Chennai Court September 1933 Judgments
The Union Board of Devakottah Through Its President Vs. S. Thirumalai ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-13-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Mad15; (1933)65MLJ779
Cornish, J.1. The petitioner, the Union Board of Devakottah through its President, was sued by the respondent, a motor bus proprietor to recover the profession tax paid by him to the Union under protest. The Subordinate Judge has decreed the claim, holding that the respondent was not assessable to profession tax by the Devakottah Union Board. The facts are that the respondent has a motor omnibus service running between Madura and Devakottah; that his principal office is in Madura, where also he has a house in which he resides with his family; that he has an agent in Devakottah who collects the fares from passengers there, and sends these collections to the respondent at Madura. A person is liable to profession tax under Section 93 of the Madras Local Boards Act if he in any half year exercises a profession, art, trade or calling rendering him liable to the profession tax, for sixty days in the aggregate in any local area, or, being in receipt of income from money-lending or any source ...
Tag this Judgment!The Bank of Hindustan Ltd. Vs. N. Govindarajulu Naidu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-13-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Mad75; 147Ind.Cas.1146; (1934)66MLJ180
Vepa Ramesam, Kt. Officiating C.J.1. The facts of this second appeal may at first be stated. The 1st defendant executed a promissory note, dated the 28th April, 1930, in favour of the 2nd defendant for Rs. 2,500 payable 74 days after date, i.e., on or after the 11th July, 1930. The 2nd defendant endorsed it to the plaintiff, the Bank of Hindustan, Ltd., on the 1st May, 1930. The plaintiff's case is that he paid full consideration and that he is a holder in due course. He presented the note (which is described as a hundi in the judgment of the Lower Courts) to the 1st defendant for payment after the due date but the 1st defendant dishonoured it; hence the suit under appeal. The District Munsif gave a decree against both the defendants. On appeal by the 1st defendant alone, the appeal was allowed so far as the 1st defendant is concerned. The plaintiff files this second appeal against the 1st defendant. The 1st defendant's plea was that the suit hundi was an accommodation note, that no co...
Tag this Judgment!Vythilinga Pandara Sannadhi Vs. G. Ranganadha Mudaliar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-11-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Mad126; 150Ind.Cas.448; (1934)66MLJ98
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. These Civil Revision Petitions raise a question of some importance regarding the construction of Section 73 of the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act (II of 1927).2. Two suits were filed in the Lower Court, the plaintiffs being the members of the Board of Control of Sri Thyagarajaswami Temple, Tiruvarur. One of them was for the removal of the 1st defendant, described as the hereditary trustee of the kattalai known as Annadana Kattalai; the other related to the Abisheka Kattalai, in regard to which also the 1st defendant is the hereditary trustee. Various allegations of misconduct are made in these suits against the 1st defendant, and the suits were filed both under Section 73 of the Hindu Religious Endowments Act and Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The consent of the Advocate-General under Section 92 was obtained, as also the consent of the Board under Section 73. A preliminary issue was raised in these suits, which runs thus:Is the suit sustainable...
Tag this Judgment!Meeralli Ambalam and anr. Vs. R. Shanmugha Rajeswara Sethupathi Alias ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-11-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Mad221; (1934)66MLJ338
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. These cases raise the question as to the meaning of the expression 'tank-beds' in Section 3(16)(a) of the Madras Estates Land Act. The plaintiff, the Zamindar of Ramnad, alleges that the lands in question are in the bed of the tank (known as the Abhiramam tank) and that they are therefore outside the category of 'ryoti land' as defined by the Act. Several suits were tried as a batch, and the learned District Munsif upheld the plaintiff's contention only in two of them. O.S. No. 836 of 1924 is one such and the District Munsif's decision was confirmed by the Subordinate Judge in appeal. Second Appeal No. 1066 of 1931 relates to the plot in O.S. No. 836 of 1924. From what I shall state presently, it will appear that the appellants have no case and their second appeal is accordingly dismissed with costs.2. In regard to the other plots, the District Munsif has held that they are not in the tank-bed, and his decision has been reversed by the lower appellate Court. The ...
Tag this Judgment!Venugopala Naidu and ors. Vs. Perumal Odayan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-11-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Mad275
Ramesam, Offg. C.J.1. These are a batch of second appeals arising out of suits filed by the mirasidars of the village of Sandankadu for ejecting the defendants from the suit lands and for recovering the rent of Faslis 1322 to 1324. The plaintiffs alleged in their plaints that the defendants cultivate the suit land as parakudies under them and failed to pay the rent. The District Munsif of Pattukottai who tried the suit decreed the plaintiffs' suits for ejectment with subsequent mesne profits but disallowed the prior rent. In some of the suits there were appeals to the District Jui3ge. The District Judge of West Tanjore reversed the decrees of the District Munsif in all the appeals except six. Of the six appeals that were not reversed two abated by the death of the appellants. The other four wore dismissed on the merits. In all these six appeals there are no second appeals. In the remaining cases second appeals have been filed by the plaintiffs which are before us for disposal.2. The hi...
Tag this Judgment!A.K. Bijli Sahib Bahadur Vs. M.K. Mohamed Asan Maracair and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-08-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Mad27
Ramesam, Offg. C.J.1. This is an application for a writ of certiorari for quashing the order of the Election Commissioner in O.P. No. 56 of 1932, the Commissioner being the Principal Subordinate Judge of Tinnevelly. The facts of the case may now be stated. An election had to be held for the Tiruchendur circle to the District Board of Tinnevelly. There are two seats for that circle. One of the seats is reserved for a Mahomedan and the other seat is open to all and a Mahomedan may be elected even for that seat. Three candidates stood for these two seats. One was Mr. Daniel Thomas Nadar, a Christian, and he was elected by an overwhelming majority of votes and no question about the validity of his election arises before me. The other two candidates were two Mahomedan gentleman, viz.' Mr. M.K. Mahomed Asan Maracair, the petitioner before the Election Commissioner, and the respondent before me, and Mr. A.K. Billi Sahib, Advocate, Tinnevelly, respondent 1 before the Election Commissioner, and...
Tag this Judgment!Rajah of Vizianagaram Vs. Petta Veerabadra Rao and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-08-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Mad160
Bardswell, J.1. The suit under appeal is brought for recovery of arrears of rent due on a certain patta. The question in issue is what is the proper amount that the defendants should pay.' According to the plaintiff it should be Rs 282,10-0 but the defendants claim that they are entitled to beriz, deductions of Rs. 56 so that they should only have to pay Rs. 226-10-0 and that, that is really the proper rent. The land originally belonged to some Kondadoras. Originally they had 87 cents of dry and three acres of wet land but it was found on a re-survey and settlement in 1901-03 and 1906 that they were actually in possession of 14'88 aores of dry and 68 acres of wet. They were given, and accepted, a patta for these lands for a rental of Rs. 292-1-8. They did not pay the rent at any rate in full, and the lands were brought to sale. They brought a suit under Section 112, Madras Estates Land Act to contest the right of sale of the Vizia-nagaram Estate, but the suit was dismissed. Then the Es...
Tag this Judgment!The Raja of Vizialagaram Vs. Potta Veerabadra Rao and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-08-1933
Reported in: 151Ind.Cas.217
Judgment.1. The suit under appeal is brought for recovery of appears of rent due on a certain patta. The question in issue is what is the proper amount that the defendants should pay. According to the plaintiff it should be Rs. 282-10-0, but the defendants claim that they are entitled to beriz deductions of Rs. 56, so that they should only have to pay Rs. 226-10-0, and that that is really the proper rent.2. The land originally belonged to some Kondadoras. Originally they had 87 cents of dry and 3 acres of wet land but it was found on a re-survey and Settlement in 1901-3 and 1906 that they were actually in possession of 14-88 acres of dry and 68 acres of wet. They were given, and accepted, a patta for these lands for a rental of Rs. 292-1-8. They did not pay the rent, at any rate, in full, and the lands were brought to sale. They brought a suit under Section 112, of the Madras Estates Land Act to contest the right of sale of the Vizianagaram Estate but the suit was dismissed. Then the E...
Tag this Judgment!Lakshmana Naicker Alias Lakshmanaswami Naicker Vs. Jayaram Naicker and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-04-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Mad178; 150Ind.Cas.18; (1934)66MLJ380
Sundaram Chetty, J.1. S.A. No. 887 of 1931. The plaintiff is the appellant. This second appeal arises out of a suit filed by the plaintiff for the recovery of a certain amount alleged to be due under the mortgage bond Ex. A, which was executed by defendants 1 and 2 in favour of the plaintiff and his deceased brother Parthasarathi Naicker, the husband of the 4th defendant. The plaintiff's case is that, though this mortgage bond was taken in the names of himself and his deceased brother, he (the plaintiff) is now entitled to recover the entire amount, as his deceased brother has relinquished his interest in that bond, when a sum of Rs. 1,500, which belonged to him by virtue of the partition arrangement and which was left in the plaintiff's hands, was subsequently taken back by him. In support of this plea, reliance was placed upon a document, Ex. A-2, which purports to be a receipt executed by the 4th defendant's husband in favour of the plaintiff on 26th September, 1923. That document r...
Tag this Judgment!V.S.Rm. Lingier Vs. Ramakrishnier
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-01-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Mad8; (1933)65MLJ795
Bardswell, J.1. The learned District Munsif has dismissed the Petitioner's application under Section 73 of the Village Courts Act, for revision of a decree of the Village Munsif, Madura Town, with the words 'I see no reason to interfere. Dismissed.' The main allegation of the Petitioner before the District Munsif appears to have been that he was tricked by the Village Munsif into signing an agreement as to on what material his cause should be tried. The matter was argued before the District Munsif by two vakils, one on either side, and I must take it that the District Munsif held after a full discussion that the Petitioner's contention was not made out. It has been remarked in Sundara Naicker v. Potti Naicker I.L.R. (1926) 50 Mad. 494 : M.L.J. 561 that a District Munsif in exercising powers under Section 73 has a very wide discretion, and that in such a revisional proceeding, when a District Munsif states that he has no sufficient cause to disturb the decree of the Lower Court, he cann...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »