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.
(Palavalasa) Suramma Nayuralu Vs. (Savirigana) Surayya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-03-1934
Reported in: AIR1934Mad585; 152Ind.Cas.612
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. This appeal raises the vexed question of priority in regard to the right to possession, when the competing claimants are purchasers at execution sales under different mortgage decrees against the same mortgagor. The facts in their chronological order may be briefly set out:24-1-1920 Defendants 1 and 2 executed a promissory note in favour of defendant 6.9-5-1922 The same persona executed a mortgage to defendants 3 to 5,Exact date Subsequent to that mortgage,not known. defendant 6 filed O.S. No.724 of 1922 against defendants 1 and 2 to enforce his right under the promissory note.24-11-1923 Defendant 6 obtained a consent decree in O.S. No, 724 of 1922 which by Its terms created a mortgage (not a mere charge) in his favour, over the properties already mortgaged to defendants 3 to 5.23-4-1924 Defendants 3 to 5 instituted O.S. No. 303 of 1924 against defendants 1 and 2 to enforce their mortgage (without 1m-pleadlng defendant 6).8-10-1924 Defendant 6 in execut...
Rama Mudali Vs. Marappa Goundan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-03-1934
Reported in: AIR1934Mad638
ORDERBeasley, C.J.1. This petition is presented against an order made by the District Munsif of Gobichettipalayam awarding compensation to the defendant for the wrongful attachment before judgment by the plaintiff of the defendant's cattle. The suit against the defendant was one on a promissory note and the plaintiff presented an application for an order of attachment of the defendant's cattle. An interim order was made and eventually after hearing both parties the interim order was made absolute and the defendant's property was attached. Later on, before the suit had been decided and without having obtained any order setting aside the order attaching his property, the defendant put in an application for compensation on the ground that his cattle had been wrongfully attached. That application was entertained by the District Munsif who coming to the conclusion that the defendant's property had been wrongfully attached, awarded him damages. Subsequently the suit went to trial and a decre...
Donthi Venkataratnam and ors. Vs. Nagappa and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-03-1934
Reported in: AIR1934Mad616; 152Ind.Cas.163
Beasley, C.J.1. The suit, the subject of this revision petition was a suit by certain minor plaintiffs represented by their mother as next friend. When the suit came on for final hearing the Pleader for the plaintiffs was not ready and neither was the Pleader for the defendants. An order was-made by the District Munsif dismissing the plaintiff's suit, Later an application was made on behalf of the next friend for a setting aside of the dismissal order and for a restoration of the suit to the file. On that occasion it was alleged that the mother, the next friend of the minor plaintiffs, was ill and even on this occasion--the occasion when the application was made-she was not present. The District Munsif remarking that the plea of illness is generally set up whenever a party is absent, a statement with which I am inclined to agree, and stating that no doctor's certificate had been produced in proof of that allegation, held that no sufficient case had been made out for setting aside the o...
S.R.M.S. Subramania Chettiar Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-02-1934
Reported in: AIR1934Mad539
1. This is a reference by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras, under Section 66(3), income-tax Act, 11 of 1922, for the decision by the High Court of the following question, viz., 'whether the sum of Rs. 63,624 is assessable to income-tax.' The assessee is S.R.M. Section Subramanian Chettiar who is a Nattukottai Chetty residing at Nemathampatti in the Ramnand District. He is a professional money lender carrying on money lending business at his headquarters (Nemathampatti) and also at Muar in the Federated Malay States. He is also a partner in a money lending firm known as S.R.M.S. Firm, Meiktila, in Burma. He was assessed to income-tax in the year 1930-31 on the basis of the income derived by him in the previous Tamil year 'Sukla.' One of the items of income derived is a sum of Rs. 63,624 which is stated to be the profit derived by the assessee from the sale during the year of account of certain house properties in Rangoon. The question for determination is whether this profit is ch...
Shunmugam Sundaram Chettiar Vs. A.A. Ranga Rama Naicker
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-02-1934
Reported in: AIR1934Mad641
Walsh, J.1. The plaintiff is the appellant in the present appeal. Defendant 1 was the President of a Company called 'The Dhandayudhapani Go, Ltd.' and defendant 2 was its Managing Director. The plaintiff's case was that defendant 2 represented to him that the Company was working properly and that on the strength of this and of the prospectus Ex. A, he induced him to lake shares to the value of E Section 1,000. The share certificate, Ex. B has been Signed by the President. It was found afterwards that the Company was not working and that the representations with respect to it in Ex. A were false. The plaintiff sued for the return of his money.2. Defendant 2 who is said to have become bankrupt, remained ex par to. ' The trial Court stated that the plaintiff was proceeding against defendant 1 on two grounds: (1) for his having along with defendant 2, received the money and for having made misrepresentations as to the affairs of the Company; find (2) for his liability on account of the mis...
Ayyappa Naicker Vs. Thayammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-02-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Mad17
Varadachariar, J.1. The appellant-plaintiff purchased the suit properties in 1924 in execution of the decree in O.S. No. 48 of 1915 on the file of the Sub-Court of Tuticorin. The defendant was the decree-holder in O.S. No. 55 of 1922 on the file of the Additional Sub-Court of Tinnevelly, and himself became the purchaser of the properties in execution in March 1926. That suit (O.S. No. 55 of 1922) had been instituted on a mortgage (Ex. L) executed some time in 1917; but, prior to the date of Ex. L, the decree-holder in O.S. No. 48 of 1915 had entered into an arrangement with the mortgagor who was also the judgment-debtor in O.S. No. 48 of 1915 and that arrangement is embodied in Ex. F. The principal question for decision in this second appeal is whether, under Ex. F a charge had been created for the amount due under the decree in O.S. No. 48 of 1915 so as to postpone the title of the purchaser in O.S. No. 55 of 1922 to that of the purchaser in execution of the decree in O.S. No. 48 of 1...
Neelam Thirapatirayudu and ors. Vs. Secy. of State
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-02-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Mad70; 163Ind.Cas.93
Jackson, J.1. The plaintiffs sue the Secretary of State for a declaration that 85 acres 35 cents are inam lands. They derive title by a sale deed of 1876 whereby they bought an inam which in the Inam Register is shewn as 29 acres; but which the sale deed shews as 219 acres. The point for determination is whether the Inam Register is right or wrong, and this appears to be entirely a question of fact. The District Munsif held that in the light of the conduct of various Government subordinates who surveyed the land, and who treated the lands as plaintiffs' inam in acquisition proceedings, the Inam Register was proved to be wrong.2. The Subordinate Judge preferred to stand by the Register, 'an act of state entitled to very great weight.' He accordingly found for defendant and hence the appeal. It is argued that long possion and conduct may afford proof of title, which is quite true; but that has not been overlooked by the learned Subordinate Judge. It is not as though in a case where all d...
S. R. M. S. Subrahmanyan Chettiar Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madr ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-02-1934
Reported in: [1934]2ITR295(Mad)
This is a reference by the Commissioner of Income Tax, Madras, under Section 66(3) of the Indian Income Tax Act of 1922 for the decision by the High Court of the following question, viz., 'Whether the sum of Rs. 63,624 is assessable to income tax.' The assessee is S. R. M. S. Subramanian Chettiar who is a Nattukottai Chetti, residing at Nemathampatti in the Ramnad District. He is a professional money-lender carrying on money-lending business at his headquarters (Nemathampatti) and also at Muar in the Federated Malay States. He is also a partner in a money-lending firm known as S. R. M. S. Firm, Meiktila in Burma. He was assessed to income-tax in the year 1930-31 on the basis of the income derived by him in the previous Tamil year 'Sukla'. One of the items of income derived is a sum of Rs. 63,624 which is stated to be the profit derived by the assessee from the sale during the year of account of certain house properties in Rangoon. The question for determination is whether this profit i...
Kulandavelu Pillai and anr. Vs. Patta Muthu Mudaliar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-02-1934
Reported in: AIR1934Mad651
Madhavan Nair, J.1. In this case the question when an application has been made for reinstatement under Section 56(4), Local Poards Act, the applicant can afterwards apply under Section 57 of the Act to the District Judge to restore him does not strictly speaking arise for the reason that the application to the Board was made subject to the applicant's right of proceeding under Section 57.2. Exhibit I should be treated as the respondent's application to the Board as the other application was on record. Even otherwise, I am not satisfied that the exercise by the respondent of his right under Section 56, Clause (4) would take away his right of applying to the Court under Section 57 of the Act. There is no provision in the Act to show that the rights are alternative and not concurrent. The Civil Revision Petition is dismissed with costs....
The Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras Vs. Sri Rajah Vyricherla Naraya ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-02-1934
Reported in: AIR1934Mad608; 151Ind.Cas.926
Ramesam, J.1. The facts of this case are not subject of dispute. The zemindari of Kurupam is an impartible estate in the Vizianagaram District being one of the zemindaris mentioned in the schedule to the Impartible Estates Act. The assessee is a brother of the last zemindar of Kurupam (being the second son of his predecessor) and uncle of the present zemindar who is a minor under the Court of Wards. By an award in 1920, he was given an annual maintenance of Rs. 6,000 by his elder brother; and this award was made the subject of a decree. The question now referred to us is:Whether the sum of Rs. 6,000 received as maintenance by the petitioner as the brother of the late Rajah of Kurupam entitled under the law to receive maintenance out of the ancestral impartible estate of Kurupam is a sum received by him as a member of Hindu undivided family within the meaning of Clause (1) Section 14 of the Act.2. The identical question has been the subject of a decision by a Bench of the Allahabad High...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »