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.
The Secretary of State for India in Council Vs. Rm. P. Rm. M. Subraman ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-15-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Mad278; (1938)1MLJ29
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. In the appeal that we have just disposed of, a question of court-fee has been raised on behalf of the Government under Section 12(ii) of the Court-Fees Act.2. The suit is in effect one for partition and possession, brought by the plaintiff against his co-sharers. He claimed in the plaint two separate shares, each of one-eighth, on the ground that he purchased them from two different co-owners. He fixed the total value of the entire one-fourth share at Rs. 14,000 and paid in respect of the relief of 'partition and separate possession' of that share, Rs. 100 as court-fee under Schedule II, Article 17-B (Madras Amendment) of the Court-Fees Act.3. It must be mentioned that previous to the suit, he had applied to the Collector for separate registration, which was refused. He therefore prayed for a declaration that he was entitled to get himself registered as a landholder to the extent of the one-fourth share. In respect of this relief he paid a court-fee of Rs. 100 un...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras Vs. S. L. Mathias.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-13-1937
Reported in: [1938]6ITR8(Mad)
LEACH, C.J. - The Commissioner of Income-tax applies for a certificate permitting him to appeal to His Majesty in Council in respect of a decision of this Court on the effect of the second proviso to Sec. 4(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act. There can be no doubt that the question involved is a substantial question of law. As a matter of fact this Court placed a different interpretation on the proviso from that placed upon it by the Calcutta High Court.The application is, however, opposed by the respondent on the ground that an appeal to His Majesty in Council would put him to considerable expense. He contends that if leave is granted it should be subject to the condition that the income-tax authorities pay his costs. It is quite clear that we have no power to impose any such condition and this was pointed out by this Court in the case of Rajarajeswari Sethupathi v. Tiruneelakantam Servai (44 M.L.J. 217). Our powers are confined in this respect to those conferred by Sec. 66-A of the Inco...
Rajah Velugoti Sarvagna Kumara Krishna Yachendra Bahadur Varu of Venka ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-12-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Mad248; 173Ind.Cas.455; (1938)2MLJ81
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. This is an application by the Rajah of Venkatagiri for an order against the respondents for contempt of Court. The petitioner is the plaintiff in a suit in the District Munsiff's Court, Nellore, for an injunction restraining forty inhabitants of Venkatagiri from entering the petitioner's forests and cutting firewood therein. The defendants claim that they have the right to cut firewood there and to sell it. They base this right on grant, custom and prescription. The suit was filed in June last and on the 27th of August, the following article appeared in the 'Zamin Ryot' which is published in Nellore:Help the Arava Malas of Venkatagiri,' means of livelihood enjoyed for generations deprived by the Estate.Appeal by Kamatam Shantnugam, M.L.A.There are about 500 families of Harijans in Venkatagiri; during the time of Chevi Reddi, the original ancestor of the Rajahs of Venkatagiri Estate, one Yachadu, the original ancestor of the Malas, sacrificed his life a...
T. Nannu Shankar Tawker Vs. P.S. Bashyam Aiyangar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-12-1937
Reported in: (1938)2MLJ256
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. This appeal concerns a mortgage executed on the 12th March, 1919, in favour of the father of the first and second respondents by the third respondent, who is the father of the appellant. In executing the mortgage the third respondent signed for himself and also purported to be acting (a) as the guardian of the appellant and of his nephew, Krishnaji, and (b) as the manager of a joint family which he alleged consisted of himself, the appellant, his nephew, and his brother Balakrishna. The mortgagee having died, the first and second respondents, on whom his estate devolved, instituted the suit out of which this appeal arises in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Chingleput to recover the sum of Rs. 9,213-12-0 claimed to be due as principal and interest under the mortgage. The defendants were the appellant, the third respondent, and Balakrishna who died during the pendency of the suit. Balakrishna's estate having devolved by will on the appellant the su...
In Re: B. Kappini Gounder and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-12-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Mad67; (1937)2MLJ788
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. The appeal has been withdrawn as having been settled out of Court and the appellant makes a somewhat unusual request that he should be allowed a refund of the court-fee paid on the memorandum of appeal.2. If we should have regard to what is taken to be the settled practice of this Court, this request should be summarily rejected; however, as a point of principle has been raised, we have gone into the matter carefully. Sections 13, 14 and 15 of the Court-Fees Act deal with refunds of court-fee and of these, Section 13 provides for the return of the fee paid on a memorandum of appeal. The present case obviously does not come within the purview of that section. Then the question arises, has the Court power to direct a refund of court-fee, independent of the express provisions of the Court-Fees Act? The Courts have gone to the extent of holding that they can order a refund under their inherent powers, where an excess court-fee has been paid (i) by mistake of party, (...
Katragadda Venkayya and ors. Vs. K. Narasimhacharyulu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-08-1937
Reported in: (1938)1MLJ33
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. This suit, euphemistically termed a partition suit, although there was not a cent of land to partition, was brought by the plaintiff as against as many as nearly 100 defendants, for the purpose of recovering several items of property alienated by his father. This was a harassing and blackmailing suit which, in view of the extreme vagueness of the plaint, ought not to have been allowed, in the absence of full particulars which ought to have been insisted upon, having regard to the settled law on the point, to proceed to trial at all. Several families, some of humble status, have, there can be no doubt, been ruined by this litigation. It is not a little surprising that the lower Court has, casting to the winds all principles of law and of procedure, thought fit to pass a decree in the plaintiff's favour.2. This suit is true to type. The complaisant father, who stirred up the son, was impleaded as the first defendant. Some of his near relations, who, though being al...
Murugesa Mudali Vs. Angamuthu Mudali
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-08-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Mad190; (1937)2MLJ888
Varadachariar, J.1. This revision petition arises out of an application to punish the petitioner for disobedience of an injunction issued by the District Munsiff's Court at Ranipet. It will be convenient to describe the parties with reference to their array here.2. The petitioner had obtained a decree against one Kadirvelu Mudali, in O.S. No. 982 of 1928, for vacant possession of a piece of land on which part of a building stood. When the decree-holder went to take possession, he was resisted by the present respondent and M.P. No. 618 of 1932 was accordingly filed for removal of obstruction. An order for removal of obstruction was passed on 10th October, 1932 and it is agreed that early on the 11th of October the Amin, to whom the warrant to carry out that order had been entrusted, went to the locality which is about two miles from the Court premises to carry out that order. The evidence also shows that the petitioner was present during the time that the Amin was carrying out that orde...
Nyapati Narayana Rao Vs. Madhavalapu Purushothama Rao
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-07-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Mad390(1); (1938)1MLJ45
Varadachariar, J.1. The question for decision in this case is whether the will (Ex. H) said to have been executed by one Seshagiri Row on 4th August, 1926, is genuine and valid.2. Seshagiri Rao had two sons, the plaintiff and the first defendant; defendants 2 and 3 are the sons of the first defendant. Many years ago the plaintiff had been taken in adoption by Seshagiri Rao's wife's maternal uncle; it happened that in the family of adoption the plaintiff did not get much property and the evidence establishes that the plaintiff had been pressing his natural father to make some provision for him and that that the natural father intended to do so. The first defendant on the other hand was educated at his father's expense till he took his B.L. degree, and settled down to practise at Guntur. The first defendant no doubt became a man with a large family and did not perhaps succeed as well at the profession as he might have desired and he might be justified in feeling that his father ought to ...
In Re: T. Tirumalai Mudaliar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-07-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Mad128; 173Ind.Cas.145
ORDERNewsam, J.1. The conviction and sentence are clearly illegal and mush be set aside. The motorist in this case coming from Bangalore made no attempt to evade payment of the British licence fee. He offered to pay the entire quarterly tax on the spot and he did pay it to the Magistrate. 'To prosecute him thereafter was illegal, for as a matter of fact by rules framed Under Section 11, Motor Vehicles Tax Act, the proper procedure was to serve a notice on the motorist calling upon him to pay the tax within seven days. G.O. No. 2464 dated 28th September 1936 allows a period of seven days' grace for payment of the tax.2. Ignorance of the law is no defence for persons accused of breaking the law, but such ignorance on the part of those who have to administer the law is quite inexcusable. The prosecution was unimaginative in any case, I accept this reference and sot aside the conviction. The fine if paid will be refunded....
Arumandla Veerayya and anr. Vs. Arumandla Subbamma
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-07-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Mad178
Pandrang Row, J.1. This suit relates to the genuineness of a will alleged to have been executed by one Arumandla Byragi on 17th September 1926. The plaintiffs instituted the suit as the nearest reversioners of the deceased testator in 1928 impleading the widow. The suit was not tried on the merits, though it was pending from 1928 to 1932 when an additional written statement was put in contending that by reason of subsequent legislation, via. Act 2 of 1929, the plaintiffs ceased to be the nearest reversioners, the order of succession having been altered by that Act, and that the suit ceased to be maintainable, as the sister's sons of the deceased had become nearer reversioners and had not been brought on record. An application which was made to bring the Mister's sons on record was dismissed by the lower Court which at the same time dismissed the suit altogether on the ground that the suit was not maintainable as it stood. It would appear that an application by the plaintiffs to amend t...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »