Chennai Court September 1935 Judgments
Muthu K.R.A.R.P.L. Arunachalam Chettiar and anr. Vs. Rangaswami Chetti ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-30-1935
Reported in: AIR1936Mad88; 159Ind.Cas.729; (1935)69MLJ788
Cornish, J.1. This second appeal arises out of a mortgage suit which was dismissed, both the lower Courts holding that the mortgage was not supported by consideration. It has been suggested before us that the burden of proving want of consideration had been wrongly put upon the plaintiff mortgagee. If this was so, it would be a ground for interfering in second appeal for there can be no doubt that in a suit by a mortgagee against his mortgagor to enforce a mortgage the onus of proving a plea of no consideration rests on the mortgagor. But we are satisfied from a perusal of the judgments that in the discussion of the evidence in the case this rule has not been lost sight of. It appears to us that the lower Courts have accepted the defendants' evidence that the mortgage was not supported by consideration and have rejected the plaintiffs' evidence to the contrary. The point which has been strenuously argued on behalf of the appellants relates to the competency of the defendants' plea. The...
Tag this Judgment!A.C. Narayana Ayyar Alias Narayanasawmi Ayyar Vs. T.A. Gopalasawmy Ayy ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-30-1935
Reported in: 163Ind.Cas.815
Vardachariar, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiff-appellant claiming to be one of the reversioners to the estate of one Venkatarama Ayyar who died in 1859. Defendants Nos. 2 and 3 are the other reversioners of equal grade with the plaintiff. Plaintiff accordingly claims a fourth share of the suit properties. The third defendant claims under a will Ex. 9-A executed in 1928 by the widow of Venkatarama Ayyar by name Meenakshi Ammal. The fourth defendant is the nephew of the said widow and is in possession of certain properties which he inherited from his father who got them partly under a gift deed, Ex. VIII executed by the widow and partly under a Court sale Ex. VII in execution of a mortgage decree obtained against the widow.2. The learned District Judge has dismissed the plaintiffs' suit mainly on the strength of an arrangement entered into between the widow and her mother-in-law in the year 1859 with the consent of the presumptive reversioners (Exs. I and I-...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Tanjore Permanent Fund Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-26-1935
Reported in: AIR1938Mad57
ORDER1. The Commissioner of Income-tax has referred to the opinion of the High Court the question 'whether the sum of Rs. 61,304 being the income or the profits of the Fund derived from the transactions with the share-holders is liable to assessment.' The petitioner is the Tanjore Permanent Fund Limited. It is a company incorporated in 1901 under the Indian Companies Act 6 of 1882, now Act 7 of 1913. The Company started with 2,222 shares of Rs. 45 each share and a nominal capital of Rs. 99,990. The amount of each share is payable in monthly installments of Rs. 1. The share account of each share-holder is closed on the expiry of 45 months from the last date of the month in which he was admitted by his being paid Rs. 50 and then he ceases to be a share-holder. The difference between the amount subscribed by him and the amount paid to him at the end of the 45th month, viz. Rs. 5, is called 'guaranteed interest'. The Fund accepts deposits from its share-holders on which interest is allowed...
Tag this Judgment!Tanjore Permanent Fund Ltd Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-26-1935
Reported in: [1937]5ITR160(Mad)
The Commissioner of the Income-tax has referred for the opinion of the High Court the question whether the sum of Rs. 61,304 being the income or the profits of the Fund derived from the transactions with the shareholders is liable to assessment.The petitioner is the Tanjore Permanent Fund Limited. It is a company incorporated in 1901 under the Indian Companies Act VI of 1882, now Act VII of 1913. The company started with 2,222 shares of Rs. 45 each share and a nominal capital of Rs. 99,990. The amount of each share is payable in monthly instalments of Re. 1. The share account of each shareholder is closed on the expiry of 45 months from the last date of the month in which he was admitted by his being paid Rs. 50 and then he ceases to be a shareholder. The difference between the amount subscribed by him and the amount paid to him at the end of the 45th month, viz., Rs. 5, called 'guaranteed interest.' The Fund accepts deposits from its shareholders on which interest is allowed to them. ...
Tag this Judgment!Palaniappa Chettiar Vs. Narayanan Chettiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-25-1935
Reported in: AIR1936Mad34; (1935)69MLJ765
Varadachariar, J.1. Before dealing with the question referred to us, we think it necessary to make a reservation about two of the cases noticed in the order of reference, viz., Sambasiva Aiyar v. Thirumalai Ramanuja Thathachariar (1918) 37 M.L.J. 356 and Singa Raja v. Pethu Raja : (1918)35MLJ579 . These decisions are there accepted as 'binding authority' but their correctness has been assailed before us in another reference which (though part heard) has to be adjourned. As we have come to the conclusion that the present question must be answered in the affirmative even on the assumption that Sambasiva Aiyar v. Thirumalai Ramanuja Thathachariar (1918) 37 M.L.J. 356 and Singa Raja v. Pethu Raja : (1918)35MLJ579 have been correctly decided, we proceed to answer the reference on that assumption; but we do not wish to be understood as accepting their correctness.2. The order of reference states it is Mr. Patanjali Sastri's argument that if according to Sambasiva Aiyar v. Thirumalai Ramanuja...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Rajah Bommadevara Rajya Lakshmidevamma Bahadur Zamindarini Garu Vs ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-25-1935
Reported in: AIR1936Mad84
Varadachariar, J.1. The point for determination in this appeal is whether the plaintiffs' mortgage dated July 1927 can take precedence over the appellant's maintenance charge declared by. the decree in. O.S. No. 38 of 1919. The, decree in that suit was passed only on 1st February 1928 and the plaintiffs accordingly contended that the charge must, be held to take effect only from the date of the decree and cannot therefore prevail as against their mortgage. The appellant on the other hand maintained that by reason of the application of the doctrine of lis pendens laid down in Section 52, T.P. Act, her claim is entitled to priority over the plaintiffs' mortgage, because in the written statement filed by her in February 1921 in O.S. No. 38 of 1919 she had asked that her maintenance may be made a charge on a sufficient portion' of the properties forming the subject-matter of that suit and issues raising the question of her right to a charge had been framed as early as 5th March 1921 though...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Sri Sri Ramachendra Maradaraj Deo Garu Zamindar of Khallikote and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-24-1935
Reported in: AIR1936Mad531; (1936)71MLJ118
Venkataramana Rao, J.1. The appellant in these appeals - the plaintiff in the Court below-is the Zamindar of Khallikote and Attagada Estates in the District of Ganjam and the respondents, the defendants in the Court below, are his ryots. The suits arise out of a settlement of rents carried out under Chapter XI of the Madras Estates Land Act. By an order dated the fourth of September, 1923, the Local Government directed a settlement of rents in respect of 71 villages in the plaintiff's estate under Section 168(1) of the said Act. A survey and preparation of a record of rights under Sections 164 to 166 had preceded the sanction of the settlement of rents. The special Revenue Officer proceeded to settle a fair and equitable rent for the lands in the villages specified, in accordance with the rules made by the Local Government under Section 215 of the Act. Though the officer followed almost identical lines in settling the rents of all these villages, yet owing to events which happened subs...
Tag this Judgment!(Reddivari) Venkatasubba Reddi and anr. Vs. (Reddivari) China Rami Red ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-24-1935
Reported in: AIR1936Mad292
ORDERVaradachariar, J.1. I do not think it necessary for the purpose of the disposal of these revision petitions to express any final opinion on the effect of Ex. 1 on the status of the family consisting of defendant 1 and his sons, defendants 2 and 3. It is sufficient for the present merely to say that the authority of the decision in Appa v. Ranga (1883) 6 Mad 71 has been questioned by a Division Bench of this Court in Jagannadha Rao v. Viswesam 1924 47 Mad 621 and the matter may have to be reconsidered when it becomes necessary to decide that question. Mr. Govindarajachari on behalf of the petitioners contends that the present case is on all fours with the case in Veerappa Chettiar v. Annamalai Chettiar 1985 68 MLJ 157. I am not prepared to agree with him. The releasing co-parcener had in that case taken a share for himself though a much smaller share according to the creditor's contention that he would have been entitled to in a bona fide partition. It was therefore possible for th...
Tag this Judgment!Reddivari Venkatasubba Reddi and ors. Vs. Reddivari China Rami Reddi a ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-24-1935
Reported in: 163Ind.Cas.863
Varadachariar, J.1. I do not think it necessary for the purpose of the disposal of these revision petitions to express any final opinion on the effect of Ex. I on the status of the family consisting of the 1st defendant and his sons, the second and 3rd defendants. It is sufficient for the present merely to say that the authority of the decision in Appa v. Ranga 6 M. 71 : 7 Ind. Jur. 71, has been questioned by a Division Bench of this Court in Jagannadha Rao v. Viswesam (1924) 47 M. 621 : 80 Ind. Cas. 228 : A.I.R. 1924 Mad. 682 : 46 M.L.J. 590 : 19 L.W. 691 : 34 M.L.T. 249, and the matter may have to be reconsidered when it becomes necessary to decide that question. Mr. Govinda rajachari on behalf of the petitioners contends that the present case is on all fours with the case in Veerappa Chettiar v. Annamalai Chettiar 68 M.L.J. 157 : 156 Ind. Cas. 439 : A.I.R. 1935 Mad. 316 : (1935) M.W.N. 193 : 41 L.W. 431 : 7 R.M. 699. I am not prepared to agree with him. The releasing cc-parcener had...
Tag this Judgment!The Revenue Divisional Officer (Reffering Officer) Vs. Venkatarama Aiy ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-23-1935
Reported in: (1936)71MLJ69
Cornish, J.1. These appeals arise out of a batch of references made to the Court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. The lands acquired, thirty-seven and odd acres in extent, form a block of territory between the South Indian Railway and the river Cauvery near Trichinopoly, and have been acquired for the purpose of making a new bund in the place of the old flood bank which was washed away by the serious flood in 1924. The lands are of the same quality throughout, that is to say, single crop land. The notification under the Act was made on 20th October, 1925, and that is the date for determining the market value of the land. The claimants put the value at Rs. 17-8-0 for each cent of land. The acquisition Officer awarded Rs. 12 for each cent and the Court has given Rs. 16 for each cent.2. [Their Lordships then discuss the evidence re value and award compensation at Rs. 15 a cent.]3. A further question is raised with regard to six per cent interest given by the Subordinate Judge...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »