Chennai Court January 1933 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.
Kandaswamy Goundar Vs. Chinnammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-09-1933
Reported in: AIR1933Mad540
ORDERMadhavan Nair, J.1. The plaintiff is the appellant. This appeal arises out of a suit instituted by the plaintiff for a declaration that he is the adopted son of one Muthu Goundan of Siluvampatti and as such is entitled to recover the suit properties from the defendants together with mesne profits. Defendant 1 is the second daughter of the deceased Muthu Goundan and defendants 2 and 3 are his other daughters. Defendant 4 is the husband of the first daughter. Defendants 5 to 7 are persons who are in possession of some of the items of the property. Muthu Goundan died in the month of March 1920, and on 11th March 1921 his widow, Kaliammal, P.W. 1, adopted the plaintiff, the son of Muthu Goundan's brother, P.W. 2. The plaint alleged that Muthu Goundan, before his death, had authorized his widow to adopt and that she took the plaintiff in adoption with the consent of the sapindas. The daughters who are defendants contested the adoption and said it was brought about at the investigation ...
Kandaswamy Gounder Vs. Chinnammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-09-1933
Reported in: 146Ind.Cas.346
Madhavan Nair, J.1. The plaintiff is the appellant. This appeal arises out of a suit instituted by the plaintiff for a declaration that he is the adopted son of one Muthu Goundan of Siluvampatti and as such is entitled to recover the suit properties from the defendants together with mesne profits. Defendant No. 1 is the second daughter of the deceased Muthu Goundan and defendants Nos. 2 and 3 are his other daughters. Defendant No. 4 is the husband of the first daughter. Defendants Nos. 5 to 7 are persons who are in possession of some of the items of the property. Muthu Goundan died in the month of March 1920, and as March 11, 1921, his widow, Kaliammal, P.W. No. 1. adopted the plaintiff, the son of Muthu Goundan's brother, P.W. No. 2. The plaint alleged that Muthu Goundan, before his death, had authorized his widow to adopt and that she took the plaintiff in adoption with the consent of the sapindas. The daughters who are defendants contested the adoption and said it was brought about ...
Vellayammal and ors. Vs. N.P. Palaniyandi Ambalam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-06-1933
Reported in: AIR1933Mad856; 147Ind.Cas.381; (1933)65MLJ772
Krishnan Pandalai, J.1. This was a suit by a Hindu reversioner to set aside alienations by the female heirs. Of two such alienations which formed the subject-matter of this second appeal, 'one which affected the appellants 1 and 2 has been settled and all that now remains is the alienation which affects the other appellants, viz., appellants 3 and 4, which concerns item No. 1 in B Schedule, 19 cents of land. The Court of first instance upheld this alienation and dismissed the suit. In the Court of appeal to which the plaintiff appealed, the learned Judge deals with this property in paragraph 13. The 6th defendant's father bought this property so long ago as (1886) from Velliammal, mother of the last male-holder and her daughter, one Thungi. The then reversioners, the last male-holder's paternal uncle Palaniyandi and his son the present plaintiff then brought suits to set aside the alienation and succeeded. But after that decree the two families, that is of the purchasers and the vendor...
Muthalakkammal Vs. Narappa Reddiar (Minor) by Mother and Next Friend N ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-06-1933
Reported in: AIR1933Mad456; (1933)64MLJ437
1. The decision in Arunachellam Chetty v. Ramanadhan Chettyi was in accordance with the earlier decision in Virupakshappa v. Shidappa and Basappa I.L.R. (1901) Bom. 109 though the latter decision was not actually cited. In the latter case, Sir Lawrence Jenkins, C. J. and Chandavarkar, J., held that proceedings in execution are proceedings in suits and that the compromise of such a proceeding is a compromise with reference to the suit. These decisions were followed in this Court in Shaik Davud Rowther v. Paramasami Pillai : (1916)31MLJ207 .2. In Fani v. Surendra (1921) 35 C.L.J. 9 the rules of Order 32, Seheudle 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure which were in question were Rules 1, 3 and 11 and the decision did not turn on the applicability of Order 32, Rule 7. The same remarks apply to Rakhal Chandra De v. Mt. Kumidini Debya : AIR1927Cal930 and Bansi Dhar v. Md. Suleman A.I.R. 1926 Lah. 490. In Ram Gulam Sahu v. Sham Sahai Das (1920) 5 Pat. L.J. 379 the learned Judges did not give a fin...
Kalagarla Sankara Mahadeva Setty Vs. Kalagarla Sanyasayya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-05-1933
Reported in: (1933)65MLJ142
1. In this case, there is no order by the Court granting leave to the next friend to receive any property on behalf of a minor. Order 33, Rule 6 does not therefore apply. In this respect the case differs from the decision in Kurugodappa v. Soogamma I.L.R.(1917) Mad. 40.2. The question still arises whether Section 145 does not apply to the case. Clauses (a) and (b) do not apply. But we think Clause (c) applies. It is true that the judgment-debtor has paid the money due from him under the decree into Court and there is no further dispute between the two parties to the suit. But until the money deposited by the judgment-debtor was finally disbursed, there can be 'a proceeding consequent' on a suit.3. The application by the next friend in which the order of the Court for converting the money into Government Promissory Notes was made is such a proceeding. We think that the conclusion of the learned Judges in Kurugodappa v. Soogamma I.L.R.(1917) Mad. 40 depended on the fact that that was a p...
R.A. Venkatathirisami Naidu and ors. Vs. R.V. Kasthuriranga Appaswami ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-05-1933
Reported in: AIR1933Mad401; (1933)64MLJ496
ORDERCurgenven, J.1. This is an application under Section 110 of the Code of Civil Procedure for permission to appeal to His Majesty in Council. The suit was brought on behalf of minor plaintiffs against the defendant, as executor under their father's will, for an account of his management of the estate. The valuation of the relief claimed was over Rs. 10,000, so that the case fulfils the first condition prescribed by the section, that 'the amount or value of the subject-matter of the suit in the Court of first instance must be Rs. 10,000 or upwards'. We are asked to hold that the second condition is also satisfied, that 'the amount or value of the subject-matter in dispute on appeal to His Majesty in Council' is the same sum or upwards.2. The decision of this point depends upon whether the plaintiffs, who are the petitioners, are entitled to include in their reckoning interest accruing subsequent to suit. The Court of first instance gave a decree which, after correction of an error, a...
The Madras Provincial Co-operative Bank, Ltd. Vs. the Commissioner of ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-05-1933
Reported in: AIR1933Mad489; (1933)64MLJ640
Horace Owen Compton Beasley, Kt., C.J.1. The question referred to us is as follows:Whether on the finding that investment in Government securities forms a necessary part of the business of the assessee, the sum of Rs. 56,810 forms the 'profits of any Co-operative Society' within the meaning of the Notification of the Government of India, dated 25th August, 1925.The Notification referred to exempts from income-taxThe profits of any Co-operative Society other than the Sanikatta Salt Owners' Society in the Bombay Presidency for the time being registered under the Co-operative Societies Act, 1912 (M of 1912) or the dividends or other payments received by the members of any such Society on account of profits.2. The assessees invest large sums received by them in Government securities and the income derived from such investments has been assessed to income-tax. The main objects of the Society, as set out in its bye-laws, art: (1) to collect funds for financing Co-operative Societies, (2) to ...
A.C.T. Nachiappa Chettiar Vs. the Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-04-1933
Reported in: AIR1933Mad701; 145Ind.Cas.989; (1933)65MLJ327
Horace Owen Compton Beasley, Kt., C.J.1. The petitioner is the manager of a Hindu undivided family carrying on banking business at Alagapuri in the Ramnad District and at Minhla and Sitkwin in Burma. Up to December, 1928, he had been a partner with P.L.S.M. Muthukaruppan Chettiar, Karaikudi, in a firm known as 'C.T.A.M., Minhla' and in another firm known as 'C.T.A.S.M., Sitkwin' but in December, 1928, these two partnerships were dissolved and the petitioner and his former partner started independent concerns of their own in both those places. A question arose as to whether the partners were successors in respect of these concerns to the businesses formerly carried on at these places by the before-mentioned partnerships. After an appeal, the Commissioner of Income-tax, Burma, held that no succession had taken place. In the meantime the Income-tax Officer, Karaikudi, had made an additional assessment on the petitioner under Section 34 including in his assessment his share of the profits ...
The District Board of Ramnad Through Its President Vs. D.K. Mahomed Ib ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-04-1933
Reported in: AIR1933Mad524; (1933)64MLJ574
Madhavan Nair, J.1. The plaintiff, the District Board of Ramnad through its President, is the appellant. The question in this appeal is whether the appellant's claim to recover from the defendant Rs. 1,031 subscription collected by him for the purpose of constructing a bridge over the Paralyar river is barred by limitation. A sum of Rs. 5,000 was promised by the defendant as personal contribution for the purpose of constructing the bridge and a sum of Rs. 1,031 was collected by him for the same purpose. The river was bridged at a cost of Rs. 29,000 odd and was completed on 12th July, 1924 In the suit out of which this appeal arises the President of the District Board claims both the sums from the defendant. The Lower Court gave a decree for Rs. 5,000 but held that the claim for Rs. 1,031 was barred by limitation applying Article 62 of the Limitation Act.2. Article 62 prescribes three years for money payable by the defendant to the plaintiff for money received by the defendant for the p...
R.V. Ranga Ayyar Vs. Sundararaja Ayyangar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-04-1933
Reported in: AIR1933Mad362
Walsh, J.1. The appellant is the assignee of a mortgage decree against certain property passed on 20th September 1924. Defendants 1 and 2 filed written statements, but they were subsequently declared ex parte. The assignment to the appellant was recognized, but when he went to take out execution defendant 2 raised objections that the land in question was service inam and not alienable. The executing Court, the District Munsif's Court of Srivilliputtur, wrote a very short judgment as follows:The inam title deed Ex. 2 is proof positive that the inam in question is an enfranchised one. So items 2 to 5 are liable to be sold.2. It is abundantly clear both from this judgment and from that of the lower appellate Court that the assignee decree-holder contested as a question of fact that this was an enfranchised inam and on the facts the executing Court found in his favour. In the lower appellate Court the learned District Judge held that the executing Court misconstrued the inam title-deed whe...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »