Chennai Court September 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.
Ramakrishna Nadar and anr. Vs. Ponnayya Thirumalai Vandaya thevar and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-23-1935
Reported in: AIR1936Mad24; 159Ind.Cas.1029; (1935)69MLJ791
Varadachariar, J.1. We do not think it necessary for the purpose of disposing of this appeal to express any definite-opinion on the proper construction of Order 33, Rule 15, but we may note that the view taken by the Allahabad High Court in Mahadeo Sahai v. Secretary of State 1932 All 312 has recently been. affirmed by a Full Bench of that Court in Shiam Sundar v. Mt. Savitri Kunwar 1935 All 723. The costs directed to be paid to the respondent in O. P. No. 8 of 1931 have been paid on 2nd March 1932 and assuming, as contended for by the defendants, that this won't satisfy the terms of Order 33, Rule 15, because of the use of the word 'first' in that rule, we do not think the Court below need have dismissed the suit altogether. It is unnecessary to go through the formality of a dismissal and a re-institution the next moment after payment of the costs ordered in O. P. No. 8 of 1931. We think it will be sufficient to say that the suit must be treated as one instituted on 2nd March 1932, an...
The Revenue Divisional Officer Vs. Venkatarama Ayyar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-23-1935
Reported in: AIR1936Mad199; 160Ind.Cas.967
1. These appeals arise out of a batch of references to the Court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, The lands acquired, 37 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 October 20, 1925, and that is the date for determining the market value of the land. The claimants put the value at Rs. 17-80 per cent. The Acquisition Officer awarded Rs. 12 per cent, and the Court had given Rs. 16 per cent.2. There is evidence of two sales of land within this block which occurred on February 12, 1919, and April 7, 1923, when plots of 20 and 32 cents were sold at Rs. 15 and Rs. 15 10-0 per cent respectively. But these sales were prior to the flood,...
Karumoori Narasimhamurthy Vs. Official Receiver and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-20-1935
Reported in: AIR1936Mad121; 160Ind.Cas.645
Burn, J.1. These appeals arise out of an order of the learned Subordinate Judge of Narasapur passed in an application under Order 21, Rule 90, Civil P.C., to set aside a sale held in execution. The sale was held on 18th April 1933. In the sale two items of property were sold, one being a vacant site and the other a house. The learned Subordinate Judge found that there was material irregularity in the publication of the sale notice. He also held that in consequence of this material irregularity the price realised for the vacant site was substantially less than it would have been but for the irregularity. He therefore set aside the sale of the vacant site. With regard to the house the learned Subordinate Judge found that the price realised was not inadequate and that therefore no substantial loss has been caused to the judgment-debtor. He accordingly refused to set aside the sale of the house. The purchaser of the vacant site has preferred. C. M. A. No. 376 of 1934, and the Official Rece...
Anjaneya Sastri Vs. Kothandapani Chettiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-20-1935
Reported in: AIR1936Mad449; (1937)2MLJ437
Varadachariar, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit under Section 92, Civil P.C. The subject-matter of the trust is a choultry of which defendant 1 became the trustee and manager (sometime between 1893 and 1897) under the provisions of (Ex. D-l), an agreement between himself and his adoptive mother plaintiff 1, dated 22nd June 1888. Since 1903 defendant 1 would appear to have been ignoring the trust and treating the property as his own. One of his sons purported to alienate his share in the property to one Narayanaswami Chettiar under whom defendant 2 claims. Defendant 3 has become the purchaser of the suit property in execution of a decree obtained against defendant 1 in Small Cause Suit No. 2496 of 1927 on the file of the Kumbakonam Small Cause Court. The result has been that for many years past the suit property is not being used for the purpose of the trust at all and defendant 1 has been clearly guilty of breach of trust. This suit was accordingly filed for the removal of defenda...
The President, Union Board and anr. Vs. Sreemath Thirumala Venkata Sri ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-19-1935
Reported in: 159Ind.Cas.544; (1935)69MLJ785
Burn, J.1. We consider that the decision of the learned Subordinate Judge is undoubtedly correct. The facts are that the decree was passed on the 21st February, 1928. On the 13th August, 1930, Rs. 1,200 was paid to the decree-holder out of Court and another Rs. 1,300 on the 24th March, 1931. Up to that time no execution petition had been filed. The first execution petition filed in the case at all was E. P. No. 98 of 1933 filed on the 25th September, 1933. The objection taken by the respondents who were judgment-debtors and sureties for the judgment-debtors was that the execution petition was barred by limitation. The decree-holder relied upon M. P. No. 337 of 1930 which was a petition filed in the Sub-Court, Ellore on the 29th September, 1930, and which runs as follows:For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit the petitioner prays the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to record a payment of Rs. 1,200 in part satisfaction of the decree.2. The Court on 27th October, 1930, passed t...
Vuddagiri Ammanna Vs. Gada Subbayya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-19-1935
Reported in: 159Ind.Cas.804; (1935)69MLJ854
1. The case is clearly covered by the decision of the Privy Council in Ram Raghubir Lal v. The United Refineries Burma, Ltd.I.L.R. (1933) 60 Cal. 1467. The decree in this case was not a decree for sale at all. It was a decree for payment of money, and declared that the plaintiff had a charge on the scheduled property for unpaid purchase money. As their Lordships observe, in such a case the decree-holder cannot bring the property to sale without getting a preliminary decree for sale (Order 34, Rule 14). The decree in this case did not create the charge but merely declared it. Hence the decisions in A.C. Dastoor v. H.A. Kandazvalla I.L.R.(1933) 60 Cal. 1467 and Ambalal Bapubhai v. Narayan Tatayaba I.L.R.(1919) 43 Bom. 631 have no application, or rather, they are against Mr. Appa Rao who has cited them in his favour. For the same reason the decision in Edupuganti Buchayya v. Edupuganti Sri Ramamma : AIR1931Mad603 is not applicable, this was not a case of a charge created by the decree.2. ...
President, Union Board and anr. Vs. (Sreemath) Thirumala Venkata Srini ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-19-1935
Reported in: AIR1936Mad118
Burn, J.1. We consider that the decision of the learned Subordinate Judge is undoubtedly correct. The facts are that the decree was passed on 21st February 1928. On 13th August 1930, Rs. 1,200 were paid to the decree-holder out of Court and another Rs. 1,300 on 24th March 1931. Up to that time no execution petition had been filed. The first execution petition filed in the case at all was E.P. No. 98 of 1933 filed on 25th September 1933. The objection taken by the respondents who were judgment-debtors and sureties for the judgment-debtors was that the execution petition was barred by limitation. The decree-holder relied upon M. P. No. 337 of 1930 which was a petition filed in the Sub-Court, Ellore on 29th September 1930 and which runs as follows:For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit the petitioner, prays the Honourable Court may be pleased to record a payment of Rs. 1,200 in part satisfaction of the decree.2. The Court on 27th October 1930 passed the following order : 'Al...
L.C.T.S.P. Subramaniam Chettiar Vs. the Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-18-1935
Reported in: 159Ind.Cas.787; (1935)69MLJ844
Madhavan Nair, J.1. The question referred to us is ' whether the sum of Rs. 13,730 paid by the Penang firm at Penang to a creditor of the Tinnevelly firm be treated as a remittance of foreign profits in British India'.2. The question arises with reference to the inclusion in the additional assessment made upon the petitioner for the year 1932-1933 (previous year 13th April, 1931 to 12th April, 1932) of this sum which is the amount paid by the petitioner's Penang shop in respect of two hundis drawn by him in the following circumstances. In or about July, 1931, the trustee of a patasala at Kunnakudi deposited certain moneys with the Tinnevelly shop of the assessee. The Trustee carries on money-lending business outside India at Penang, Rangoon and Thonze. When he applied for repayment of the money the petitioner issued two hundis on his Penang shop for the amount due with interest, namely Rs. 13,730. The Penang shop paid these amounts on 9th October, 1931. The transactions relating to the...
Naduvile MaraThe Ikkali Amma's daughter tavazhi Manager Lakshmi Amma V ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-18-1935
Reported in: AIR1936Mad171; (1936)70MLJ1
Cronish, J.1. The question raised in this Second Appeal is whether the appellant, who was defendant in the suit, was entitled to subrogation in respect of two mortgages discharged by him for the mortgagor.2. The appellant had been given a usufructuary mortgage of property, which was subject to three prior simple mortgages in consideration of an advance of Rs. 8000 made by him to the mortgagor, the appellant undertaking to pay off these prior mortgages. As a matter of fact he paid off the two first mortgages, but he did not pay off the third mortgage. The third mortgagee brought a suit for sale on the footing of his mortgage, and the appellant set up in this suit a claim to be substituted for the two prior mortgagees whose debt he had discharged. The lower appellate Court rejected this claim, holding that it was not sustainable in the face of Section 92 of the Transfer of Property Act. It should be mentioned that the mortgages in question were antecedent in date to the amendment introdu...
K.M.S. Chidambaram Chettiar, Minor by Mother and Guardian Visalakshmi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-18-1935
Reported in: (1936)71MLJ35
Madhavan Nair, J.1. The question referred to us by the Commissioner of Income-tax is : 'In what year was the remittance of Rs. 50,000 (Rupees Fifty thousand) received?'2. This question arises in connection with an additional assessment imposed upon the petitioner for the year 1930-1931 with respect to this amount. The accounting year is the period from 13th April, 1929, to 12th April, 1930. The question is whether this amount may be considered to have been received by the assessee during this period in the following circumstances.3. The assessee is a Nattukottai Chetti doing business in Burma, Klang, Kualalumpur, Penang, etc. On 3rd April, 1929, a sum of Rs. 50,000 was debited to his account in his Klang books as having been paid on that date to S.A. Rm. Penang, a money-lending business owned by another Nattukottai Chetti. The entry does not say in what connection this amount was paid. But it is admitted that it relates to the purchase of house-sites by the petitioner. He was negotiati...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »