Chennai Court October 1937 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.
Gundla Venkamma Vs. Rao Sahib Kotla Sanyasayya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-22-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Mad422
Venkataramana Rao, J.1. This is an appeal from the decree of the Agency Subordinate Judge of Vizagapatam dismissing the suit of the plaintiff for recovery of a Burn of money on the basis of a security bond dated 18th January 1909 in favour of the husband of the plaintiff in O.S. No. 1 of 1907 on the file of the Court of the Government Agent, Godavari, Coconada. The said bond was executed under the following circumstances.2. One Joga Venkataswami had dealings with the plaintiff's husband and he died in 1905 without having the account in respect of the said dealings settled. On the date of his death two persons claimed his property; one is his adopted son Joga Ramulu and the other Joga Sitaramulu, who is alleged to be his natural son. But the matters in dispute between these parties appear to have been settled by an arrangement in and by which each took half the property left by Joga Venkataswami. The plaintiff's husband filed a suit (O.S. No. 1 of 1907) against both Joga Ramulu and Joga...
Trichinopoly Tennore Hindu Permanent Fund Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Inc ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-22-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Mad148; 173Ind.Cas.998; [1937]5ITR703(Mad)
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 and it on the basis. At the instance of the Company the question was referred by the Commissioner of Income tax to this Court which decide that the Income tax authorities had taken the correct view. (The Trichinopoly Tennore Hindu Permanent Fund Ltd. v. The Commissioner of Income Tax, Madras, 2 Income tax Cases 386). 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 loans at favorable rate...
Andhra Insurance Co., Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-22-1937
Reported in: [1937]5ITR697(Mad)
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 Sec. 8 of the Indian Life Assurance Company 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 by-laws, to cause an investigation to be made by an actually 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 December 31, 1929. The next valuation took place in December 1934 and this was for the four years ended December 31, 1933. Under Section 22 of the Indian Income-tax Act, the principal officer of every company shall prepare and on or before the fifteenth day of June in each year, furnish to the Income-tax Officer a return...
S.G. Bakthavatsalu Naidu Vs. the Salem Municipality by Its Commissione ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-21-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Mad252; (1938)1MLJ61
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. The petitioner was the plaintiff in a Small Cause Suit in the District Munsiff's Court of Salem in which he sued to recover a sum of Rs. 184-8-0 as damages from the Salem Municipality for wrongful distraint. There were three issues framed; the first was whether the suit was in time; the second had reference to the question of the illegality of the distraint; and the third concerned the question of damages. The District Munsiff held that the suit was not barred by the law of limitation and adjourned the further hearing of the suit to another date. The respondent-council then applied to this Court for an order revising this finding. The matter came before Cornish, J., who held that the District Munsiff was wrong in his decision on the question of limitation. The learned Judge found that the suit was time-barred and dismissed it. Unfortunately the petitioner was not represented at the hearing, and he applies for review of the order of Cornish, J., on the ...
Saturagiri Kattari Nagaya Kamarajendra Ramaswami Kamaya Naicker Vs. T. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-21-1937
Reported in: (1938)1MLJ563
Varadachariar, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit instituted by the appellant for recovery of possession of certain properties or in the alternative for the appointment of a Receiver. The point for decision lies in a narrow compass and turns mainly upon the construction of a razinamah (Ex. B) which put an end to an old litigation O.S. No. 16 of 1889 relating to the succession to the Bodinayakanur Zamindari. To help towards the proper interpretation of Ex. B, it is necessary to state a few facts relating to that litigation.2. Up to December, 1888, the Zamindari of Bodinayakanur was in the possession of one Kamaraja Pandiya Nayakar, who died in December, 1888, leaving him surviving a widow Kamalu Ammal, a daughter Meenakshi and a step-brother Vadamalai. For many years after 1888, every person connected with this family seems to have proceeded on the assumption that this step-brother was disqualified to inherit and he has been uniformly ignored till a very recent litigation. The deceas...
Gangamma Alias Chinnakempammal Vs. Cuddapah Kuppammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-21-1937
Reported in: (1938)2MLJ923
Wadsworth, J.1. The plaintiff sues as the adopted daughter of the first defendant, who is a dancing girl by caste and profession, claiming a share in immovable property, jewels and cash on the basis that she and her adoptive mother constituted a joint family possessed of property in which she is entitled to claim a share by partition. The plaint is drafted just as if it were an ordinary partition suit under the Hindu Law, and there is even an allegation that the sale of one item of property to defendants 4 and 5 is not for family necessity, but for immoral purposes and not binding on the plaintiff. Throughout the plaint it is assumed that the adopted daughter of a devadasi living jointly with her mother has aright to claim partition, the suit not being expressly based on any plea of special custom or contract to that effect. Defendants 2 and 3 are impleaded on the ground that they have joined in the sale deed in favour of the fourth defendant and because the first defendant alleged tha...
A.R. Ramanuja Mudaliar Vs. L.C. Sundara Varadachariar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-21-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Mad176; (1937)2MLJ926
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. The Sundara Shanmuga Vilas Prize Chit Fund, a company registered under the Indian Companies Act, is being wound up in the Court of the District Judge of Chittoor as the result of a compulsory winding up order passed by this Court. This Court appointed three official liquidators, who on taking over charge of the assets came to the conclusion that one asset, a decree in favour of the directors of the company, should be sold by auction as it would be too expensive to undertake execution proceedings. They accordingly applied to the District Judge for directions under Section 183 of the Act and he ordered the decree to be sold by auction. In accordance with this order ah auction was held on the 1st November, 1934, and the appellant bid Rs. 25. As there was no higher bid he was declared to be the purchaser. On the 5th November, 1934, the three liquidators executed a deed assigning the decree to the appellant who on the 17th January, 1935, applied to be broug...
Angamuthu Muthirian and anr. Vs. Sinnapennammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-21-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Mad364
Venkataramana Rao, J.1. Two questions which are of some importance were raised in this appeal. The one is whether the word 'sister' in Act 2 of 1929, includes a half-sister; and the other relates to the validity and binding nature of an arrangement embodied in a compromise decree in a litigation between the mother of a last male owner and the next presumptive reversioner concerning his estate. The relevant facts are not in dispute. One Muthukaruppa Muthiriyan died in 1921 possessed of property both moveable and immovable and leaving him surviving his two wives Chinnammal and Ammachi Ammal and a son Ganesa Muthiriyan by the said Chinnammal and two daughters, the plaintiffs in this suit, by Ammachi Ammal. Ganesa Muthiriyan died on 11th October 1924 unmarried and Ammachi Ammal died on 12th October 1924. Muthukaruppa Muthiriyan's property thus came into the sole possession of Chinnammal. The next presumptive reversioner to the estate of Ganesa Muthiriyan was his paternal uncle, that is his...
R.V. Lakshmayya Naidu Alias Raju Naidu Vs. Purushothama Naidu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-20-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Mad457; (1938)1MLJ316
Pandrang Row, J.1. The main facts in these connected appeals are simple and undisputed. The plaint properties in both the suits are one and the same. They were sold by one Lakshmi Ammal, the plaintiff in O.S. No. 114 of 1934, on 31st March, 1922, to one Purushotham Naidu, the first defendant in that suit. These will be referred to as the vendor and the vendee respectively. The vendor had succeeded to the properties on the death of her infant son and immediately thereafter the creditors of her husband filed several suits and obtained decrees. It was mainly to pay off these decree debts that the sale was effected for Rs. 11,000. The sale-deed clearly recites that the properties were sold for Rs. 11,000, out of which Rs. 1,041 were received in cash and the balance was left with the vendee for payment to the decree-holders. The vendee paid off the decree debts except one, namely, the debt due to the decree-holder in O.S. No. 166 of 1921. That decree-holder brought the properties to sale af...
The Official Trustee of Madras Vs. Nawab C. Abdul Hakim Sahib and Baha ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-18-1937
Reported in: (1938)2MLJ1072
Gentle, J.1. By order dated 30th April, 1937, in O.P. No. 295 of 1936, C. Abdul Salam Sahib was adjudicated a person of unsound mind and incapable of managing his own affairs, and the Official Trustee of Madras was appointed the manager of the abovenamed lunatic's properties with all powers provided under Section 47 of the Indian Lunacy Act, 1912. In the present application, the Official Trustee of Madras as such manager prays for an order against the respondent (who is the father of the lunatic).(1) To hand over to the applicant Government securities of the face value of Rs. 1,50,000 standing in the name of the lunatic and in the respondent's custody;(2) To put the Official Trustee of Madras in possession of the Sathgur estate belonging to the lunatic.2. Since issuing this application, the applicant has ascertained that the Government securities in fact are in 'the joint names of the lunatic and the respondent who so transferred them about the year 1925. The sale deed of the Sathgur e...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »