Chennai Court October 1933 Judgments
Nattamai K.P. Narasimha Ayyar and ors. Vs. Kasilya Venkatachalapathi A ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-31-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Mad181
Beasley, C.J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment of Waller, J., in C.M.S. No. 155 of 1927 affirming an order of the District Court of Madura. This appeal arises out of an execution case. One Muthuswami Ayyar obtained a deoree against the defendants. He assigned it to one Narasimha Ayyar who was duly brought on record. Narasimha Ayyar in his turn executed an assignment of the de. cree in favour of respondent 1 here. The first assignee opposed respondent l's application to the execution Court for permission to execute the decree against the judgment-debtors and to have the assignment recognized. He stated that the assignment deed was true but that there was no consideration for it. The learned District Munsif dismissed the petition and an appeal was presented to the District Court. There a preliminary objection was taken that no appeal lay because the substantial contest was between the first assignee and respondent 1 here and not between the parties to the dispute, the judgment-debtors...
Tag this Judgment!Ramalinga Pandaram and ors. Vs. Anthonimuthu Vathiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-27-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Mad274; (1934)66MLJ358
Horace Owen Compton Beasley, Kt., C.J.1. The appellants here, the plaintiffs in the suit, claimed a declaration of their title to waste land and a mandatory injunction against the defendants. In the District Munsif's Court and also in the first appellate Court they succeeded and got the declaration sought for. Both the Courts have found that the plaintiffs were in exclusive possession, that is to say, exclusive possession of this land as against the defendants. In second appeal, the learned Judge found as follows:The Subordinate Judge has also found that the land has not been assigned to either party and that neither party has established title to it otherwise. He has found that the plaintiffs are now in possession, by which I understand he means exclusive possession; but he has not found for how long they have been in exclusive possession and the evidence on that question is neither clear nor satisfactory. That being so, in a suit in respect of a village nattam, it is clear that there...
Tag this Judgment!Gunda Subbayya Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-27-1933
Reported in: [1939]7ITR21(Mad)
LEACH, C.J. - In accordance with the direction of the court given under Section 66(3) of the Indian Income-tax Act, the Commissioner of Income-tax has referred the following question for the Courts decision :-'When there is evidence on which the Income-tax Officer can base a finding that the assessees books are unreliable and consequently, rejects them and the assessee fails to produce other evidence, can the Income-tax Officer assess under section 23(3) of the Act to the best of his judgment ?'The words to the best of his judgment are used only in sub-section (4) which requires the Income-tax Officer to make the assessment to the best of his judgment when there has been a default of the nature contemplated by the sub-section. Sub-section (3) directs the Income-tax Officer to make the assessment after hearing such evidence as the assessee may produce and such other evidence as the Income-tax Officer may require him to produce on specified points. No direction is given to the Income-tax...
Tag this Judgment!Govindaswami Pillai Vs. Sivarama Rao
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-24-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Mad292; 148Ind.Cas.592
1. In the insolvency of Sri Sundara Swamier, one Ramakkal was first brought on record as a creditor holding a pro-note executed in her favour by the Insolvent.2. The appellant applied in I.A. No. 675 of 1927 to be brought on record in her place as assignee of the pro-note. Notice was issued to Ramakkal who remained ex parte. The appellant was therefore substituted for Ramakkal by the District Court in its order dated December 13, 1927.3. Before the Official Receiver the present respondent asked to be substituted for the appellant, on the ground that the transfer. of the note by Ramakkal to the appellant was only one for collection and Ramakkal had subsequently transferred the note as well as her other property to him by a settlement deed. The Official Receiver rejected the application but on appeal the District Court allowed it, and against this decision this appeal has been filed.4. Though none has appeared to represent the respondent we are clear that this appeal must be allowed.5. I...
Tag this Judgment!Pollachi Town Bank, Ltd. Vs. K.L. Subramania Ayyar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-20-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Mad180; 147Ind.Cas.1192
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. That defendant 1, the President, acted in utter disregard of the rules of the Bank, cannot be doubted. For some unexplained reason he takes the initiative and calls upon the secretary to grant the loan. The President has not chosen to tell the Court in what circumstances he came to write Ex. C, for neither party had adduced oral evidence. Ex, C runs thus:It the loan application with the riCe merchant Appasami Ayyan as surety is received, give that loan at once keeping this chit along with it.2. The rules of the Bank provide that when a party applies for a loan, the secretary shall take the view of the Directors, including the President and that he shall be guided by the opinion of the majority. Par from this rule being observed, the President directs the Secretary to grant the loan and adds that this letter should be kept as a vouoher. I have not the slightest doubt that both these officers made themselves liable. Ex. C has been rightly construed by the District ...
Tag this Judgment!Krishnan Chettiar (Died) and anr. Vs. Manickammal and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-19-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Mad138; 147Ind.Cas.1139; (1934)66MLJ70
Sundaram Chetty, J.1. This is an appeal preferred by one Krishna Chettiar against the order of the District Judge of North Arcot for the grant of a succession certificate in favour of the respondents in O.P. No. 31 of 1930. The last male owner was Ponnusami alias Subbu Chetty who died unmarried in or about 1916. His mother (Muthammal) succeeded to his estate as a limited owner under the Hindu Law and died on 14th September, 1929. The present respondents who are the sisters of the last male owner claiming to be the nearest heirs by virtue of Act II of 1929 sought for the issue of a succession certificate in their favour, in order to enable them to collect the debts clue to the estate of the last male owner. This present appellant Krishna Chettiar opposed this application, contending that under the Hindu Law, he as the paternal uncle of the last male owner Ponnusami was entitled to succeed to the estate on the death of his mother and that Act II of 1929 would not apply to this case. The ...
Tag this Judgment!Vayyaprath Kunnath Valia Muhammad Vs. Chowkkaran Orakkatteri Savakutti ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-19-1933
Reported in: 147Ind.Cas.1218; (1934)66MLJ355
Venkatasbba Rao, J.1. The only question I need decide in this second appeal is, whether defendants 1 and 3 are estopped from denying the title of the plaintiff. The plaintiff claims the property in question under a gift deed executed in 1898 by his father Kunhi Kuttiali, who at the time of the gift happened to be the karnavan of the 2nd defendant's tarwad. The 2nd defendant's case is, that the property belonged to his tarwad and that the gift deed relied upon by the plaintiff is inoperative. One Achuthan executed a lease in favour of the plaintiff's brother in 1902, and defendants 1 and 3 are persons holding or claiming under Achuthan. In certain proceedings, which, however, I must remark, did not relate to the suit property, the gift deed was not recognised. Defendants 1 and 3, finding that the 2nd defendant was successful in those proceedings, attorned to him in regard to the property in question and executed in his favour a registered marupet in 1920. The short question I have to de...
Tag this Judgment!P.C. Kandaswamy Pillai and ors. Vs. Narayana Ayyar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-17-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Mad260; (1934)66MLJ464
Sundaram Chetty, J.1. This is an appeal by defendants 1 to 4 against an order of the learned Subordinate Judge refusing to set aside a sale held in execution of the decree in O.S. No. 20 of 1928. Various objections were raised against the validity of the sale and an enquiry was held under Order 21, Rule 90, Civil Procedure Code. The alleged material irregularities are set forth in the order of the Lower Court. The first point worthy of consideration in this appeal is, whether the proclamation of sale in pursuance of which the properties were sold in Court auction on the 4th February, 1930, is defective in the sense that the sale held on the strength of such proclamation should be deemed to be invalid. The facts of this case are, that a large number of items' put up for sale were the subject of a suit for partition between the 1st defendant and his elder brother (O.S. No. 82 of 1925). Those properties are said to be the estate of their father who became divided and died as a separate ow...
Tag this Judgment!N.A. Aiyaswami Chetty Vs. Official Assignee of Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-17-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Mad344
Beasley, C.J.1. This appeal raises a very interesting questing of law which is not an easy one to decide.2. The facts are that the insolvent was adjudicated an insolvent at Penang on 9th January 1931. Penang is a part of the Straits Settlements. On 15th March of the same year the appellant, who is a resident of Ramnad, filed a suit against the insolvent in the Sub-Court of Ramnad and obtained an attachment before judgment of his immoveable property on 24th July 1931, and a decree on 28th November 1931. On 19th July 1932 he attached in execution the insolvent's immoveable property in Ramnad. On 24th October 1932, the insolvent executed a conveyance in Penang of his property in British India including the property under attachment in favour of the Official Assignee in bankruptcy of Penang. On 5th December 1932, at the request of the Supreme Court of Penang, an order was made by this High Court for the Official Assignee of Madras to act as auxiliary to the Official Assignee of Penang and ...
Tag this Judgment!E. Subramania Oduvar Vs. Srivaikuntam Kailasanatha Swami Koil and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-17-1933
Reported in: 150Ind.Cas.1115
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. I am clearly of the opinion that Mr. Sankara Ayyar's argument cannot prevail. He contends that the grant should be construed as one made to the temple. As I observed in a recent judgment (S.A. No 478 of 1979), there are three possible views that may betaken of grants of this kind: first, that the land was granted to the institution; secondly, that it was intended to be attached to a particular office, and thirdly, that it was granted to a named individual, burdened with service, the person so named, happening to be the officeholder, at the time of the grant. The grant in the present case belongs, in my opinion, to the third category. The inam title deed was issued to the individual named Sivaprakasa Oduvar (the 2nd defendant has been assumed to be his descendent); he is not described as representing the temple. In the title deed it is stated, that he shall hold the inam for the service of the chanting of the hymns and the inam 'is confirmed to and your successors...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »