Chennai Court May 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.
Mahboob Sir Fajvantu Sri Rajah Parthasarathi Appa Rao and anr. Vs. Sec ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-09-1934
Reported in: 162Ind.Cas.661
Ramesam, J.1. These appeals arise out of suits brought by Rajah Parthasarathi Appa Rao, zamindar of one-third share of the zamindari of Nidadavolu. All the suit villages are situate in the Amberipetta Pargana of the zamindari. The plaintiff filed these suits for a declaration that the Government is not entitled to enfranchise certain service inams in these villages on the ground that they are included in the assets of the zamindari and not excluded from them at the time of the Permanent Settlement and that the right of resumption is in the zamindar and not in the Government. So far as the inamdars are concerned, the plaintiff alleges that he is entitled to resume the lands, whenever their services are not required and that he gave notice to them to quit the suit lands. Similar questions have arisen before us in connection with a number of zamindaries in the Kistna District. Those cases are Section As. Nos. 648 to 832, 974 to 1058 of 1927, and other connected second appeals, and the que...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Chengalvaroya Mudaliar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-08-1934
Reported in: AIR1934Mad617
Beasley, C.J.1. The question referred to us is:Whether the decision of the Assistant Commissioner that Rs. 11,775 is not deductible in arriving at the profits of the petitioner's business is correct in law.2. The facts out of which the question referred arises are that the assessee entered into an agreement with the Secretary of State for India in Council represented by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Gudur, on the 29th June, 1930, for the excavation of lime shells from certain Government lands in the Nellore ' District. Under this agreement he was to have the exclusive privilege of excavating chunam shells within the area specified in the agreement from the 1st July, 1930, to the 30th June, 1933, that is to say, for three years. He also agreed to pay the sum of Rs. 27,750 for this privilege in 12 equal quarterly instalments payable in advance.3. The Income Tax Officer held that these payments were of a capital nature and were not therefore deductible in computing the income derived fr...
Sri Sri Sushilamala Patta Mahadevi Vs. Joya Deman Sumantho
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-08-1934
Reported in: AIR1934Mad643
ORDERPandrang Row, J.1. In view of the Full Bench decision reported in Raman Nayar v. Krishnan 1922 Mad. 505, it must be held that the decision of the first Court in these suits was on preliminary points as several issues remained undecided by that Court. The remand by the appellate Court of these suits must therefore be deemed to fall within the purview of Order 41, Rule 23, Civil P.C. The fact that the appellate Court purported to remand the suits under Section 151, Civil P.C., is not conclusive. If as s matter of fact the remand can be deemed to have been on any of the grounds mentioned in Order 41, Rule 23. Civil P.C. the appellant is entitled to a refund certificate under Section 13, Court-fees Act. The appellate Court in refusing to grant refund certificates in these cases has acted on the erroneous view that the remand was under Section 151, Civil P.C., and that in such a case it had no power at all, not even inherent power, to grant refund certificates. The order of the appella...
South Indian Railway Co. Ltd. Vs. Nanjiah Narayanaswami Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-08-1934
Reported in: AIR1934Mad652
Beasley, C.J.1. In this petition I am only concerned with one of the two consignments of goods and it is the first consignment. The goods were put on the B.N. Ry at Shalimar and then in the course of transit were handed over to the G.I.P. Ry. and then by the G.I.P. Ry. to the M. & Section M. Ry. and at Jalarpet by the M. & S.M. Ry. to the defendants in the suit, the S.I. Ry. It is not necessary to go into the details relating to the arrival of the goods at their destination on the S.I. Ry. It is sufficient to say that on being unpacked the goods were discovered to have suffered damage. The plaintiff's case was that they had been damaged in the course of the railway transit, having been delivered to the forwarding railway company, namely the B.N. Ry. Company, in an undamaged condition he sued the S.I. Ry. Company for damages. In the course of the trial evidence was let in as to the damaged condition of the goods on their arrival. But there is no evidence at all as to where they were dam...
Lakshmi Ammal Vs. Official Receiver and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-08-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Mad214; 152Ind.Cas.114
ORDERBeasley, C.J.1. There were two suits tried by the Additional Subordinate Judge of Tinnevelly. One of them was O.S. No. 10 of 1930 and the other was O.P. No. 41 of 1930. Both were tried together upon the same evidence. The important issues are Issue No. 2 in the original suit and Issue No. 1 in the original petition. Issue No. 2 in the original suit is:Is the hypothecation bond alleged in the plaint true and supported by consideration?2. Issue No. 1 in the original petition is:Is respondent 1 an encumbrancer in good faith and for valuable consideration?3. In the original suit respondent 1 in the original petition, the Official Receiver of Tinnevelly, was the petitioner. Upon reading those two issues it appears to me that both of them raise a common question, viz., whether the encumbrance was a good one or not and this was the view taken by the District Judge who had before him the appeal against the decree in O.P. No. 41 of 1930. He says:The question at issue in this appeal has bee...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. U. Chengalvaroya Mudaliar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-08-1934
Reported in: 152Ind.Cas.48
Beasley, C.J.1. The question referred to us is:Whether the decision of the Assistant Commissioner that Rs. 11,775 in not deductible in arriving 4t the profits of petitioner's business is correct in law.2. The facts out of which the question referred arises are that the assesses entered into an agreement with the Secretary of State for India in Council represented by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Gudur, on June 29, 1930 for the excavation of lime shells from certain. Government lands in the Nellore District. Under this agreement he was to have the exclusive privilege of excavating chunam shells within the area specified in the agreement from July 1, 1930 to June 30, 1933, that is to say for three years. He also agreed to pay the sum of Rs. 27,750 for this privilege in 12 equal quarterly instalments payable in advance. The Income-tax Officer held that these payments were of a capital nature and were not therefore deductible in computing the income derived from the excavation and sale o...
Kanniah Naidu Vs. Manickam Pillai and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-07-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Mad86; (1935)68MLJ144
Varadachariar, J.1. The principal question argued in these Second Appeals relates to the construction of Ex. F, a will, dated 24th October, 1925, left by one Krishnammal. Among the properties belonging to her are a share in a house and a money claim for certain unpaid purchase money. The said Krishnammal was enciente at the time that she executed the will and she died shortly afterwards, leaving a female child which survived her only by a few months. The plaintiff claims that on the true construction of the will he is entitled to the plaint properties on the death of the daughter. The defendants contend that the gift in favour of the plaintiff is void and therefore he is not entitled to maintain the suit. The Courts below have accepted that contention of the defendants and dismissed the plaintiff's suit. Hence the Second Appeal by the plaintiff.2. The relevant clauses of the will are the following:The children which may be born to me shall after my lifetime enjoy with all rights the pr...
Syed Mahomed Ghouse Vs. Sayabiran Sahib (Deceased) and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-07-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Mad688; (1935)68MLJ684
ORDER13. The trustee will file half-yearly accounts in the lower Court and have them passed.14. The lower Court will pass the twelfth defendant's accounts kept as receiver and the surplus now available for distribution will be ascertained and dealt with.15. The security of Rs. 6,000 (Six Thousands) already furnished by the twelfth defendant will continue during the period of probation. The parties will file the bill of costs.16. These appeals having been set down for being spoken to on Friday the 20th day of October, 1933, the Court delivered the following17. All parties will get their costs (other than Advocates' fee) out of the estate. As the Advocates' fees, each party may get the minimum fee of Rs. 100 (Rupees One Hundred only) from the estate. The successful party will get Rs. 250 (Rupees Two Hundred and Fifty) from the estate. The sixth defendant will also get a fee of Rs. 250 in consideration of the fact that he worked as receiver without remuneration. The Court-fee paid by sixt...
Doolaji Sirema Vs. Nasuvale Kulusum Bee and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-07-1934
Reported in: AIR1934Mad669
Ramesam, J.1. A preliminary objection has been taken that no Civil Revision Petition lies and Beni Madhi Ram v. Mahadeo Pandey 1930 All. 604 is relied on. I am not inclined to agree with that decision. Order 9, Rule 9, explicitly, permits the plaintiff to apply for restoration of the dismissed petition. Once a petition to restore lies, the party has necessarily the right to question the correctness of the order on it in appeal and on revision. It is another matter whether there are adequate grounds for interference in revision. The fact that an appeal lies against the decree in the suit : vide Muniswami Goudu v. Junjadu 1917 Mad. 732, is therefore irrelevant and cannot stand in the way of the petition under Order 9, Rule 9 being considered and the matter carried to higher Courts. I overrule the objection, On the merits, though the matter seems to be a hard case, I do not see any reason to interfere. The facts proved and found by the Courts below are. (1) The plaintiff has given up his ...
Subbavarapu Gangunaidu Vs. Murru Muttenna and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-07-1934
Reported in: AIR1934Mad664
1. In A.S. No. 433 of 1927 en the file of the District Judge, Vizagapatam, respondent 2 died in September 1927 and on 29th February 1928 the appellant applied to have respondents 1 and 3 brought on as his legal representatives. It is now found that Gangi Mutyalamma is the proper representative, as appellant might have known, for he is defendant 4 in O.S. No. 167 of 1927 where she was brought on as legal; representative, and there is no reason to suppose that the present appellant was ignorant of that suit. Therefore after the time for bringing on legal representatives had expired the appellant deliberately attempted to bring on the wrong legal representatives. In these circumstances, the learned District Judge, brushing aside a suggestion that a regular appeal was in execution proceeding to which Article 177, Lim. Act, does not apply, ruled that the appeal had abated, and it cannot be said that he is wrong. His view of the law has since been affirmed by Rajah of Kalahasti v. Jagannadha...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »