Chennai Court March 1941 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.
Koodallor Manakkal Narayanan Nambudiripad Vs. M. Achuthan Nayar (Died) ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-20-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Mad120; (1941)2MLJ584
Wadsworth, J.1. Each of these petitions raises a question as to the effect of proviso (D) to Section 3(ii) of Madras Act IV of 1938. The applicant whose case is dealt with in C.R.P. No. 1638 of 1939 is a jenmi who paid as jenmi just over Rs. 400 land revenue. But he also paid a similar sum as a kanomdar under contracts whereby the obligation to pay land revenue was undertaken by him. It does not appear that there had been any registration under Section 14 of the Malabar Land Registration Act so as to make this obligation to pay the land revenue statutory in respect of the kanom land.2. The applicant in the case covered by C.R.P. No. 1835 of 1939 is a jenmi who paid as a jenmi Rs. 430 but also was liable to ryotwari assessment amounting to about Rs. 300.3. The question is whether in proviso (D) the words:is a jenmi under the Malabar Tenancy Act, 1929 who pays any sum exceeding Rs. 500 as land revenueshould be taken to refer only to the land revenue paid by the jenmi on his jenmam land a...
Sri Raja Velugoti Venkata Rajagopala Krishna Yachendra Bahadur Varu Vs ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-20-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Mad78; (1941)2MLJ655
Wadsworth, J.1. This revision petition is preferred by the landholder against an order of the Special Deputy Collector of Chandragiri purporting to have been passed under Section 15 (4) of Madras Act IV of 1938. The applicant before the learned Deputy Collector was the owner of a 3/16 share in an agraharam and he claimed the right to get the jodi scaled down on the basis of a deposit of the arrears for faslis 1346 and 1347, not of the whole jodi of the agraharam but of the proportionate arrears due on his 3/16 share. The learned Deputy Collector, accepting evidence that in practice the applicant had been paying his proportionate share of the rent separately from the other agraharamdars and that these payments had been received, held that the liability of the applicant was only a liability for 3/16 of the total jodi and allowed the application. It does not appear to have been realised in the Court below that the question whether the liability of the applicant was a joint and several lia...
Kandasami Chettiar and anr. Vs. Gokuldas Madanji and Co. and Bombay Ca ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-19-1941
Reported in: AIR1941Mad731; (1941)1MLJ837
King, J. 1. The question which arises in this appeal is one of limitation. The appellants are the decree-holders who filed an application in 1932 upon which the final order was passed on 30th August, 1932. That order was to transmit the decree for execution to Bombay. In February, 1935 another application was made by the decree-holders, again with the request that the decree should be transferred to Bombay for execution. That application was disposed of on the 27th February, in the following language by an endorsement upon the petition:Copy of the decree has not been received from the High Court Bombay--returned.2. In March, 1937 the original petition which had been presented in 1935 was again presented before the Court. It was signed by a fresh vakil as the original vakil who had signed it in 1935 was then dead, and the new date 22nd March, 1937 was appended to his signature. But at the same time the vakil mentioned to the Court that he was re-presenting the old application. This appl...
In Re: Nachal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-19-1941
Reported in: AIR1941Mad746
Lakshmana Rao, J.1. The accused has been convicted under Section 304(2), Penal Code, for causing the death of her father-in-law Irula Mooppan by beating with stones and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for five years. She appeals against the conviction and the same was taken up by Wadsworth J. on the ground that the offence committed would be voluntarily causing hurt. The accused and Irula Mooppan were not friendly, and Irula Mooppan went to P.W. 5's house on the evening of 23rd September last with some injuries, due to beating with stones. He told P.W. 5 that the injuries were caused by the accused and her daughters aged about ten and eight years, and went to P.W. 7's house for the night. He stated so to P.W. 7 also, and went to P.W. 8's house next morning. He told P.W. 8 that he was held by the tuft by the accused and assaulted with stones by her daughters and left saying that he would report to the Village Munsif. He was found dead at the Pillayar Koil about noon, and death was du...
In Re: Rama Goundan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-19-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Mad275a
Mockett, J.1. The appellant has been convicted of the murder of his cousin and has been sentenced to death by the learned Additional Sessions Judge of Coimbatore. There is no question that on 24th September last Parama Goundan was murdered. His body was exhumed on 2nd October from the garden of the accused (After discussing the evidence, his Lordship proceeded.) In these circumstances we think that the learned Sessions Judge quite rightly drew the inference from these facts that the accused deliberately murdered his cousin and quite rightly rejected the story told at a somewhat late stage and only when the body was revealed that it was done in a manner which might have reduced this offence to some lesser offence.2. The whole of the circumstances in this case point to the fact that for some reasons which may not ever be ascertained this was a deliberate murder and a deliberate attempt at concealment. We therefore confirm the conviction and dismiss the appeal. Similarly, in a case of thi...
S.S.S. Chokkalingam Chettiar and Sons, Through the Manager, S.S.S. Cho ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-18-1941
Reported in: (1941)1MLJ776
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. The assessee was a partner in a money lending firm carrying on business in Rangoon. The firm was dissolved and as his share of the assets the assessee was allotted two debts due by a customer of the firm. These debts were secured on mortgages of immovable properties. In the first place the customer was given an advance of Rs. 40,000 and in respect of this sum a first mortgage of the properties was created. Later he was given a further advance of Rs. 10,850, which was secured by a second mortgage of the same properties. As the result of the arrangement entered into on the dissolution of the partnership the assessee became the lender of the two sums and entitled to realize the security which had been given. He filed a suit against the debtor, but as he considered that the properties were not worth more than Rs. 50,000, he limited his claim to this amount. With interest the amount due on the first mortgage was Rs. 71,220. He waived Rs. 21,220 of the inter...
The Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. M. Jamal Mohamed Sahib, Trustee for ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-18-1941
Reported in: AIR1941Mad535; (1941)2MLJ148
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. The assessee in this case is the muthavalli of a wakf called the Allajanathud-Deeniya, which was created by one Jamal Mohideen Sahib by a deed, dated the 21st December, 1923. The deed directs that half of the annual net income shall be utilised for the expenses of maintenance, education, marriage, funeral and other necessities of such members of the donor's family in the male line as in the opinion of the muthavalli are in poor and needy circumstances. The muthavalli himself is allowed to benefit from this portion of the net annual income if he also happens to be in poor and needy circumstances. The other half of the annual net income is to be utilised for such charitable purposes as (a) helping new converts to Islam by giving them religious instruction, (b) giving help to Muslim orphans, (c) giving secular, especially industrial and technical education to Muslims, (d) helping poor and needy Muslims of the Sunni sect, (e) spreading knowledge of the Isl...
A.R.A.N.T. Narayanan Chettiar Vs. the Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-18-1941
Reported in: (1941)2MLJ172
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. This reference will be answered in accordance with the opinion expressed by the Commissioner of Income-tax in his statement of the case. The assessee was a partner in a firm carrying on a money-lending business at Kedah in the Federated Malay States under the vilasam of A. K. R. M. M. K. The senior partner was one Meyappa Chettiar, who was also a partner in a firm of money-lenders doing business at Rangoon under the same vilasam, but the assessee had no interest in the Rangoon firm. The Kedah business resulted in considerable profits being made and it is accepted that in 1931 the assessee's share of these profits amounted to at least Rs. 30,000. In that year a sum of Rs. 30,000 was remitted from Kedah to Meyappa's firm in Rangoon and placed in a suspense account. On the 12th April, 1932, Meyappa caused the money to be transferred to the credit of the assessee's account in the books of the Rangoon firm and then utilised it in discharge of the assessee's...
Devarajulu Naidu (Died) and anr. Vs. Jayalakshmi Ammal and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-18-1941
Reported in: AIR1941Mad767(2); (1941)2MLJ222
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit filed by the appellants in the City Civil Court to recover a sum of Rs. 2,200 from the first and second respondents. A decree was passed for Rs. 187-12-0 only, the balance of the claim being dismissed on the ground that the suit to that extent was barred by the law of limitation. The question is whether Article 62 or Article 120 of the Limitation Act applies to the case.2. On the 9th January, 1931, the appellants, who are brothers, sold certain immovable properties to one Krishnaswami Naidu for Rs. 3,000 and in part discharge of the purchase consideration Krishnaswami Naidu executed a promissory note for Rs. 1,560 in favour of the first respondent, who is the wife of the first appellant. The husband and the wife quarrelled and she eventually left him. On the 5th November, 1931, the first respondent fraudulently endorsed the promissory note to Dorai-swami Naidu, the father of the second respondent, who was said to have b...
A.R.A.N.T. Narayanan Chettiar Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-18-1941
Reported in: AIR1941Mad677
Leach, C.J.1. This reference will be answered in accordance with the opinion expressed by the Commissioner of Income-tax in his statement of the case. The assesses was a partner in a firm carrying on a money-lending business at Kedah in the Federated Malay States under the vilasam of A. K. E. M. M. K. The senior partner was one Meyappa Chettiar, who was also a partner in a firm of money-lenders doing business at Rangoon under the same vilasam, but the assessee had no interest in the Rangoon firm. The Kedah business resulted in considerable profits being made, and it is accepted that in 1931 the assessee's share of these profits amounted to at least Rs. 30,000. In that year a sum of Rs. 30,000 was remitted from Kedah to Meyappa's firm in Eangoon and placed in a suspense account. On 12th April 1932 Meyappa caused the money to be transferred to the credit of the assessee's account in the books of the Rangoon firm and then utilized it in discharge of the assessee's indebtedness to the Rang...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »