Chennai Court August 1930 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.
Ramaswami Chettiar, Minor by Next Friend S.R.M.S.A. Annamalai Chettiar ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-06-1930
Reported in: AIR1930Mad987; 129Ind.Cas.44; (1931)60MLJ237
Curgenven, J.1. This is an appeal from an order passed by Eddy, J., in Application No. 104 of 1930 in C.S. No. 762 of 1926, adding the three applicants as party defendants to the suit. The plaintiff, a member of Nattukottai trading family, had sued the other members of his family for partition and an account of the assets and liabilities; and this application was made after a preliminary decree had been passed, the applicants, in their capacity as manager and worshippers respectively of a certain temple, applying to be added as parties to the suit upon the allegation that a sum of Rs. 1,38,000 of the alleged family assets was money to be held in trust for the benefit of the temple. Against the order of Eddy, J., granting the application the plaintiff appeals.2. The question is raised whether an appeal from an order of this kind lies, that is, whether the order amounts to a 'judgment' within the meaning of clause 15 of the Letters Patent. An attempt has been made by the appellant to der...
G.R. Naidu and ors. Vs. Kota Savitramma and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-05-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Mad36; 129Ind.Cas.682; (1930)59MLJ833
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. I do not think I can accede to Mr. Radhakrishnaiya's contention. The short point is, can the Receivers claim commission on the 1930 Bonds which have been directed by the Master to be converted into 6 per cent. 1933-36 Bonds under the Government of India Loan just announced? The estate is possessed of 1930 Bonds of the face value of Rs. 1,10,000. They have never been handled by the Receivers and are in deposit with the Imperial Bank of India, Madras, as security against an overdraft. These Bonds would, in the ordinary course, mature on the 14th of August, 1930, and it has been notified that the subscriptions for the new loan might not only be in cash but also inter alia in 6 per cent. Bonds 1930. The request for conversion should, I understand, be made before the 6th of August. Certain of the parties to the suit apprehending that the Receivers would, for the purpose of earning commission, receive money for the old Bonds and re-invest it in the new loan, applied to...
In Re: Parameswara Pattar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-04-1930
Reported in: AIR1930Mad833; (1930)59MLJ469
Sundaram Chetty, J.1. In this reference, the point arising for determination is, whether in a suit for possession of im-moveable property and mesne profits, Court-fee should be paid on the aggregate value of both the reliefs, or on the value of each of the reliefs separately. The question turns upon the applicability of Section 17 of the Court Fees Act to this case. That section says, that where a suit embraces two or more distinct subjects, Court-fee has to be paid separately on the value of each subject, and not on the aggregate value of all the reliefs.2. The word 'subject' in this section is somewhat obscure in its meaning, and has been held in some decisions to be not capable of precise definition. Ordinarily, the right or title to the land is the basis for the claim for possession of the land, as also for mesne profits, and it cannot, therefore, be deemed, that the two claims are so disconnected, without any interrelation, as to form distinct subjects, under Section 17 of the afo...
Appayya Banga (Dead) and ors. Vs. Koraga Alias Santhappa Kajava
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-04-1930
Reported in: (1931)60MLJ85
Madhavan Nair, J.1. The defendant is the appellant. This second appeal arises out of a suit instituted by the plaintiff to recover possession of the plaint item 1 with mesne profits or in the alternative for partition of plaint items 1 and 2 into two equal shares and for delivery of one such share to him with mesne profits. The plaintiff's case is that plaint items 1 to 3 belonged to his father and his two brothers, the defendant and one Tammayya Banga, that there was an oral division of these items between the three brothers, in which item 1 fell to the plaintiff's father's share, item 2 to the defendant and item 3 to Tammayya Banga. Tammayya Banga has been in separate enjoyment of his share of the property. As regards item 1, the plaintiff alleged that when his father became the ejman of the family the defendant was allowed to remain in possession of that item on behalf of his father, and as his father's right had been sold to him he now claims possession of that item or a half share...
The Municipal Council, Represented by Its Chairman Vs. S. Venkatarama ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-04-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Mad55; 129Ind.Cas.225; (1931)60MLJ456
Mudhavan Nair, J.1. This second appeal raises the question whether the respondent is exempt from liability to pay 'property tax' with respect to a building known as 'Arrack Godowns'--a place within the Municipal limits of Trichinopoly--under Section 63 (1)(a) of the old Municipal Act (IV of 1884) and Section 83 (a) of the present Municipal Act (V of 1920).2. The facts are not disputed. The respondent is the proprietor, headmaster and manager of the Aryan Secondary School located in a building known as 'Arrack Godowns' at a place called Teppakulam. The appellant is the Municipal Council of Trichinopoly represented by its Chairman. The respondent purchased the building from the Government (see Ex. C) for 'school purposes only' for the price of Rs. 4,081-4-0. The Municipality assessed 'Arrack Godowns' to property tax and realised from the respondent Rs. 297-4-2 for the years 1917 to 1921 by the issue of coercive process. The respondent claimed a refund of the amount from the Municipality ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›