Chennai Court March 1940 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.
Pappammal and ors. Vs. Sethammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-15-1940
Reported in: (1940)1MLJ813
Horwill, J.1. The petitioners filed this suit for a declaration that the property left by first petitioner's deceased husband belonged to her and for an injunction restraining the first defendant, a co-widow, from interfering with her possession. The first defendant resisted the suit on the ground that the property was the self-acquired property of her husband and that he had left a will by which he bequeathed all the property with the exception of items 9 and 10 to the defendants. The first plaintiff replied that her husband was not then in a sound disposing state of mind and that the will was therefore not binding on her. The plaintiff paid such Court-fee as she thought sufficient; but during the course of the trial, the Court-Fee Examiner discovered that a higher Court-fee was payable. The plaintiff then declared that she was unable to pay that higher Court-Fee and prayed for permission to continue the suit in forma pauperis. That petition was dismissed by the District Munsif of Tir...
Attili Rajagopala Rao Vs. Sri A.V. Bhanoji Rao and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-15-1940
Reported in: AIR1940Mad765; (1940)1MLJ811
Horwill, J.1. The plaintiff was a purchaser of an item of land from the first defendant and she seems to have had some difficulty in obtaining possession of the property, which the third defendant claims as his by virtue of long possession. She brought a suit against the first defendant, her vendor, the third defendant, who claimed to have been in enjoyment of the property, and the second defendant, a tenant of the third defendant, for possession of the land and in the alternative for the return of the purchase money with damages.2. The first defendant was declared ex parte. That meant that the plaintiff was able to obtain the return of the purchase money with which she would have been satisfied. She therefore reported to the Court that she did not press the suit against defendants 2 and 3, and the suit as against them was withdrawn, the obtained merely a decree against the first defendant for the purchase money and damages. Unfortunately for the plaintiff, the first defendant was able...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Madras and Southern Mahratta Railway Co ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-14-1940
Reported in: (1940)2MLJ110
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. The assessee in this case is the Madras and Southern Mahratta Railway Company, Limited, which was incorporated in England in. 1882. The main object of the incorporation of the company was the fulfillment of a contract with the Secretary of State for India in Council for the construction and carrying on of a railway in India. After the incorporation, the contract was duly entered into and in accordance therewith the company constructed, equipped and maintained the railway to which the contract related and supplied the necessary staff for its working. The Secretary of State provided the land required for the railway and also the moneys necessary for its construction and working. All the assets of the undertaking including the rails, plant, machinery and rolling stock were to be and are his property. The company manages the railway under the supervision and control of the Secretary of State, who is empowered to/appoint one member of the Board of Directors...
Commissioner of Income Tax, Madras Vs. Madras and Southern Maharashtra ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-14-1940
Reported in: [1940]8ITR280(Mad)
LEACH, C.J. - The assessee in this case is the Madras and Southern Mahratta Railway Company Limited, which was incorporated in England in 1882. The main object of the incorporation of the company was the fulfillment of a contract with the Secretary of State for India in Council for the construction and carrying on of a railway in India. After the incorporation, the contract was duly entered into and in accordance therewith the company constructed, equipped and maintained the railway to which the contract related and supplied the necessary staff for its working. The Secretary of State provided the land required for the railway and also the money necessary for its construction and working. All the assets of the undertaking including the rails, plant, machinery and rolling stock were to be and are his property. The company manages the railway under the supervision and control of the secretary of State, who is empowered to appoint one member of the Board of Directors. The court had been in...
Rama Rao Vs. VenkataramayyA.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-13-1940
Reported in: [1940]8ITR450(Mad)
ORDER OF REFERENCEThe relevant portion of the Order of Reference delivered by Wadsworth, J., on March 13, 1940 was as follows :-'The most conclusive piece of evidence on this question of the previous existence of the promissory note for Rs. 24,400 is provided by Exs. E and H which are certified copies of the income statement and profit and loss statement, the latter purporting to have been signed by the plaintiff on 17th May 1933, the former of which sets forth this debt of Rs. 24,400 as due to the respondent. There is, however, a serious difficulty with reference to the admissibility of this evidence. Objection was taken to it at the time when it was tendered and we deem it necessary to refer to a Full Bench the question of its admissibility in view of the decision of our learned brothers Burn and Stodart, JJ., in the case of Mythili Ammal v. Janaki Ammal. In our opinion the evidential value of these Income-tax documents is such that if they are admitted, the correctness of the lower ...
V.K.R.S.T. Narayanan Chettiar and (dead) and Ors. Vs. the Right Hon'bl ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-08-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Mad561; (1941)1MLJ543
Horwill, J.1. On the 31st December, 1932, the share of the third defendant in a house and garden was brought to sale by the Revenue authorities because of his failure to pay income-tax. The third defendant's share is said to be worth Rs. 17,000. It was actually sold for Rs. 800. On 23rd February, 1933, the Sub-Collector, in the absence of any application to set aside the sale, confirmed it. The second defendant, a creditor of the third defendant, had attached the same property in execution of a money decree on the 31st March, 1933 and on the same date he filed an application before the Collector under Regulation VII of 1828. The Collector, exercising his powers of revision set aside the order of the Sub-Collector of the 23rd February, 1933, confirming the sale. The Collector was of opinion that two material irregularities had been committed (1) an incomplete description of the third defendant's interest in the house and garden and (2) that the property had been sold in one lot instead ...
T.S. Pichu Ayyangar Vs. Sri Perarulala Ramanuja Jeer Swamigal, Dharmak ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-06-1940
Reported in: AIR1940Mad756; (1940)1MLJ882
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. In 1933 an application was made by 20 worshippers of the Sri Alagiananibirayar temple in the Tinnevelly District to the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Board for an order directing an inquiry to be held into the question whether the Board should frame a scheme for the administration of the temple and its endowments. The Board held an inquiry and as the result of the investigation decided that it was not necessary to frame a scheme. The applicants then filed a suit in the Court of the District Judge of Tinnevelly with the object of obtaining the settlement of a scheme under a decree of the Court. The suit was defended by the trustee, who is the respondent in this appeal. It is unnecessary to set out all the objections to the suit. It is sufficient to say that the main objection was that the Court had no power to frame a scheme. On this question a preliminary issue was framed and was answered by the District Judge in favour of the plaintiffs. Thereupon...
Pavayi and ors. Vs. Palanivela Goundan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-06-1940
Reported in: AIR1940Mad470; (1940)1MLJ766
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. This appeal raises a question of limitation and one of some difficulty. The appellants filed a suit in the Court of the District Munsif of Salem to enforce a mortgage which had been created on the 12th November, 1913 by a Hindu father and his son. The appellants are the assignees of an interest in the mortgage. Under the terms of the mortgage deed the debt became payable in one year. On the 16th January, 1919 a creditor of the mortgagors obtained a money decree against them and in execution of that decree purchased the equity of redemption. On the 16th December, 1920, the first mortgagor paid to the mortgagees Rs. 200, towards the amount of interest then due in respect of the mortgage debt. A record of this payment was endorsed on the deed and signed by the first mortgagor. A suit to enforce the mortgage was filed on the 9th December, 1932. The question which arises is whether the payment of the Rs. 200, on the 16th December, 1920, saves the suit from ...
Soundararajappa Mudaliar Vs. Minor Krishna Aiyar, by Guardian Raghaven ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-06-1940
Reported in: (1940)1MLJ912
Burn, J.1. The decisions of the lower Courts are clearly wrong. The suit in this case was one in which the plaintiff claimed two reliefs (1) a declaration that the first defendant's appointment as karnam of Kondampatti was illegal and (2) registry of his own name as holder of the office of karnam. The office of karnam in Kondampatti is hereditary and the plaintiff's case was based on the allegation that he was the nearest heir to one Krishnamurthi the last registered office-holder. This suit was exactly a suit of the kind described in Section 13(1) of the Madras Hereditary Village Offices Act (III of 1895). Consequently the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts was barred by Section 21 of the Act (III of 1895).2. It makes no difference that the first defendant is a stranger to the family of the plaintiff. The lower courts have been led astray by the decision in Ramakrishnayya v. Venkataranga Rao : (1932)63MLJ577 . That was a case in which a certain hereditary office had been abolished under...
In Re: T. Palaniswami Goundan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-06-1940
Reported in: AIR1940Mad586
Lakshmana Rao, J.1. There was a disturbance near the houses of P.Ws. 5 to 15 at Vengipalayam about 8 P.M. on 29th January 1939 and one Swami Goundan who intervened was fatally wounded. Grievous hurt was caused to P.Ws. 6 and 7 and simple hurt was caused to P.Ws. 5 and 8 to 15. The occurrence was reported to P.W. 18, the Village Munsif, without delay, and Swami Goundan died next morning of coma due to a depressed fracture of the frontal bone caused by a stone. He had also another injury on the head due to beating with a stick and P.W. 6 had two injuries on the head due to beating with sticks. The frontal bone at the base of one of these injuries was fractured and P.W. 7 had a contusion covering the outer side of the lower third of the left arm and elbow, with simple fracture of the left humerus.2. The appellants are stated to have gone in a body and created the disturbance and all of them have been convicted under Section 147, I.P.C. Appellant 5 is alleged to have caused the fatal injur...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »