Chennai Court March 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.
A. Swaminatha Aiyar Vs. the Taluk Board, Represented by the President, ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-10-1933
Reported in: (1933)65MLJ414
Cornish, J.1. These petitions arise out of two suits by the plaintiff-petitioner to recover from the defendant, the Taluk Board of Nannilam represented by its President, two sums which he alleges are the amount of profession tax illegally levied on him for the years 1923-24 and 1925-26, and which he has been compelled to pay by legal process. His grievance is that he has been assessed for the first of these years on a Class I income and for the second year on a Class II income, whereas he claims that the correct basis of assessment was his income-tax returns for these years which would have brought him within a lower class of income and made him liable to a lower rate of profession tax.2. The substantial defence raised to the petitioner's claim is Section 228 of the Madras Local Boards Act. This provides,Sub-section (1) - No assessment or demand made, and no charge imposed, under the authority of this Act shall be impeached or affected by reason of any clerical error or by reason of an...
A. Swaminatha Ayyar Vs. Taluk Board
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-10-1933
Reported in: AIR1933Mad681
Cornish, J.1. These petitions arise out of two suits by the plaintiff-petitioner to recover from the defendant, the Taluk. Board of Nannilam represented by its President, two sums which he alleges are the amount of profession tax illegally levied on him for the years 1923-24 and. 1925-26, and which he has been compelled to pay by legal process. His grievance is that he has been assessed for the first of those years on a Class 1 income and for the second year on a Class 2 income, where as he claims that, the correct basis of assessment was his income-tax returns for those years which would have brought him within a lower class of income and made him liable to a lower rate of profession tax. The substantial defence raised to the petitioner's claim is Section 228, Madras Local Boards Act. This provides, Sub-section (1):No assessment or demand made, and no charge imposed under the authority of this Act, shall be impeached or affected by reason of any clerical error or by reason of any mist...
Cheedella Rosayya and anr. Vs. Kommi Pitchayya and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-09-1933
Reported in: AIR1933Mad713; 145Ind.Cas.654; (1933)65MLJ380
Ramesam, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit on two mortgage bonds, dated 21st May, 1909, for Rs. 2,500 and Rs. 1,500 respectively. The mortgage bonds were executed by one Subba Naidu, the father of defendants 1 and 2, for himself and as guardian of defendants 7 and 8, by the present 3rd defendant for himself and as guardian of the 4th defendant and by defendants 5 and 6. The documents were presented for registration on 9th September, 1909 and all the executants admitted execution before the Sub-Registrar. On 18th July, 1915, a payment was made and the payment was signed by Subba Naidu and the 3rd defendant but not by the 6th defendant. On 7th July, 1921, there was again a payment and endorsements were made and they were signed by all the parties. One of the issues raised before the Subordinate Judge was whether the documents were not barred by limitation as against the defendants who were not parties to the endorsements of 1915. He held that the endorsements of 1915 would be inopera...
K.T.M. Muhammad Abdul Latiff Rowther and ors. Vs. S.M.S. Sheik Ismail ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-09-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Mad9
Curgenven, J.1. The plaintiffs, who appeal, sued for a declaration that a firm in which they were partners, styled S.K. Kadir Mohidin Eowther & Co., was dissolved on 22nd May 1926 and for a settlement of accounts. Other partners were admittedly defendant 1 and one S.K. Kadir Mohidin Bowther, who died on the date given above. The primary question we have to decide is whether defendant 2, younger brother of Eadir Mfthidin Eowther, was also a partner. The plaint firm was constituted by an agreement, Ex. A, on 30th November 1917. The evidence shows that prior to that date Kadir Mohidin Eowther and his brother defendant 2 had been carrying on several enterprises in partnership. The agreement itself recites that the remaining four partners, who were cloe relations of Kadir Mohidin Eowther, were included in the suit firm as an act of bounty or grace to provide them with an occupation. But it contains no reference to defendants 2 himself as a partner and the plaintiffs' allegation that he occu...
T.L. Swaminatha Aiyar Vs. the Official Receiver
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-08-1933
Reported in: AIR1933Mad703; 145Ind.Cas.999; (1933)65MLJ402
Pakenaham Walsh, J.1. These appeals raise a matter of some difficulty. One Swaminatha got a decree against one Gopalakrishna and in execution attached on 12th March, 1926, some debts due to the debtor. An insolvency petition was filed against Gopalakrishna in April, 1926 and the Official Receiver was appointed interim Receiver. He petitioned the executing Court to have the execution of Swaminatha's decree stopped and have the attached properties delivered to him. Ultimately the debts attached were sold on 25th June, 1926, by the Court in execution of Swaminatha's decree. In August, 1926, Swaminatha applied to the Court for payment to him of the sale proceeds. The Subordinate Judge dismissed the petition as there were insolvency petitions pending against Gopalakrishna, the judgment-debtor. Gopalakrishna was adjudged insolvent in August, 1927. Both Swaminatha and the Official Receiver then applied for payment of the sale proceeds. The Subordinate Judge ordered the payment of the whole am...
