Chennai Court October 1938 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.
Mothay Ganga Razu Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-25-1938
Reported in: [1939]7ITR149(Mad)
LEACH, C.J. - The petitioner carries on a money-leading business. In 1925 he entered into a partner with one Gurram Sreeramulu to carry on a business in tobacco leaves. The petitioner was the financing partner and Gurram Sreeramulu the working partner. The partnership continued until the 19th January 1929. Losses had been incurred and it was decided that there should be a dissolution. Under the terms of the dissolution Gurram Sreeramulu agreed to pay to the petitioner a sum of Rs. 42,200 being the amount of money which the petitioner had sunk in the business. This is made quite scare from the following recital in the deed of mortgage which Gurram Sreeramulu executed in favour of the petitioner to secure the sum of Rs. 42,200.'We have been carrying on joint business in tobacco from 1925 till now. the business die not result in any profit but only and on account of this reason you have given up the joint business with me and as a result there of I now owe you Rs. 42,200-14-9 with interes...
Nachimuthu Goundan and anr. Vs. Balasubramania Goundan Minor by Mother ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-24-1938
Reported in: AIR1939Mad450; (1939)1MLJ352
Krishnaswami Aiyangar, J.1. The question for decision in this appeal is whether the mortgage sued on is binding on the undivided sons of the mortgagors. The argument against it is that there was neither an antecedent debt nor a justifying necessity and in its absence the father had no authority to bind by his act the interest of his sons in the joint property. No new principle of law is therefore involved in the decision of this appeal: for the doctrine of antecedent debt is at least as old as Suraj Bunsi's case if not older still and has now been finally and authoritatively declared by the Privy Council. Though the rule itself in this form does not find express mention in the Texts of Hindu Law or the commentaries, there can be no doubt that it is but the logical outcome of the fundamental principle stated in the Mitakshara, Chapter I, Sections 27, 28. The author says:Therefore it is a settled point that property in the paternal estate is by birth, although the father has independent ...
Cherutty Alias Vasu (Minor) and anr. Vs. Nagamparambil Raru Alias Kutt ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-24-1938
Reported in: (1939)1MLJ683
Wadsworth, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the first plaintiff, his wife (the second plaintiff) his son (the third plaintiff) and his daughter (the fourth plaintiff) against the defendants who represent a collateral branch of the same family, claiming arrears of maintenance, on the basis that the family is undivided. The lower appellate Court, though it expressed a very strong opinion that the family was not undivided, unfortunately gave no finding on the subject and the whole suit was dismissed on the ground that a coparcener cannot claim maintenance but should sue for partition. This decision overlooks the fact that neither the second plaintiff nor the fourth plaintiff are coparceners, one being the wife and the other the daughter of a coparcener. There is no appeal by the first and second plaintiffs. The appeal is preferred only by the third plaintiff (the son) and the fourth plaintiff (the daughter).2. The contention in appeal based on the observations of the Privy...
Uthuman Pillai Tharagan and ors. Vs. T. Muhammad Usaf Tharaganar and o ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-24-1938
Reported in: AIR1939Mad316; (1939)1MLJ738
King, J.1. The plaintiffs in O.S. No. 58 of 1931 on the file of the Subordinate Judge of Tinnevelly began legal proceeding's against the defendants by applying on 30th'July, 1930, for' permission to sue them-in forma pauperis. That permission was' refused on 21st August, 1931, by an order which also directed the plaintiffs to pay the defendant 1' costs. As soon as this1 order was pronounced plaintiffs asked for time to pay court-fee. The matter was adjourned to 30th September, 1931. On that day court-fee was paid, and the petition registered as a plaint. In April, 1933, defendant 1, who had said nothing about his costs in his original written statement applied for permission to raise a fresh ground of defence, namely, that as plaintiffs had not paid his costs they were debarred by the provisions of Order 33, Rule 15 from maintaining the suit. This permission was granted, and a new issue framed. On 30th August, 1933, plaintiffs paid the costs into Court. The learned Additional Subordina...
A.M.K.M.K. Karuppan Chettiar and anr. Vs. Rajangam (Minor) Represented ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-24-1938
Reported in: (1939)2MLJ916
Venkataramana Rao, J.1. This second appeal arises out of a suit filed under Order 21, Rule 63, Civil Procedure Code, by the plaintiffs, for a declaration that they are entitled to sell the properties in suit in execution of a decree obtained by them in O.S. No. 371 of 1919 on the file of the District Munsif of Valangiman against the second defendant's father and that the deed of sale executed by the second defendant's mother as guardian dated 17th August, 1927, in favour of the first defendant is a sham and nominal transaction executed with a view to defeat and defraud their rights. The plaintiffs also attacked the deed on the ground that it was executed during the pendency of a subsisting attachment issued in execution of their decree. The sale deed in favour of the first defendant was for a sum of Rs. 8,000 part thereof, namely, Rs. 6,500 represented the amounj due under a mortgage in his favour dated 25th October, 1921, executed by the second defendant's father and the balance Rs. 1...
A.M.K.M.K. Karuppan Chettiar and anr. Vs. Rajangam and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-24-1938
Reported in: AIR1940Mad172
Venkataramana Rao, J.1. This second appeal arises out of a suit filed under Order 21, Rule 63, Civil P.C., by the plaintiffs for a declaration that they are entitled to sell the properties in suit in execution of a decree obtained by them in O.S. No. 371 of 1919 on the file of the District Munsif of Valangiman against defendant 2's father and that the deed of sale executed by defendant 2's mother as guardian dated 17th August 1927 in favour of defendant 1 is a sham and nominal transaction executed with a view to defeat and defraud their rights. The plaintiffs also attacked the deed on the ground that it was executed during the pendency of a subsisting attachment issued in execution of their decree. The sale deed in favour of defendant 1 was for a sum of Rs. 8000, part thereof, namely, Rs. 6500 represented the amount due under a mortgage in his favour, dated 25th October 1921, executed by defendant 2's father and the balance Rs. 1500 represented in part the amount due under a promissory...
Perumal Naicken Vs. Kondama Naicken and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-21-1938
Reported in: AIR1939Mad385; (1939)1MLJ64
Varadachariar, J.1. These petitions have been filed by the first defendant in the Lower Court, asking this Court to revise two orders passed by the lower Court in the following circumstances.2. The first defendant did not appear on the first hearing date and he was declared ex parte on 10th January, 1936. On 30th July, 1936, he applied to have that order set aside alleging that summons had not been served on him. The lower Court was of opinion that this allegation was not true and accordingly dismissed that petition on 15th August, 1936. C.R.P. No. 1317 has been filed against this order.3. On 18th August. 1936, the first defendant applied for permission to file a written statement and to take further part in the conduct of the case. The District Munsif was of opinion that in view of his former order dismissing his application to set aside the order declaring him ex parte all that the first defendant could be permitted to do was to cross-examine the witnesses on the other side without l...
Vattipalli Rameswaramayya Vs. Raja Panuganti Parthasarathy Rayanimvaru ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-21-1938
Reported in: AIR1939Mad502; (1939)1MLJ618
Wadsworth, J.1. The appellant sued to set aside a sale held in pursuance of a notice under Section 112 of the Madras Estates Land Act alleging irregularity, fraud, etc. We are now concerned only with the allegation that the notice required under Section 112 was not duly served upon the appellant and that therefore the sale was bad.2. The facts are no longer in dispute. There was only one notice and that was affixed after the process peon had ascertained from the wife of the appellant that he was absent from the village, having gone to another village four days previously, and that it was not known when he would return. The learned District Judge after discussing the various cases under the Civil Procedure Code in which it was held that mere temporary absence does not justify affixture, observes:That there is no explicit mention of the 'due and reasonable diligence' in Section 112 of the Madras Estates Land Act and it may be admitted that the diligence evidenced by Ex. II would not be a...
Kasturi Narasaraju Vs. Kasturi Satyavatamma and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-20-1938
Reported in: AIR1939Mad187; (1939)1MLJ75
Varadachariar, J.1. This is a litigation arising out of disputes between an adopted son and the adoptive mother. The first defendant is the widow of one Raghupathi who died in March, 1925, leaving a will (Ex. A) dated 25th February, 1925. The first defendant adopted the plaintiff, who was her younger brother, on 1st May, 1930, and, at that time, the parties entered into an ante-adoption agreement. For reasons which it is unnecessary to detail, the parties fell out and the plaintiff filed the suit out of which this appeal arises for a declaration that the ante-adoption agreement was not binding upon him and sought consequential reliefs following from that declaration. The first defendant replied by impeaching the validity of the plaintiff's adoption. She contended that the adoption made by her was not authorised by the will, Ex. A, and that it was therefore invalid. Various other questions were raised by the issues framed in the case; the question of the construction of the authority an...
S.A. Ramanathan Chettiar Vs. M.P. Palaniappa Chettiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-20-1938
Reported in: AIR1939Mad531; (1939)1MLJ154
Pandrang Row, J.1. This appeal is from the decree of the Subordinate Judge of Devakottai dated 10th September, 1935, declaring that the judgment passed by this Court in Appeal No. 400 of 1928 on 13th February, 1934, reversing the decree of the lower Court in O. S. No. 33 of 1927 was obtained by fraud of the defendant in the present suit and was therefore null and void as against the plaintiffs therein. O. S. No. 33 of 1927 was a suit for contribution by the plaintiffs based on a certain decree passed against two firms, namely, the M. P. Firm represented by the present plaintiffs and the S. A. Firm of which the then proprietor was the present appellant, that is, the defendant in the suit. That suit was first of all decreed by the Subordinate Judge and when the decree came up in appeal it was set aside on the ground that the joint decree on the basis of which contribution was claimed was not a valid decree as the defendant was a minor at the time the decree was passed and was not then re...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »