Chennai Court November 1934 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.
His Holiness Sri Vanamamalai Ramanuja Jeeyar Swamigal, Head of the Van ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-07-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Mad621; (1935)69MLJ14
Horace Owen Compton Beasley, Kt., C.J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment of Anantakrishna Aiyar, J., dismissing the plaintiff's suit in limine. The plaintiff is, it is alleged in the plaint, the head of an ancient and important religious mutt known as the 'Vanamatnalai Mutt' at Nanguneri, and entitled to certain special honours, privileges and emoluments in the Athinatha Alwar temple at Alwarthirunagari in preference to other persons in the temple entitled to receive similar honours. It is alleged in the plaint that the High Court has in a former litigation held that the first thirtham is to be given after the Archakas to the plaintiff, the Sanyasi Jeeyar of Vanamamalai Mutt, whenever he attends during the Vaikasi festival, etc., and that the plaintiff and his predecessors have been enjoying these honours from time immemorial in accordance with the ancient usage of the institution and in particular during the last three days of the Vaikasi festival with the 'Aravanai' honours of the ...
Kovur Parvathamma Vs. Kovur Subbamma and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-07-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Mad349; 157Ind.Cas.607; (1935)68MLJ537
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. I must hold that it has been clearly proved that when the arbitrator was chosen, the plaintiff was aware: that he had such an interest as would ordinarily disqualify him' from acting as such. I take it also as established beyond doubts that her pleader acted in her best interests and perfectly bona fide. The question is, can the reference in these circumstances-be revoked? There are two principles well settled:1. An arbitrator, who has an interest dependent upon his decision, will be disqualified if that fact has not been disclosed at the time of his appointment.2. If the parties with full knowledge of the facts, select an arbitrator who has to perform other duties which will not permit of his being an impartial person in the ordinary sense of the words, the Court will not release them from the bargain upon which they have agreed.2. Russel on Arbitration, 12th Edn., pages 40 and 41.3. The reason for the second rule is thus stated by Bowen, L.J., in Jackson v. Bar...
S.S. Subramanya Sastry Vs. Sheik Ghannu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-07-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Mad628
Walsh, J.1. The plaintiff is the appellant. He got a decree in the trial Court which was varied by the Subordinate Judge in appeal and against this he prefers this second appeal. The suit was to recover a certain share in a house site which originally belonged to one Pacha Saheb. The descendants of Pacha Saheb and the shares which they held are set out in para. 3 (1) of the lower appellate Court's judgment, which runs as follows:2. The suit property originally belonged to one Pacha Saheb who died 20 years ago.Pacha Saheb, died 20 years ago.Nabi Bi, died 8 years ago4/8 share.|_____________________|____________________________| | | |Mastan Gannu Deft. 3 Deft 47/24 deft. 1 7/48 7/48After N- 7/24 Plus ______ Plusabi's de 7/24 Deft. 5 7/48 plusath 7/24 1/24 7/48 plus 1/48plus 1/24 1/48 Nabi Bi is Pacha's widow. Mastan and Gannu '(defendant 1) are his sons. Defendants 3 and 4, are his daughters. Defendant 5 is the husband of defendant 8 and defendant 4's vendee. Defendant 2 is defendant 1's ...
Sree Raja Malraju Venkata Narasimha Rao Bahadur Vs. the Chairman, Muni ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-05-1934
Reported in: 159Ind.Cas.372; (1935)68MLJ162
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. The question that arises is, whether the dividends received by a person from a company can be treated as a source of income for the purpose of levying the profession-tax under the Madras District Municipalities Act. For the petitioner, it is contended that to levy a tax on a share-holder would amount to ' taxing twice over', the company having been already assessed in respect of its profits which in effect belong to the share-holders. The Income-Tax Acts, as is pointed out in Purshottamdas Harkisondas v. The Central India Spinning, Weaving and . I.L.R.(1917) 42 Bom. 579 proceed upon the footing that the entire profits are subject to the common burden of income-tax, which in truth is paid by the share-holders, although the payment is made by the company. That this is the true view, appears also from the following passage in the judgment of Romer, L.J.:If such a company as we have to deal with pays income-tax on its profits, the income-tax, as has been pointed out,...
Puthiyamatummal Peringati Cheria Mammad Vs. Puthiyamatathumal Peringat ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-05-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Mad284; 157Ind.Cas.612; (1935)68MLJ274
Stone, J.1. This batch of Civil Revision Petitions raises a point of some little interest under Section 24, Civil Procedure Code. The facts in all the cases are in their essence as follows: The plaintiff filed a suit in a Court which had two jurisdictions, the ordinary original jurisdiction and the small cause jurisdiction. At the time of filing the suit the subject-matter in dispute was above the small cause Court limit and in each case accordingly the suit was filed on the original side. Subsequently and before the suit was ready for hearing the small cause jurisdiction of that Court was increased so as to be such that each of these suits was within the increased jurisdiction. Following upon that increase of jurisdiction and of its own motion the District Court operating under Section 24(1)(b)(II) transferred the suits for trial to the small cause side of the Court in which instituted being a Court subordinate to the District Court. At the time of trial an application by the defendan...
King-emperor Vs. Ramanuja Aiyangar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-05-1934
Reported in: (1935)68MLJ1
Horace Owen Compton Beasley, Kt., C.J.1. Before dealing with the first point to be considered by this Full Bench, I propose to set out some of the facts of this case.2. At 1.34 A.M. on the 13th January of this year the Parcels Express train which left the Egmore Station at Madras, at 10-40 P.M. arrived at Karunguzhi Station on the South Indian Railway There it delivered six parcels. Five of these were handed over to respective owners on production by them of the tickets relating to them at about 7 O'clock on the same morning. The sixth remained undelivered as no one claimed it. It is described by Mr. T.S. Narayanaswami Aiyar (P.W. 28) the Assistant Station Master at Karunguzhi to whom all the parcels were delivered as a bed parcel packed in a date leaf mat. The receipt of this parcel and the others was acknowledged by this witness in Ex. U. In order that parcels could be carried by that train as luggage it is necessary for the senders to have passenger tickets and the number of each pa...
Thayalai Achi and ors. Vs. Kannammal and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-05-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Mad704; 156Ind.Cas.846
1. This appeal raises two questions; (1) whether one Ponnammal Achi was married in the Asura form so that her stridhanam property goes to her brother Nataraja Pillai; (2) whether she took an absolute estate without any executory or other gift over in favour of Nataraja Pillai, under the will of her husband Samia Pillai.2. The first question is primarily one of fact. The burden is upon the appellant to displace the presumption that the marriage is in the ordinary form. The learned trial Judge has considered the evidence and the credibility of the witnesses. He has seen the witnesses and we have not. We see nothing in the record to show that his conclusions as to the credibility or weight of testimony or evidence is wrong and we see, therefore, no reason for differing from his conclusion of fact. That conclusion was that it is not proved that Ponnammal Achi was married in the Asura form.3. The second question raises a point on the construction of a will. Points of great complexity can ar...
Emperor Vs. M. Ramanuja Ayyangar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-05-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Mad528; 158Ind.Cas.662
Beasley, C.J.1. Before dealing with the first point to be considered by this Full Bench, I propose to set out some of the facts of this case. At 1-34 A.M., on January 13, of this year, the Parcels Express train which left the Egmore Station at Madras at 10-10 P.M., arrived at Karunguzhi Station on the South Indian Railway. There it delivered six parcels. Five of these were handed over to the respective owners on production by them of the tickets relating to them at about 7 o'clock on the same morning. The sixth remained undelivered as no one claimed it.2. It is described by T.S. Narayanaswami Ayyar (P.W. No. 28), the Assistant Station Master at Karunguzhi to whom all the parcels were delivered, as a bed parcel packed in a date leaf mat. The receipt of this parcel and the others was acknowledged by this witness in Ex. U. In order that parcels Could be carried by that train as luggage it is necessary for the senders to have passenger tickets and the number of each passenger ticket is ent...
N. Govindarajulu Naidu Vs. the Imperial Bank of India, by Agent Mr. D. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-02-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Mad210; (1935)68MLJ123
Cornish, J.1. The appeal is by the first defendant against the order of the Subordinate Judge dismissing his application under Order 9, Rule 13, to set aside a decree. The application was made on the ground that the first defendant's illness was a sufficient cause for his not being present when the case was called on for hearing. The Subordinate Judge was not satisfied with the bona fides of this excuse or with the medical certificate with which it was supported, and dismissed the application. We are not now concerned with the merits of the first defendant's application, because we think that the objection raised by the respondent's learned Advocate that no petition lay under Order 9, Rule 13 is a good one. Order 9, Rule 13, has reference to decrees made ex parte, and it has to be seen whether the first defendant was, when the decree was made against him, ex parte. In our opinion he was not. The suit had been posted to 3rd February, 1931, for trial. We are told that issues had been fra...
The Pollachi Town Bank, Limited by Secretary, T.K. Muthuswami Chettiar ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-01-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Mad262(1); (1935)68MLJ316
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. The lower Court's view is wrong and cannot be upheld. The fact that there were five promissory notes, is irrelevant for, the two mortgages sued on were granted for the amounts due under those notes. The lower Court forgets that the suit was not filed on the basis of the promissory notes, but to enforce the mortgages. That being so, in the words of Section 17 of the Court Fees Act, the suit embraces not five but two distinct subjects. It is on this footing that the court-fee payable on the plaint should be computed. The Secretary of State for India in Council v. Ayyaswami Chettiar (1932) 65 M.L.J. 252.2. Nor is the view contended for by the petitioner correct. What is argued is that as under Section 67-A of the Transfer of Property Act a person is bound to include in the same suit different mortgages held by him, it follows from this, that the suit relates to one subject only and does not comprise as many subjects as there are mortgages. I am not prepared to accep...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »