Chennai Court October 1935 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.
K. R. M. T. T. Thyagaraja Chettiar Vs. the Collector of MadurA.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-23-1935
Reported in: 163Ind.Cas.60; [1936]4ITR56(Mad)
ORDERVENKATARAMANA RAO, J. - This is an application for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the proceedings of the Collector of Madura taken in regard to the realisation of the arrears of income-tax levied on the petitioner. The case of the petitioner is that he was assessed to income-tax for the year 1931-1932, 1932-1933 and 1933-34 in the sum of Rs. 5,510-2-0, Rs. 7,503-5-0 and Rs. 8,333-6-0 respectively totalling Rs. 21,766-13-0. The notices of demand for the several years were respectively issued on the 31st January, 1933 and 16th November, 1933. After the assessment, proceedings under Section 46 of the Income Tax Act were commenced and certificates as required by the said section were issued. In March 1935, the Revenue Divisional Officer issued an order for arrest of the petitioner for the said arrears and the petitioner was arrested on the 26th March, 1935, when we he gave 22 post dated cheques commencing from 1-4-1935 to 6-9-1935 and he was thereafter released and then tw...
P.S. Narayanaswami Aiyar Vs. A. Mallu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-22-1935
Reported in: (1936)71MLJ243
Varadachariar, J.1. This revision petition arises out of a suit filed by the Petitioner, as receiver appointed in execution of his decree in S.C.S. No. 22 of 1932, against the defendant who is a tenant of the judgment-debtor in that suit. The amount decreed in S.C.S. No. 22 of 1932 was sought to be recovered out of the rent payable by the defendant to the judgment-debtor in Kanni 1108. The attachment seems to have been confirmed and plaintiff appointed receiver for the collection of the amount, by order dated 14th July, 1932. About this time a simple mortgagee of the land from the judgment-debtor had filed a suit O.S. No. 130 of 1932 to enforce his mortgage, and during the pendency of that suit he applied for the appointment of a receiver. In connection with that receiver petition, the mortgagor proposed on. 20th July, 1932 to deposit to the credit of the mortgage suit the Kanni rent of the mortgaged properties and the amount was fixed at Rs. 350, Time was given till 27th July. On the ...
Naina Pillai and ors. Vs. Daivanai Ammal and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-22-1935
Reported in: AIR1936Mad177; 162Ind.Cas.23
Madhavan Nair, J.1. Defendant Nos. 1 to 4 are the appellants. The 1st defendant is dead and his legal representatives have been brought on record.2. The dispute in this appeal relates only to properties in the C Schedule to the plaint. These are admittedly kurnam service inam lands and had been enfranchised in favour of the plaintiffs husband. The question is whether they belong to the plaintiff as the self-acquired properties of her husband, or whether they belong to the appellants as the joint family property of the family, the properties being accordingly to the appellants treated as such by all the parties concerned. The plaintiff's husband Ayya-perumal Pillai, and the father of the 1st defendant, Thambiran Pillai, were two undivided brothers and were the sons of one Karuppan Pillai. Both of them are dead. The plaintiff's husband died on April 7, 1922. Defendants Nos. 2 to 4 are the undivided sons of the 1st defendant 5th defendant is a mortgagee from the 1st defendant.3. The learn...
P.S. Narayanasawmi Ayyar Vs. A. Mallu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-22-1935
Reported in: AIR1936Mad251; 161Ind.Cas.473
Varadachariar, J.1. This revision petition arises out of a suit filed by the petitioner, as Receiver appointed in execution of his decree in S.C.S. No. 22 of 1932, against the defendant who is a tenant of the judgment-debtor in that suit. The amount decreed in S.C.S. No. 22 of 1932 was sought to be recovered out of the rent payable by the defendant to the judgment-debtor in Kanni 1108. The attachment seems to have been confirmed and plaintiff appointed Receiver for the collection of the amount, by order dated July 14, 1932. About this time a simple mortgagee of the land from the judgment-debtor had filed a suit O.S. 130 of 1930 to enforce his mortgage, and during the pendency of that suit he applied for the appointment of a Receiver. In connection with that Receiver petition, the mortgagor proposed on July 20, 1932 to deposit to the credit of the mortgage suit the Kanni rent of the mortgaged properties and the amount was fixed at Rs. 350. Time was given till July 27. On July 27, the pr...
Shivaram Joi Sha Vs. Nagappaya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-21-1935
Reported in: AIR1936Mad149; (1936)70MLJ220
Wadsworth, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiffs who are incumbents of the pattali office in temple, that is to say, subordinate archakas, suing for tastik allowance. We are now only concerned with the claim for fasli 1333 which accrued due on the 30th June, 1924 and as the suit was filed on the 21st September, 1928 the only question remaining is one of limitation.2. It is contended by the appellant who is the managing trustee that the suit is barred by reason of Article 102 of the Limitation Act which prescribes a period of three years for a claim for wages not otherwise expressly provided for by this schedule. It is contended on behalf of the plaintiffs that the suit falls under Article 131 of the Limitation Act which prescribes a period of twelve years to establish a periodically recurring right. Now there is not much evidence as to the nature of the allowance which the plaintiffs claim, but by the fact that it is called a tastik allowance. I may infer that...
T.S. Krishnamoorthy Aiyar Vs. the Special Deputy Collector of Land Acq ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-21-1935
Reported in: (1936)71MLJ76
Madhavan Nair, J.1. I agree in upholding the preliminary objection raised by the Government Pleader on the short ground on which my learned brother has upheld it. But T should like to make a few remarks about the decisions in Secretary of State for India v. Narayanasivamy Chettiar (1937) 63 M.L.J. 962 : I.L.R. 55 Mad. 391 Rainachandra Rao v. Ramchandra Rao Rajagopala Chettiar v. Hindu Religious Endowment Board Madras (1933) 66 M.L.J. 43 : I.L.R. 57 Mad. 271 (F.B.) and Maung Ba Thaw v. Ma Pin (1934) 66 M.L.J. 404 : 1934 L.R. 61 IndAp 158 : I.L.R. 12 Rang. 194 (P.C.) lest my silence should be misunderstood as meaning that I think that my remarks in the Full Bench decision in Rajagopala Chettiar v. Hindu Religious Endowment Board Madras (1933) 66 M.L.J. 43 : I.L.R. 57 Mad. 271 (F.B.) regarding Secretary of State for India v. Narayanaswamy Chettiar (1937) 63 M.L.J. 962 : I.L.R. 55 Mad. 391 and Ramachandra Rao v. Ramachandra Rao require revision.2. In Secretary of State for India v. V. Nara...
T.S. Krishnamoorthi Ayyar Vs. Special Deputy Collector of Land Acquisi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-21-1935
Reported in: AIR1936Mad514; 165Ind.Cas.405
Madhavan Nair, J.1. I agree in upholding the preliminary objection raised by the Government Pleader on the short ground on which my learned brother has upheld it. But I should like to make a few remarks about the decisions in Secretary of State v. Narayanaswami Chettiar 55 M. 391 : 138 Ind. Cas. 426; A.I.R. 1932 Mad. 55; (1931) M.W.N. 1266 : 35 L.W. 831; Ind. Rul. (1932) Mad. 572., Ramchandra Rao v. Ramchandra Rao 45 M. 320 : 67 Ind. Cas. 403; A.I.R. 1922 P.C. 80 : 49 I.A. 129 : 30 M.L.T. 154 : 23 C.W.N. 713 : 35 C.L.J. 515 : 16 L.W. 1; (1922) M.W.N. 359 : 23 A.L.J. 684 : 43 M.L.J. 78 : 24 Bom. L.R. 963 Rajagopala Chettiar v. Hindu Religious Endowments Board : AIR1934Mad103 and Maung Ba Thaw v. Ma Pin 12 Rule 194 : 148 Ind, Cas. 1 A.I.R. 1931; P.C. 81 : 61 I.A. 158 : 11 O.W.N. 418 : 39 L.W. 418 : 38 C.W.N. 449; (1934) A.L.J. 358 : 66 M.L.J. 404 : 38 Bom. L.R. 427; (1934) M.W.N. 284 : 6 R.P.C. 114 , least my silence should be misunderstood as meaning that I think that my remarks in the ...
N. Subramanian Namboodripad and ors. Vs. K. Vasudevan Namoodripad
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-20-1935
Reported in: 160Ind.Cas.989
Varadachariar, J.1. This is a petition to revise the order of the lower Court refusing an amendment of the plaint. In view of the facts appearing from the judgment of the lower Court itself, I am unable to see that there is any lack of good faith in the matter of the application for amendment. There is, if I may say so, even less justification for the view that an inconsistent claim is sought to be introduced by the amendment.2. The suit was admittedly on a particular document. The plaint as originally presented no doubt read that document in a particular way and the written statement seems to have filed with reference to that reading of the document. The application for amendment was made not with reference to anything de hors that document but with reference to the contents of the document itself. Whether the original reading of the document is correct or the reading suggested later is the proper reading, is not a matter to be decided at this stage. When the claim is made on the docu...
Muhammad Gosukani and ors. Vs. Muhammad Sekka Maracayar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-18-1935
Reported in: (1936)70MLJ146
Burn, J.1. This is an appeal from the decision of Curgenven, J. in Section A. No. 35 of 1929. The facts need not be stated again. The points taken on behalf of the appellants are four in number.2. The first is based upon Section 6 Sub-section 6 of the Madras Estates Land Act. By that it is provided that 'a person holding land as an ijaradar or farmer of the rent shall not, while so holding, acquire otherwise than by inheritance or devise a right of occupancy in any land comprised in the ijara or farm'. It is not disputed that when these holdings were brought to sale for arrears of rent the landholder was an ijaradar and that he bought them in for want of bidders. The argument, is that at such a sale of the holdings under the provisions of the Madras Estates Land Act there is nothing for the land holder to purchase except the occupancy right of the tenant. Since Section 6 Sub-section 6 forbids an ijaradar to acquire a right of occupancy it is contended that the sales were void. We agree...
Elayat Karthiyayini Kunchi Amma and ors. Vs. Minakshi Amma and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-18-1935
Reported in: AIR1936Mad155; 160Ind.Cas.594; (1936)70MLJ114
Burn, J.1. This is a petition to revise the order of the learned District Munsif of Alatur in I.A. No. 184 of 1934 in O.S. No. 444 of 1933. This is connected with I.A. No. 183 of 1934 in O.S. No. 2 of 1934. The suits were filed by the karnavan of a Malabar Marumakatayam tarwad. The learned District Munsif's order shows that one suit was for a separate share in the tavazhi properties and the other suit is for his share in another tavazhi which is said to be a Puthravakasam tavazhi. The plaintiff sent a registered notice demanding partition and executed a will in favour of his wife and children bequeathing to them his share in both these sets of properties. Then he filed two suits and it is said that he executed another will in favour of his wife and children thereafter. Then he died and his widow and children put in these applications I.A. Nos. 183 and 184 of 1934 to be impleaded as the legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff.2. It was contended on behalf of the defendants that ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »