Chennai Court April 1935 Judgments
Kallepalle Krishnamurthi and anr. Vs. the Madras Hindu Religious Endow ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-29-1935
Reported in: AIR1935Mad921; 158Ind.Cas.733; (1935)69MLJ384
Varadachariar, J.1. This Revision Petition raises a question of some little difficulty. It arises out of an application, made by the petitioners under Section 84 of the Madras Religious Endowments Act, to have an order passed by the Religious Endowments Board on 8th September, 1930, set aside and to have it declared that the suit temple is an 'excepted' temple whereof the petitioners are the hereditary trustees.2. The learned District Judge has found that the suit temple was founded by one of the ancestors of the petitioners, that properties were purchased by the petitioners' ancestors and endowed to the temple, that there were also endowments by the Mohiri Zamindar's family but that all the properties were registered in the name of the temple represented by its archaka for the time being. He has also found that there is no evidence to show that the petitioners and their ancestors were acting as trustees of the temple. On these findings, he dismissed the petition.3. Mr. Jagannadha Das,...
Tag this Judgment!Bingi Neelamma Vs. Agadi Mareppa
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-29-1935
Reported in: 163Ind.Cas.471; (1936)70MLJ128
ORDERVaradachariar, J.1. The decision of this appeal turns on the construction of Ex. A, which embodies a settlement entered into, in July, 1924, between the defendant and one Veeranna (sometimes referred to as Eranna). The plaintiff appellant is Veeranna's widow, but she had not married him at the date of Ex. A. His then wife was one Govindamma, who died a few months after Ex. A. Veeranna himself died early in 1927 and plaintiff brought this suit in 1928 claiming benefits under Ex. A.2. It is admitted that Veeranna was the daughter's son of the defendant and had been brought up from his youth by the defendant and helped by him all along, whereas Govindamma was not in any manner related to the defendant, before her marriage to Veerannah. Ex. A, recites that Veeranna and Govindamma had filed a pauper petition O.P. No. 59 of 1923 against the defendant, claiming that Veeranna was entitled to a share in defendant's properties and that Govindamma had to recover her stridhanam property from ...
Tag this Judgment!(Bingi) Neelamma Vs. Agadi Mareppa
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-29-1935
Reported in: AIR1936Mad388
Varadachariar, J.1. The decision of this appeal turns on the construction of Ex. A, which embodies a settlement entered into in July 1924, between the defendant and one Veeranna (sometimes referred to as Erana). The plaintiff-appellant is Veeranna's widow, but she had not married him at the date of Ex. A. His then wife was one Govindamma, who died a few months after Ex. A. Veeranna himself died early in 1927 and plaintiff brought this suit in 1928 claiming benefits under Ex. A. It is admitted that Veeranna was the daughter's son of the defendant and had been brought up from his youth by the defendant and helped by him all along, whereas Govindamma was not in any manner related to the defendant, before her marriage to Veeranna. Ex. A recites that Veeranna and Govindamma had filed a pauper petition, O. P. No. 59 of 1923, against the defendant, claiming that Veeranna was entitled to a share in defendant's properties and that Govindamma had to recover her stridhanam property from the defen...
Tag this Judgment!Thirunavukkarasu Pandaram and anr. Vs. Purushotham Lakshmidas and Co. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-26-1935
Reported in: AIR1935Mad890; 159Ind.Cas.266
Madhavan Nair, J.1. Defendants 1 and 2 are the appellants. They are the sons of one Sundaralinga deceased who was a merchant trading in various places. Defendant 8 is impleaded as executor under the will of the father of defendants 1 and 2 and he continued the business of Sundaralinga. The suit is for the recovery of Rs 1,500 due on dealings with respect to the trade of Sundaralinga conducted after his death by the executor, defendant 3. Defendant 3 besides being executor is also the son-in-law of Suudaraliaga. He along with another was appointed executor under the will Ex. A dated 13th September 1922 The will directed the executors to continue the business of Sundaralinga for the purpose of realization of the outstandings due to the deceased; and in the course of such conduct of the business the suit debt was incurred. This was the case of the plaintiffs Defendants 1 and 2 questioned the truth of the transactions and their binding nature on them. The first Court dismissed the suit fin...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Rangammal and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-25-1935
Reported in: AIR1935Mad913
ORDERBurn, J.1. In all the material parts, the wording of Section 82(c), Eegistration Act, is identical with that of Section 205, I.P.C. So long ago as 1867 it was held by Scotland, C.J. and Collett, J., in Kadar Ravuttan v. Ayangana Ravuttan (1868) 4 MHCR 18 under Section 205, I.P.C., that it was not enough to prove merely the assumption of a fictitious name. It is essential to prove further that the as : sumed name was used as a means of falsely representing another individual. I am bound by this decision and I follow it, the more willingly because with due respect I think it is undoubtedly right. The wording of Section 82(c), Registration Act, is 'whoever falsely personates another....' This is quite a different matter from saying 'whoever falsely assumes a fictitious name.' In the present case so far as is known to the prosecution, there is no such person as Valliammal, and all that the accused is proved to have done is that she assumed the name Valli Ammal. Since there is no such ...
Tag this Judgment!The Crown Prosecutor Vs. Rengammal and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-25-1935
Reported in: 159Ind.Cas.155
ORDERBurn, J.1. In allhte material parts, the wording of Section 82(c), of theIndian Registration Act is identical with that of Sectio 205 of the Indian Penal Code. So long ago as 1867 it was held by Scotland, C.J., and collet, J., p. 18 (sic), in a case khaddar Rauvuthan and Ayyangava Ravuthan 4 M.H.C.R. 18 under Section 205, Indian Penal Code, that it was not enough to prove merely the assumption of a fictitious name. It is essential to prove further that the assumed name was used as a means of falsely representing another individual. I am bound by this decision and I follow it, the more willingly because with due respect I think it is undoubtedly right. The wording of Section 82(c) of the Registration Act is 'whoever falsely personates another....'. This is quite a different matter from saying 'whoever falsely assumes a fictitious name.'2. In the present case so far as is known to the prosecution there is no such personas Valli Ammal, and all that the accused is prove to have done i...
Tag this Judgment!Kaku Chenchuramana Reddi Vs. Palapu Arunachalam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-24-1935
Reported in: 158Ind.Cas.1; (1935)69MLJ283
Horace Owen Compton Beasley, Kt., C.J.1. This Civil Miscellaneous appeal raises an important and interesting question. The appellant here presented a petition praying that the respondent should be adjudicated an insolvent under the Provincial Insolvency act. The chief act of insolvency alleged in the petition was the execution of a sale-deed on 28th February, 1931 in favour of a close relative of the respondent. This act of insolvency admittedly occurred more than three months before the date of the presentation of the petition which was dated 29th June, 1931. The three months' period ended on 28th May, 1931 but that was during the lower Court's vacation and the petition was accordingly presented on the re-opening day. The question is whether the period of three months stated in Section 9 (1)(c) of the Provincial Insolvency Act is a period of limitation or a condition precedent. The learned District Judge rightly states that this is a question which is not easy of solution. He, however...
Tag this Judgment!A. Harvey, Vs. the Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-24-1935
Reported in: (1935)69MLJ577
Horace Owen Compton Beasley, Kt., C.J.1. The question under reference is:Whether Section 23-A could be legally applied to this case, there being no finding that failure to distribute Rs. 36,180 was with a view to prevent the imposition of tax on any of the share-holders.2. Sub-Section 2 of Section 23A which is the one in question reads as follows:Whether the Income-tax Officer is satisfied that a Company is under the control of not more than five of its members and that its profits and gains are allowed to accumulate beyond its reasonable needs, existing and contingent, having regard to the maintenance and development of its business, without being distributed to the members, or that a reasonable part of its profits and gains having regard to the said needs, has not been distributed to its members in such manner as to render the amount distributed liable to be included in their total income, and that such accumulation or failure to distribute is for the purpose of preventing the imposi...
Tag this Judgment!The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. B.J. Fletcher by Power of Attorney ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-24-1935
Reported in: 158Ind.Cas.895; (1935)69MLJ611
Horace Owen Compton Beasley, Kt., C.J.1. Two questions are referred to us by the Income-tax Commissioner, namely:(1) Whether the sum of Rs. 36,794 paid to Mr. Fletcher in 1932 - 1933 was income liable to tax or was a capital sum exempted under Clause (v) of Sub-section (3) of Section 4 or otherwise, and(2) Whether Mr. B.J. Fletcher is entitled to relief under Section 25(3) of the Act on the ground alleged by him namely that he discontinued his profession in the year of account.2. The sum set out in the first question was received by the assessee in the year of account as an employee of the Buckingham and Carnatic Co., Ltd., Madras over and above his monthly pay. This sum he received out of the Officers' Retiring Fund of the Company. It is a fund created by the Company and its constitution and management are governed by certain rules framed by the Company and the directors of the Company for the time being have full discretion to alter, interpret or add to those rules which are before u...
Tag this Judgment!Veerappa thevan, Since Ad Judicated Insolvent, the Official Receiver V ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-24-1935
Reported in: (1935)69MLJ678
Cornish, J.1. These appeals raise a common point. The three appellants were respondents of a decree-holder's execution petition for the sale of property attached prior to judgment. It appears that a temporary injunction had been obtained to restrain the owner of the property, the later judgment-debtor, from alienating it. The matter was taken to the High Court on appeal, with the result that the order for an injunction was discharged and the property was attached. The High Court order was dated 21st December, 1928, and the attachment was made on the 26th December, 1928. Prior to the attachment the owner of the property had entered into agreements with the appellants, all on the same day the 26th October, 1928 for the sale of the property. In pursuance of these agreements the property was conveyed by sale-deeds to the appellants subsequent to the date of the attachment. The lower Court has found in favour of the validity of the agreements of sale, and this finding is not disputed in app...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »