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.
Venkatrama Reddi Vs. Srinivasa Reddi and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-09-1935
Reported in: AIR1936Mad350
ORDERBeasley, C.J.1. The facts arising in this Civil Revision Petition are as follows : A suit was filed by a plaintiff who has since died after the passing of the decree in the suit. The suit was against the present petitioner upon a promissory note alleged to have been executed by his father who died previous to the filing of the suit. The promissory note would have been barred by limitation but for the fact that there was an endorsement upon it showing a part payment alleged to be in the handwriting of the petitioner; and it was pleaded in the plaint that this endorsement saved limitation. In his defence the petitioner denied that he had endorsed the promissory note and said that the alleged signature was a forgery. Thereafter he did not contest the suit and an ex parte decree was passed against him after the evidence of the plaintiff had been taken that the endorsement was written and signed by the petitioner. Subsequent to the passing of the decree, the petitioner paid the decree ...
Boni Hampana Gowd and anr. Vs. Emperor
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-09-1935
Reported in: 161Ind.Cas.196
King, J.1. The appellants in this case have been found guilty by the learned Sessions Judge of Anantapur under Sections 193 and 471, Indian Penal Code. They were prosecuted upon a complaint laid by the learned District Judge of Bellary, in which specific reference is made only to Section 193.2. The facts are that the two appellants were being sued on a promissory note. They went to their Vakil for the purpose of preparing a written statement and took to him a bundle of receipts. The Vakil accordingly prepared a written statement, in which a plea of part, discharge was put forward and produced this written statement in Court along with the three receipts, Exs. C, D and E. Subsequently, however, the appellants remained ex parte and the suit against them was decreed upon the evidence of the plaintiff. It appeal's that the plaintiff was confronted by the Court with these receipts and asked to explain them. After some hesitation he contended that they were forged and subsequently the learne...
T.S. Narayana Aiyar and ors. Vs. the Co-operative Urban Bank Ltd. Thro ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-08-1935
Reported in: AIR1936Mad81; (1935)69MLJ726
ORDERKing, J.1. This is a petition requesting issue of a writ of prohibition to the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Tinnevelly, in the following circumstances. A dispute arose between the Tinnevelly Co-operative Urban Bank, Ltd., and six persons who are members of the bank and were all its directors, regarding the loss sustained by the bank owing to the negligence of these persons in sanctioning a certain loan. It may be mentioned that of these six persons five are no longer directors of the bank though they still continue to be members and the sixth remains a director. The dispute was referred to the Registrar of Co-operative Societies under Section 51 of the Madras Co-operative Societies Act VI of 1932, for decision by him and it was referred by him to the Deputy Registrar.2. The present petitioners who are the five ex-directors referred to, objected to the jurisdiction of the Deputy Registrar on the ground that the dispute did not fall within the terms of Section 51 of t...
Kuttikrishna Menon Vs. M.M. Purushothaman Nambudiri
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-07-1935
Reported in: AIR1936Mad223
Pandrang Row, J.1. These are appeals by defendant 1 in two connected suits, O.S. Nos. 19 and 20 of 1926 on the file of the District Munsif's Court of Pattambi. The suits were by a melcharthdar for redemption. The melcharths were granted by plaintiff 1 whose name was subsequently struck off, to his Anandravan, plaintiff 2, on 1st March 1925. The trial Court passed conditional decrees in both the suits, the condition being that the decree for redemption passed should stand only if a certain order of the Board of Commissioners for Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras, dated 21st April 1926, was set aside by the District Court. There was no doubt an application to set aside the order, namely O. P. No. 55 of 1927, on the file of the District Court of South Malabar, but that application was not prosecuted and was thereupon dismissed with the result that these second appeals have to be opposed only on the strength of the lower appellate Court's decrees which are free from the condition imposed ...
Maddipatla Agnihotra Deekshitalu and ors. Vs. Ramavarapu Venkataramayy ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-03-1935
Reported in: AIR1936Mad293
Venkataramana Rao, J.1. The main question in this second appeal relates to a right of contribution. The facts necessary for its disposal may be briefly stated. One Dikshitalu senior had a son Dikshitalu junior who predeceased his father leaving, a widow Venkataratnamma. She brought a suit against her father-in-law Dikshitalu senior for maintenance and obtained: a decree Ex. A on 13th October 1884 in and by which the entire property in his hands which consisted of lands in several villages were charged for the payment of maintenance due and payable thereunder. Dikshitalu senior died subsequently leaving a widow Subbamma. She purported to adopt one Venkataramanayya. He made several alienations of the property of his alleged adoptive father. Subbamma died in 1906. Venkataramanayya died in 1915. In 1919 defendants 1 to 4 claiming to be the reversioners of Dikshitalu senior filed O.S. No. 13 of 1919 on the file of the Temporary Subordinate Judge's Court of Ellore for recovery of possession ...
(Kolpurath) Narayanan Nambudiri and ors. Vs. T.V. Sundara Iyer and ors ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-03-1935
Reported in: AIR1936Mad463
1. The appellants are the sons, the grandson and the granddaughter of defendant 1 who is the manager and karnavan of a Nambudiri illom consisting of himself and eleven other members. They were sued by the plaintiffs to recover the amount of subscriptions paid to a kuri organised by defendant 1 and by defendant 2 the only other adult male member of the illom at that time. The kuri was organised with a view to make money to pay off debts due by the illom, amounting to a sum of Rs. 4,000. Into the details of this kuri it is unnecessary to enter. Apparently it was intended to be carried on for 20 instalments. But it came to an end after the 12th instalment. Accordingly the plaintiffs who were subscribers sued to recover back their money with interest. The learned Counsel for the appellants has urged that the transaction was so extremely imprudent that the appellants should not be saddled with the liability for defendant 1's adventure. He has referred to the observations of Ramesam, J., in ...
Jupudy Kesava Rao Vs. the Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-02-1935
Reported in: AIR1936Mad67; 159Ind.Cas.840; (1936)70MLJ13
C. Madhavan Nair, O.C.J.1. The question referred to us is, 'in the circumstances of this case is the Petitioner herein liable to be assessed under Section 26(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act'?2. The circumstances are these: The Petitioner, J. Kesava Rao, and his deceased father, J. Gangayya constituted a Hindu undivided family deriving income from money-lending business. Gangayya was the Manager of the family and the assessments used to be levied on him as representative of the family. For the assessment of the year 1932-1933 (accounting year 1931-1932) notice was issued to Gangayya under Section 22(2) of the Income-tax Act on the 9th April, 1932, and he filed his return on the 20th May, 1932, showing a net income of Rs. 12,755. Gangayya died on the 15th July, 1932, before assessment could be levied on him. After his death the Petitioner continued to carry on the business. Notices were then issued to him under Sections 22(4) and 23(2) of the Act. He complied with these notices and was f...
Sesha Aiyar Vs. Krishna Aiyar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-02-1935
Reported in: (1936)70MLJ36
Conish, J.1. This reference has been made upon a Civil Revision Petition in which the petitioner was third defendant in a suit brought by plaintiffs respondents to recover money paid as subscriptions to a prize kuri. The third defendant and the other defendants promoted this kuri for the purpose of raising funds for a temple.2. The plaint alleges that the first plaintiff took two tickets in the kuri, and had paid Rs. 270 representing 45 monthly payments on his two tickets. It states that the scheme was that the kuri was to be conducted for 50 months and that those subscribers who had not been so fortunate as to draw a prize were, at the close of the kuri after the 50th drawing, to be refunded the amount of the money subscribed by them. There is the further allegation that the kuri came to an end after payment of the 45 instalments, and that despite the plaintiff's demand for a refund of his subscriptions no repayment has been made by defendants. The sum claimed is Rs. 270 which is the ...
Kanchamalai Pathar Vs. Ry. Shahaji Rajah Sahib (Deceased) and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-02-1935
Reported in: AIR1936Mad205; (1936)70MLJ162
Cornish, J.1. The facts out of which this Reference arises can be briefly stated. In execution of a decree against the sole defendant in a suit the decree-holder attached certain lands of the judgment-debtor and brought them to sale.2. The sale was fixed for 15th September, 1927 and took place on 16th September, 1927 and the property was knocked down to the bid of the present appellant. But in the meantime the judgment-debtor had died on 8th September, 1927. His sons, the Respondents to this appeal, put in a petition under Section 47 and Order 21, Rule 90 to have the sale set aside. In the affidavit supporting this petition it is alleged that the decree-holder, notwithstanding that he and his vakil were aware of the judgment-debtor's death before the date of the sale, took no steps to bring on record the legal representatives of the deceased judgment-debtor. It is true that no application was made under Section 50 Civil Procedure Code for leave to execute the decree against the legal r...
K.V.A.L. Ramanathan Chettiar and anr. Vs. the Commissioner of Income-t ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-02-1935
Reported in: 166Ind.Cas.434; (1936)71MLJ72
Madhavan Nair, Officiating C.J.1. The Income-tax Commissioner has referred to this Court the following questions for decision:(i) whether, on the admitted facts of the case, the sum of Rs. 14,313 was assessable to income-tax as a remittance of foreign profits under Section 4(2) of the Income-tax Act.(ii) whether, on the facts of the case, the initial presumption that the sum of Rs. 14,313 must be deemed to be a remittance of petitioner's foreign profits has not been fully rebutted and the assessment of the said sum legal or warranted by the provisions of the Income-tax Act.2. The facts are these : One K.V.A.L., family became divided into three branches; K.V.A.L.R.M., K.V.A.L.A.L., and K.V.A.L.M. The petitioner, Ramanathan Chettiar, is the manager of the K.V.A.L.R.M., branch of the family. He carries on the business of banking in Madras, Quala Lampur and other places. His family is residing at Kottaiyur in Ramnad District.3. In this case we are concerned with the assessment of the petit...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »