Chennai Court November 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.
Minor Varadarajam Pillai by Guardian Malayaperumal Pillai Vs. Krishnam ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-04-1938
Reported in: AIR1939Mad436; (1939)1MLJ680
King, J.1. The appellant here is the successor in interest of the mortgagor who on 1st September, 1926, executed a mortgage deed in favour of the plaintiff's father for Rs. 10,000. In 1932, the mortgagor executed a promissory note to the plaintiff himself for the interest then due upon the mortgage bond. Later in 1932, the plaintiff filed a suit and obtained a decree for the claim upon the promissory note and in 1934, he brought an application in execution asking the Court to attach 16 items of property of which all but the first two were the subject-matter of the mortgage. This claim was resisted by the appellant on the ground that Order 34, Rule 14 applied. Both the Courts below have held that Order 34, Rule 14 does not apply to the facts of this case and this is the point for determination in this second appeal.2. The rule in question runs as follows:Where a mortgagee has obtained a decree for payment of money in satisfaction of a claim arising under the mortgage, he shall not be en...
Yarlagadda Ranganayakulu Naidu Bahadur Vs. Myneni Lakshminarayana and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-04-1938
Reported in: AIR1940Mad175
Venkataramana Rao, J.1. This is a batch of 36 appeals which arise out of suits brought by the appellant, the zamindar of Katur estate, against his tenants in occupation of the lands in the village of Kummannur in his zamindari for recovery of arrears of rent for faslis 1338 to 1340 under Section 77, Estates Land Act. The lands comprise 311 acres 96 cents in extent. The tenants do not dispute the liability to pay rent but only to the rate claimed. The lands were admittedly dry in or about 1860 but most of them have since been converted into wet. The point in controversy is whether the defendants are liable to pay wet rates in respect of those lands or dry rates. The reason why the tenants refused to pay weft rates is that the zamindar has failed to fulfil his obligation of effecting repairs to the main channels which supply water to the lands. One of the questions that fell to be decided therefore was whether there was such an obligation. The lands being originally dry, the tenants were...
S.P. Perumal Chettiar Vs. M.K. Kondal Chetty and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-03-1938
Reported in: AIR1939Mad430; (1939)1MLJ80
Burn, J.1. The appellant is the owner of 1/34, Selva Vinayakar Koil Street, Old Washermanpet, Madras. This house is the superstructure upon a site belonging to the respondents, and the appellant pays ground rent to the respondents. The respondents applied by a petition under Section 7 of the Madras City Tenants Protection Act (Madras Act III of 1922) to the City Civil Court to fix a reasonable rent for the occupation of the land on which the appellant's house is built. The ground rent previously paid was Rs. 7 per1 month. The learned Principal Judge of the City Civil Court heard the application, came to the conclusion that a reasonable rent would be Rs. 7-12-0 and fixed the rent at that figure. This is Within the limit fixed by the proviso to Section 7 of the Act. The proviso is:That the rent previously payable for the land shall not be enhanced by more than two annas in the rupee.2. The appellant has filed this appeal purporting to be under Section 15 of the City Civil Court Act read ...
Thumbalam Gooty Thimmiah Vs. the Official Receiver of Bellary and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-02-1938
Reported in: AIR1939Mad276; (1939)1MLJ158
Abdur Rahman, J.1. The only question which has to be determined in this revision is whether a creditor in insolvency who happens to hold a debt, free from any taint of immorality or illegality, incurred by a father as manager of a joint Hindu family has any priority over the debts incurred by a son who was a junior member of the joint family when both the father and the son were adjudicated insolvents by one order in an insolvency petition. In order to support his contention that the creditors of the father would take precedence over those of his son the learned Counsel for the petitioner tried to invoke the principle under which the father's power to sell the joint family property for his just debts has been held to subsist at the time of partition and bearing his powers as a karta of the family in mind the Courts have usually provided for the payment of such debts out of the joint estate before the properties belonging to the joint Hindu family have been partitioned. It has been subm...
Santhappa and ors. Vs. Siddalingayya Eswarappa Bulla, Minor by Next Fr ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-02-1938
Reported in: AIR1939Mad378; (1939)1MLJ827
Burn, J.1. These are appeals from the orders of the learned District Judge of Bellary passed on two execution petitions. The principal objection raised on behalf of the judgment-debtor's was that the execution petitions were barfed by limitation-They contended also that the decree-holder had applied for the attachment of property which by the terms of the decrees he was not entitled to attach and sell. The decrees in the suits were passed on the 10th March, 1927. These execution petitions were filed on the 5th April, 1936. Prima facie, they are barred by limitation. But the decree-holder relies upon two earlier applications which he made on the 6th April, 1933, to the Court of the Additional First Class Sub-Judge, Dharwar (the Court which passed the decrees) for transmission of the decrees to Bellary for execution. It is admitted that if these applications of the 6th April, 1933, were applications made to the proper Court, and in accordance with law, the applications put in on the 5th ...
M.S.S. Chidambaram Chettiar and anr. Vs. the Commissioner of Income-ta ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-01-1938
Reported in: (1939)1MLJ43
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. This reference arises out of an assessment of an undivided Hindu family the members of which are M.S.S. Chidambaram Chettiar and Meyappa Chettiar. The assessees are partners in various money-lending firms in the Federated Malay States and in Burma, and carry on the same kind of business at Karaikudi where they have their headquarters. One of their foreign firms does business at Ipoh in the Federated Malay States. Owing to the financial depression which existed there this firm was compelled to take over in satisfaction of debts due to it immovable properties which had been mortgaged as security for debts. The values of these immovable properties were treated as representing in part the return of capital and in part profits. The total profits of the firm were calculated and it was found that they amounted to $1,27,806 of which $74,570 was represented by land. The assessees' share in the sum of $74,570 was $53,264. During the year of account (1933-34) the...
The Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Valliammai Achi, Wife of S.M.A.M. R ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-01-1938
Reported in: (1939)1MLJ31
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. The assessee who is a resident of Pallathur in the Madras Presidency owns a saw mill at Gyobingauk in Burma. In the account year, that is the year commencing from the 1st April, 1936, the saw mill business resulted in a loss of Rs. 8,663 and her income consisted solely of interest received from investments. For the purpose of assessment to income-tax she sought to set off the loss sustained in the saw mill business against the profits from her investments. The Income-tax Officer refused to allow her to do so on the ground that on the 1st April, 1937, Burma had ceased to be part of British India, and the loss having been sustained outside British India, it could not be set off. On these facts the Commissioner of Income-tax has referred to the Court the following question:-Whether the decision of the Assistant Commissioner that the loss of Rs. 8,663 incurred by the petitioner in Burma in the year of account 1936-37 is not allowable as a deduction in the ...
Somavarapu Balarami Reddi Vs. the Official Receiver
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-01-1938
Reported in: AIR1939Mad291; (1939)1MLJ205
Abdur Rahman, J.1. This appeal raises a question of some importance. It relates, to the interpretation of the word 'benefit' occurring in Section 51(1) of the Provincial Insolvency Act. The facts which have led to this appeal are that one Konjeti Seshiah filed a suit (O.S. No. 65 of 1931) for the recovery of money against Duvvur Rami Reddy and Subrarni Reddi. This was decreed on 7th October, 1932; but before the decree-holder could bring his judgment-debtor's property to sale in execution, an application for their adjudication was presented. This was admitted shortly after. The decree-holder nevertheless proceeded with his application for execution and brought the judgment-debtors' property to sale. Before the property was sold and money deposited in Court some other creditors who had also secured decrees against these judgment-debtors applied for execution and rateable distribution under Section 73, Civil Procedure Code. In spite of the pendency of the Insolvency Petition, the propert...
Konjeti Seshayya and anr. Vs. V. Rangiah, Official Receiver and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-01-1938
Reported in: AIR1939Mad896; (1939)1MLJ203
Abdur Rahman, J.1. The only contention which has been raised in this appeal is that an order of refund of the sale proceeds of the insolvents' property should not have been passed in favour of the Official Receiver, Nellore, on an application made by him and that he should have been directed to file a suit against the appellants for this purpose. The facts have been stated by me in the connected appeal No. 465 of 1936 and need not be repeated here. It is quite sufficient to state that the application was made by the Official Receiver to the Insolvency Court under Sections 4, 5, 51 and 52 of the Provincial Insolvency Act. A reference to Section 52 in the petition was, in the circumstances of the case, unnecessary as the insolvents' property was sold in execution of a decree after the petition for their adjudication had been admitted. A reference to Section 4 of the Act would show that an Insolvency Court has full power to decide all questions whether of title or priority, or of any natu...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras Vs. Valliammai Achi.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-01-1938
Reported in: [1938]6ITR720(Mad)
LEACH, C.J. - The assessee who is a resident of Pallathur in the Madras Presidency owns a saw mill at Gyothingauk in Burma. In the account year, that is the year commencing from the 1st April 1936, the saw mill business resulted in a loss of Rs. 8,663 and her income consisted solely of interest received from investments. For the purpose of assessment of income-tax she sought to set off the loss sustained in the saw mill business against the profits from her investments. The Income-tax Officer refused to allow her to do so on the ground that on the 1st April 1937 Burma had ceased to be part of British India, and the loss having been sustained outside British India it could not be set off. On these facts the Commissioner of Income-tax has referred to the Court the following question :- 'Whether the decision of the Assistant commissioner that the loss of Rs. 8,663 incurred by the Petitioner in Burma in the year of account 1936-37 is not allowable as a deduction in the year of assessment 1...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »