judgment!Marivada Veeranna, Minor, by Mother and Guardian, Mahalakshmi and ors. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-19-1929
Reported in: (1930)59MLJ139
Phillips, J.1. These are appeals against the decree in O.S. No. 63 of 1921 on the file of the Additional Subordinate Judge's Court of Cocanada, by which the plaintiff as reversioncr has been given a decree for recovery of certain properties belonging originally to one Tiruppayya, the last male owner. The facts of the case are somewhat complicated and are as follows:Tiruppayya was the son of one Dorayya who died a very long time ago, the exact date being unknown. Dorayya had a sister, Venkamma, who was widowed at an early age and went to live with her brother. Subsequently Ammanna, son of another sister, was taken in by Venkamma and was afterwards described as her foster-son. This Ammanna married Dorayya's daughter, Ademma, and lived in his father-in-law's house. Venkamma was apparently managing the family affairs while Tiruppayya was young, and Ammanna was also assisting in the cultivation of lands, etc. After Tiruppayya's death in 1880, there was a mediation between Tiruppayya's widow...
Tag this Judgment!Sir Gulam Mohammad Ali Sahib Bahadur Vs. the Corporation of Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-19-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Mad200; 122Ind.Cas.360
1. The questions referred to us under Rule 17 of the Taxation Rules of the Madras City Municipal Act of 1919 are three in number:(1) Whether the payments made by the Government to the Prince of Arcot are in the nature of 'pension', and he is, therefore, a person in receipt of a 'pension' within the meaning of Explanation II to Section 111 of the City Municipal Act, 1919?(2) Does the liability of any person to pay profession tax for any half-year arise immediately on the expiry of the sixty days mentioned in Section 113, or does it arise only upon his being assessed by the Commissioner for that half-year under Rule 8 of the Taxation Rules and served with notice of such assessment?(3) Is the assessment to profession lax of the Prince of Arcot under Rule 8 of the Taxation Rules and Section 113 of the City Municipal Act made on the 15th of Septembar, 1926, invalid for the ten half-years commencing from the second half-year of 1920-21?2. The first question is, whether the periodical payment...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »