Chennai Court October 1937 Judgments
Kamakshi Ammal and anr. Vs. Krishnammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-29-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Mad340; (1938)1MLJ252
Venkataramana Rao, J.1. Mr. Sitarama Rao has raised two contentions in this second appeal : (1) the plaintiff-respondent is not entitled to claim any maintenance from and out of the estate of her deceased husband, and (2) the rate awarded both for arrears of and future maintenance is excessive. It may be necessary to state a few facts for dealing with the first contention. The plaintiff is the widow of one Ramayya Aiyar who is the adopted son of one N. Venkateswara Aiyar. The said Ramayya Aiyar died on the 12th April, 1923, leaving him surviving his widow the plaintiff, his adoptive mother, Ramalakshmi Ammal, who is no other than the mother of the plaintiff's natural mother, and a last will and testament dated 8th April, 1923. In and by the said will he bequeathed all the property which he then owned and possessed to both his mother and his wife the plaintiff. To his mother he gave property worth about Rs. 7,000, namely, a certain land and a house; to his wife he gave certain lands wor...
Tag this Judgment!Pamidimukkala Sitharamayya and ors. Vs. Ivaturi Ramayya and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-29-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Mad316; (1938)1MLJ514
Varadachariar, J.1. This case though numbered as an appeal comes up before us for disposal on the question whether the appeal is to be treated as having been presented in time or should be dismissed as not having been presented in time.2. The memorandum of appeal was filed in this Court on the 21st of March, 1935, which was within the time allowed by law, but it was presented on a court-fee of Rs. 5, while in the valuation, memo, attached to the memorandum it was stated that Rs, 224-15-0 was the court-fee payable. The papers were returned on more than one occasion to the party for various purposes and on the 15th of July, 1935, the appellant's counsel revised the memo, of valuation with the result that Rs. 111-5-0 was shown as the court-fee payable. Even this amount was not paid for a long time and the appellants ultimately filed an application under Section 149, Civil Procedure Code (C.M.P. No. 327 of 1936) for extension of time to pay the deficient court-fee. This application was rej...
Tag this Judgment!Santhappa Rai and ors. Vs. Santhiraja Alias Kanthu Shetty and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-29-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Mad426; (1938)1MLJ676
Mockett, J.1. This is an appeal from the judgment and decree of the learned District Judge of South Kanara. The suit by the plaintiffs prayed for an order to set aside two documents executed by the first plaintiff, Exs. E and F, both of which were executed on the 9th of June, 1928. In their plaint, they alleged that the execution of these documents was obtained by coercion, undue influence and fraud on the part of the first defendant. The plea of coercion was abandoned. We are unable to find any finding with regard to fraud by the learned trial Judge and it would appear that the only ground on which he has decreed this suit is based on undue influence of the first defendant over the first plaintiff.2. These persons are related. The first plaintiff married twice and defendants 1 and 2 are relations by his first wife. His second wife died in 1918. She had a daughter who died in May, 1928. It may be mentioned that all the children by the first marriage also died. So the immediate relative...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Ponnuswami Servai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-28-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Mad315
ORDERLakshmana Rao, J.The offence Under Section 409, I.P.C. is not triable by the Magistrate of the Second Class and the alteration of the conviction to one Under Section 409 read with Section 109, I.P.C. is illegal. The conviction of the petitioner is therefore set aside and he is acquitted....
Tag this Judgment!Ponnuswami Servai Vs. Emperor
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-28-1937
Reported in: 174Ind.Cas.776
ORDERLakshmana Rao, J.1. The offence under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code, is not triable by the Magistrate of the Second Class and the alteration of the conviction to one under Section 409 read with Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code, is illegal. The conviction of the petitioner is, therefore, set aside and he is acquitted....
Tag this Judgment!The Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Andhra Insurance Company, Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-22-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Mad145; (1938)1MLJ11
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. The assessee in this case is a life Insurance Company, carrying on business at Masulipatam, having been incorporated in the year 1925. Under the provisions of Section 8 of the Indian Life Assurance Companies Act, 1912, a life assurance company is required once in every five years, or at such shorter intervals as may be prescribed by the instrument constituting the company or by its regulations or bye-laws, to cause an investigation to be made by an actuary into its financial condition, including a valuation of its liabilities. This company decided that the valuation should take place every four years. The first valuation was made in December, 1930, and was for the period ended 31st December, 1929. The next valuation took place in December, 1934, and this was for the four years ended 31st December, 1933. Under Section 22 of the Indian Income-tax Act, the principal officer of every company shall prepare, and, on or before the 15th day of June in each yea...
Tag this Judgment!Sambasiva Aiyar Vs. Natesa Aiyar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-22-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Mad388; (1938)1MLJ106
Pandrang Row, J.1. These arise out of O.S. No. 46 of 1929 on the file of the Subordinate Judge of Tanjore. The Revision Petition is for the purpose of revising the order passed by the Additional Subordinate Judge dismissing the application of the plaintiff for amendment of his plaint and the appeal is from the decree dismissing the suit itself with costs on the ground that it was not maintainable. The suit was by one Sambasiva Aiyar who claimed one-third of the share of the first defendant in a certain firm described as the K.A.Rm.N. Firm. The share in the firm originally belonged to an undivided Hindu family. The plaintiff is the son of one Krishna Aiyar. Defendants 2 and 3 are the grandsons of one Sundarappier by his deceased son, while the first defendant is one Natesa Aiyar. These three persons Krishna Aiyar, Natesa Aiyar and Sundarappier were brothers. The fourth defendant is the other partner in the firm of K.A.Rm.N. which carried on a money lending business and the plaintiff's c...
Tag this Judgment!Sivasankara Mudaliar and anr. Vs. Amaravathi Ammal and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-22-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Mad157; (1938)1MLJ146
Venkataramana Rao, J.1. This appeal raises a question of some importance. It relates to the rights of an heir-at-law with reference to an estate left by a testator where the executors appointed under his will decline to accept office. The facts necessary for the disposal of the exact point in controversy in the suit may be briefly stated. The plaintiff - first respondent - Amaravathi Ammal was the widow of one Balasundara Mudali. He died on the 9th February, 1919, leaving him surviving his widow and his last will and testament dated 19th November, 1918. In the said will he said that he became divided in status from his brother the first defendant--the 1st appellant Sivasankara Mudali, that some properties were divided and as regards the other properties, he had been getting equally the income derived from them. He made several dispositions in the said will and among others bequeathed certain immovable properties and monies to his widow Amaravathi. He also provided for certain charities...
Tag this Judgment!The Trichinopoly Tennore Hindu Permanent Fund, Ltd., a Limited Company ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-22-1937
Reported in: (1938)1MLJ130
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. The real question involved in this reference is whether the Trichinopoly Tennore Hindu Permanent Fund, Ltd., a company registered under the Indian Companies Act, is a banking concern or a mutual benefit society. The question was raised on a former occasion, namely, in respect of the income-tax year 1925-26. The income-tax authorities then treated the company as an ordinary banking concern and taxed it on that basis. At the instance of the company the question was referred by the Commissioner of Income-tax to this Court which decided that the income-tax authorities had taken the correct view. The Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras v. The Trichinopoly Tennore Hindu Permanent Fund, Ltd. : (1927)53MLJ881 After this decision had been given, the company took steps to alter its memorandum and articles of association. In the original memorandum the objects of the company were stated to be:(a) to enable persons to save money; (b) to enable persons to secure loa...
Tag this Judgment!Kumara Alagu Samayya Naicker Vs. Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Boa ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-22-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Mad321
ORDERBurn, J.1. This is a petition to revise the order of the learned District Judge of Trichinopoly in C.P. No. 34 of 1934. That was an application by the present appellant Under Section 84(2), Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act 2 of 1927, praying the learned Judge to set aside the order of the Religious Endowments Board dated 6th December 1933 declaring the temple of Sri Kalyana Narasimhaswami at Ramagiri, Karur Taluk, to be a non-excepted temple. The learned District Judge held that the temple was a non-excepted temple and accordingly dismissed the petition. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention to the definition of 'excepted temple' in Section 9(5) of the Act, That is as follows :'Excepted temple' means and includes a temple, the right of succession to the office of trustee or the officers of all the trustees (where there are more trustees than one) whereof has been hereditary or the succession to the trusteeship whereof has been specially provided for by...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »