Chennai Court May 1932 Judgments
Somasundaram Pillai and ors. Vs. Muthumanicka Nadar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-12-1932
Reported in: AIR1932Mad714
Anantakrishna Ayyar, J.1. This is a civil revision petition filed by the plaintiffs in O.S. No. 855 of 1926 on the file of the District Munsif of Chidambaram. They filed the suit against the defendants for a declaration that the mortgage bond executed by the plaintiffs on 3rd February 1926 in favour of defendant 1 for Rs. 800 was not supported by consideration to the extent of Rs. 575 alleged to have been advanced in cash at the time of the mortgage, the remaining Rs. 225 being the amount mentioned in the mortgage deed as due to a prior mortgage which defendant 1 (mortgagee) undertook to discharge himself. The plea of the contesting defendant was that out of Rs. 575 mentioned in the plaint, he did not make payment to the extent of Rs. 275 and to that extent want of consideration was admitted. But in respect of the remaining amount of Rs. 300, the defendants pleaded that the plaintiffs' case was false and that the mortgage was supported by consideration. Issues were framed, and the case...
Tag this Judgment!Vedathanni Vs. the Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-11-1932
Reported in: (1932)63MLJ542
Ramesam, J.1. The first question referred to us by the Income-tax Commissioner is:Whether maintenance and arrears of maintenance received by a widow of a member of a joint undivided Hindu family is not exempt from taxation under Section 14(1) and other sections of the Act.2. The facts of the case may be briefly stated. The Vadapathimangalam family in East Tanjore District consisted of two brothers up to 1912, Somasundara and Ramalinga. Ramalinga died in December, 1912, leaving a widow. She is the assessee in this case and the reference to us was made at her instance. Somasundara died in January, 1925, leaving two widows. In July, 1925, an adoption was made to him. The adopted son, a minor, is now the sole male member of the family and holds the estate. Ramalinga's widow sued him for maintenance with arrears. The Subordinate Judge of Negapatam gave her a decree for maintenance at the rate of Rs. 6,000 per annum and for arrears amounting to Rs. 69,000. There was an appeal to the High Cou...
Tag this Judgment!The Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. V.T.S. Sevuga Pandia thevar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-11-1932
Reported in: AIR1932Mad757; 140Ind.Cas.450; (1932)63MLJ634
Horace Owen Compton Beasley, Kt., C.J.1. At the request of the petitioner the Commissioner of Income-tax has referred the following question of law to the High Court, vis.:Whether the income from the fisheries is exempt from the assessment from income-tax on the grounds that they are not so assessable under the terms of the sanad granted to the Zamindar of Seithur and of Sections 1 and 4 of the Madras Regulation XXV of 1802 and on the ground that the said income is agricultural income especially in view of the definition of rent in Section 3(11)(b) of the Madras Estates Land Act. 2. The facts of the case are that in the assessment made on the petitioner for 1929-1930 a sum of Rs. 6,956 was included. This was income derived by the petitioner from the lease of the right to fish in a number of tanks and connected supply channels in the Zamindari the water in which is used for agricultural purposes. Excepting the right to fish, the lessees have no other rights whatsoever in the water of th...
Tag this Judgment!Nagalingam Pillai Vs. Sivachidambara Sabapathy Deekshitar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-11-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Mad85; 140Ind.Cas.500; (1932)63MLJ725
Anantakrishna Aiyar, J.1. The learned District Munsif of Chidambaram dismissed the execution petition filed by the assignee decree-holder in Small Cause Suit No. 682 of 1923 on the ground that the same was barred by limitation under Article 182 of the Limitation Act. The assignee decree-holder has preferred this Revision Petition.2. The facts are these. The decree in Small Cause Suit No. 682 of 1923 was passed on 20th June, 1923. On 9th January, 1925, an application for execution was filed, which however was dismissed on the 23rd March, 1925. On the 1st January, 1928, the Limitation (Amendment) Act IX of 1927 - amending Article 182 of the Limitation Act - came into force. On the 23rd March, 1928, the assignee decree-holder filed another application for execution which also was subsequently dismissed for default of prosecution. The present execution petition was filed on the 25th April, 1928, and it is with reference to that petition that the learned District Munsif observe^ that it was...
Tag this Judgment!Valliammal and ors. Vs. the Official Assignee of Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-11-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Mad74; (1932)63MLJ810
Horace Owen Compton Beasley, Kt., C.J.1. This is an appeal from an order of Stone, J., made in the Insolvency Court on the application of the Official Assignee that the appellants should be ordered to produce certain account books or be committed for contempt of Court. On the 29th February, 1932, Stone, J., passed the following order : 'Books to be delivered within two weeks.' Against that order this appeal has been presented. It raises some interesting and important questions.2. The proceeding in which the order under appeal was made was the administration by the Insolvency Court of the estate of one Gurunatha Mudaliar who died on the 5th June, 1930. His estate was insolvent but he had not before his death been adjudicated an insolvent. One of his creditors presented a petition to the Insolvency Court for the administration of the deceased debtor's estate under Section 103 of the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act and an order for the administration of that estate in insolvency was made ...
Tag this Judgment!Vedathanni Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-11-1932
Reported in: AIR1932Mad733; 140Ind.Cas.17
Ramesam, J.1. The first question referred to us by the Income-tax Commissioner is:Whether maintenance and arrears of maintenance received by a widow of a member of a joint undivided Hindu family is not exempt from taxation Under Section 14(1) and other sections of the Act.2. The facts of the case may be briefly stated. The Vedapathimangalam family in East Tanjore District consisted of two brothers up to 1912: Somasundara and Ramalinga. Ramalinga died in December 1912 leaving a widow. She is the assessee in this case and the reference to us was made at her instance. Somasundara died in January 1925 leaving two widows. In July 1925 an adoption was made to him. The adopted son, a minor, is now the sole male member of the family and holds the estate. Ramalinga's widow sued him for maintenance with arrears. The Subordinate Judge of Negapatam gave her a decree for maintenance at the rate of Rs. 6,000 per annum and for arrears amounting to Rs. 69,000. There was an appeal to the High Court. On...
Tag this Judgment!A.M.P.R. Muthuraman Chetty by Agent Subramania Aiyar and ors. Vs. Siva ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-10-1932
Reported in: AIR1932Mad737; (1932)63MLJ316
Krishnan Pandalai, J.1. The question is whether the suit brought by the petitioners (plaintiffs) embraces two or more distinct subjects within the meaning of Section 17 of the Court Fees Act so as to require them to pay Court-fees separately on each of the said subjects.2. The suit is on a mortgage in favour of the nine plaintiffs for a total sum of Rs. 38,376-4-8 and interest thereon mortgaging all the properties of the defendants who had been traders and in the course of trade became indebted to the nine plaintiffs in different sums which together made up the total mortgage principal. In one sense, i.e., before the mortgage, it is quite true that the plaintiffs had only separate claims against their debtor. That is the sense in which the Lower Court's opinion that the claim of each of the plaintiffs in the mortgage amount is a separate subject is right. But that by no means concludes the question whether the creditors having taken for their common protection a mortgage for the entire...
Tag this Judgment!S. Alwar Chetty Vs. the Madras Electric Supply Corporation, Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-06-1932
Reported in: AIR1932Mad779; (1932)63MLJ868
Ramesam, J.1. This appeal is filed by the plaintiff against the decree'of our brother Waller, J., dismissing his suit for certain injunctions and for damages. The plaintiff is the owner of premises No. 31, Thambu Chetty Street, Madras, G. T. Thambu Chetty Street runs from north to south, and No. 31 is on the western side. Next to the north of No. 31 are Nos. 32 and 33. No. 33 belonged originally to the Municipal Corporation of Madras. The defendants in the case are the Madras Electric Supply Corporation, Ltd., a company registered under the English Companies Act with its head office in the City of London. Under the provisions of the Indian Electricity Act. of 1903 the defendants have obtained a licence from the Madras Government to supply electricity to the city of Madras, for lighting and other purposes. No. 33 in the street was originally utilised by the Municipal Corporation as an office for water works, but while keeping the front portion to themselves the Municipal Corporation sol...
Tag this Judgment!Subbiah Chetty and ors. Vs. Visalakshi Achi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-05-1932
Reported in: AIR1932Mad285; (1932)63MLJ232
Curgenven, J.1. On the occasion of the 1st plaintiff's marriage to the 2nd plaintiff in 1899 a sum of Rs. 5,454 was given to her by her father's family as stridhanam, in accordance with the custom prevailing in the community to which the parties belong, that of Nattukottai Chettis. This sum, together with other small sums representing presents, amounted to Rs. 5,711 on the 27th September, 1899, on which date it was deposited with the firm consisting of her three brothers Raman Chetty, Lakshmanan Chetty and Muthiah Chetty. The evidence shows that a hundi for the amount had been handed to the 2nd plaintiff's father and that he handed it back to these persons for investment in their firm. The partnership constituting this firm lasted until 1915 when there was a partition, the two elder brothers forming a new firm with the Vilasam 'S.R.M.S.L.' and the third brother Muthiah Chetty another new firm with the Vilasam 'S.M.'. The assets and liabilities were divided between these two firms in th...
Tag this Judgment!T.S. Subbaraya Devai Vs. R. Sundaresa Devai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-03-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Mad5; 140Ind.Cas.226
Ramesam, J.1. This is a revision petition filed under Section 115, Civil P. C, against an order of the Subordinate Judge of Trichinopoly dated 4th September 1930 by which he restored to file a pauper petition, O.P. No. 7 of 1930, which had been previously rejected on 26th July 1930. The facts of the case may be thus briefly stated. The respondent filed an application for permission to sue in forma pauperis. This application was numbered as O.P. No. 7 of 1930 and it came on for orders on 26th July 1930. The Subordinate Judge passed the following order on that day:Petitioner had not taken steps even to summon witnesses to prove the incumbrances on his property. There is no satisfactory explanation for not doing so. Petition dismissed.2. Then there was an application for restoring O.P. 7. On that the Subordinate Judge passed the following order:I am unable to construe the order of this Court dismissing the petition as one on the merits. No witnesses had been summoned to prove the incumbra...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›