Ayyakannu Pillai and anr. Vs. Doraiswami Pillai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-08-1933
Reported in: AIR1933Mad725; 145Ind.Cas.1008
Walsh, J.1. The suit was on a mortgage bond executed by defendant 1 in respect of a chit transaction conducted by the plaintiffs. The chit fund was started about 2nd May 1921 and it consisted of 50 chits. Defendant 1 was a subscriber for two chits and he took the chit in auction in the third instalment on 8th July 1921, for Rs. 197 and executed the suit mortgage bond as security for payment of the future instalments. While the chit was going on he also took the other chit in auction in 30tb instalment for Rs. 310 on 6th October 1923. The findings of fact are that towards the suit mortgage bond defendant 1 paid up the calls until 24th call only, and thereafter committed default. Under the terms of the bond all future instalments 25 to 50 became payable on the date of default. The plaintiff's case in the trial Court was that defendant 1 committed default in the fifth drawing, but the Court found that this default had been waived and, as I said, the finding is that default began after the...
Natesa Ayyar Vs. Mangalathammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-07-1933
Reported in: AIR1933Mad503
Walsh, J.1. The defendant in this suit is the appellant here. One Venkataramier had two sons Natesa Aiyar, the defendant, and the plaintiffs husband Viswanathier, a younger brother of the defendant. Viswanathier left the family and went away to Ammapet and set up a coffee shop. He disappeared about 1913 or 1917; it is not quite clear which year. He had in 1912 taken a mortgage bond in his favour from one Pachayyappa Chetti. In 1919 his father sued the mortgagor on the ground that the bond was joint family property and that he was the family manager. Neither the mortgagee nor the present plaintiff nor her minor sons were made parties and the mortgagor raised no objection and he got a decree in his favour. Under this decree he was to receive the money after giving proper security. In 1929 certain moneys were realized towards the decree and were brought into Court. Venkataramier by that time was dead. His eldest son as his legal representative applied to draw the money. The widow of the y...
Kumarappa Chettiar and ors. Vs. Suppan Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-07-1933
Reported in: AIR1933Mad672; 145Ind.Cas.744
Sundaram Chetty, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit filed by the plaintiff for redemption of the plaint mentioned usufructuary mortgage which is evidenced by Ex. D' The plaintiff sued in his capacity as a later usufructuary mortgagee, defendants 2 to 5 being the mortgagees under Ex. D. One of the contentions raised by the mortgagees by way of attack against the plaintiff's claim is, that the suit is premature. This question depends upon the construction of the terms of the mortgage deed. That deed is dated 8th July 1908 and provides a period of 15 years for the enjoyment of the mortgaged properties by the mortgagees from the date of that document, and further recites that the mortgagor should pay the amount in the beginning of the sixteenth year. If the terms of the deed are literally understood, we must hold that the amount of the mortgage is payable at the end of the 15 years' term which should be calculated from the date of the mortgage deed. In this view the time for redemption ...
Nagar Damodara Shanbhogue Vs. Chandappu Pujary and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-06-1933
Reported in: AIR1933Mad613; (1933)65MLJ194
Sundaram Chetty, J.1. Plaintiff is the appellant. He sued for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 37,065-9-11 by sale of the mortgaged properties on the strength of an usufructuary mortgage deed, Exhibit A, which according to the plaintiff's contention contains a personal covenant to pay, whereby he is enabled to sue for the sale of the mortgaged properties, though the mortgage deed is styled as an usufructuary mortgage. The learned Subordinate Judge dismissed the suit by reason of his findings on issues 3 and 4. On a construction of the terms of a mortgage deed, he has held that there was no personal covenant to pay the mortgage amount and the suit for sale of the mortgaged properties is not therefore maintainable. This is the main question argued in this appeal.2. The suit mortgage deed, Exhibit A, is an unduly long document and a full translation of it is given in the judgment of the Lower Court. For the purpose of deciding the point at issue, the following extract from the document would ...
(Vadrevu) Viswasundara Rao Bahadur Vs. Balantrapu Pallamaraju
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-06-1933
Reported in: AIR1933Mad565a
Walsh, J.1. The appellant got a decree against the father of the respondent. During execution proceedings the father died and the respondent was brought on record as his legal representative. He is his undivided son. When the appellant sought to bring certain properties to sale the son claimed that they were his self-acquired properties and so not liable. The executing Court dismissed the claim, but it was allowed in appeal and this second appeal is preferred against that decision.2. Although the appellant asserted that the property was ancestral the evidence shows, and it is not disputed before me, that it originally belonged to the maternal grandmother of the respondent who assigned it by Ex. A in 1914 to the respondent then a minor, with his father as guardian. But the appellant asserts that the property was thrown into the common stock by the respondent. The onus of proving this is, of course, on the appellant and he relies mainly on the mortgage, Ex. 1, dated 5th August 1921. By t...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »