Chennai Court November 1942 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.
Kailasam Pillai Vs. Sivabagyammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-17-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Mad373; (1943)1MLJ203
Krishnaswamy Ayyangar, J. 1. This appeal arises out of a suit instituted by the respondent for the recovery of possession of a house situated in the village of Athur in the Salem District together with mesne profits. The appellant is the son of one Nathamuni Pillai who died on 26th April, 1935. The respondent is the widowed sister of Nathamuni. The house in dispute stands on a site purchased in parcels on four different occasions. The first purchase was under Ex. I, a sale deed, dated 22nd May, 1903, executed in favour of the respondent for Rs. 72-8-0. The second purchase was under Ex. I-A, dated 14th August, 1904, for Rs. 100 and this sale deed was taken not only in the name of the respondent but also of her deceased husband Velayudham. The third purchase was under Ex. I-A, dated 12th October, 1925. Here again the sale was in favour of the respondent alone, the consideration amount being Rs. 400. It is common ground that at the severa dates when the purchases were made there were some...
iskapalle Ramiah Vs. Meda Ramiah
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-16-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Mad330; (1943)1MLJ32
Wadsworth, J.1. The petitioner was indebted to the respondent under a mortgage-deed, dated the 28th January, 1929. The respondent sued on the mortgage and got a decree on the 31st August, 1937. That decree was the subject of an appeal to the District Court When the Madras Act IV of 1938 came into force the petitioner filed a petition in the appellate Court praying for relief under the Act in respect of the decree. The petition was posted along with the appeal and on the day on which the learned District Judge dismissed the appeal he passed an order on the petition to the effect that,the Court which has to be moved for the scaling down of the debts is the Court that passed the decree. I forward the petition and connected records filed in this suit to the learned District Munsiff of Nandyal for disposal according to law.There was no reservation made in the appellate judgment providing that the appellate Court's decree would be subject to the result of the petition which was sent to the D...
M.P. Krishnaswami Pillai Vs. Chockalingam Chettiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-16-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Mad455; (1943)1MLJ169
Abdur Rahman, J.1. The only question that awaits to be determined in this appeal relates to the form in which a preliminary decree in a suit for sale brought by a puisne mortgagee should be passed when the prior mortgagee was impleaded as a party to the action and was willing to have the property sold free from his incumbrance on the condition that he should be paid first out of the proceeds of the property mortgaged with him. The trial Court passed such a decree but on appeal by the puisne mortgagee, the District Judge of Trichinopoly modified it and ordered (he property to be sold subject to the prior incumbrance. He did so as he was of opinion that Order 34, Rule 12, Civil Procedure Code, could be of no avail to the prior mortgagee, and that he could not, according to a decision of this Court reported in Venkatesa Aiyangar v. Manikkavachakam Chetty : AIR1935Mad660 make an application under that rule. The prior mortgagee, who figured as the 7th defendant in this litigation, appeals.2...
Muhammad Yusuf Sahib Vs. the Province of Madras, Represented by the Co ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-16-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Mad341; (1943)1MLJ251
Somayya, J.1. The decision of this Court reported in Rajah of Ramnad v. Subramaniam Chettiar I.L.R.(1928) Mad. 465 is directly in point. There a suit was filed against a minor who was a ward of the Court of Wards. The suit was decreed against him and there were a number of appeals and the appeal in which this question arose was Appeal No. 57 of 1918. That is dealt with on pages 483 and 484 of the report. The objection raised was that no notice had been given to the ward, as provided under Section 49(1) of the Court of Wards Act and that therefore the decision of the lower Court should be reversed. Then their Lordships stated thus:This suit has, however, been brought under Order 21, Rule 63, to set aside the order of Court dismissing the plaintiff's claim petition and it must be deemed to be a continuation of those proceedings and therefore no fresh notice to the appellant is necessary. The argument that a suit may be a continuation of the prior proceedings when the claim is allowed but...
Pappammal Alias Muthu Karuppayyee Ammal Vs. Meenammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-13-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Mad139; (1943)1MLJ1
1. The question which has been referred is whether the word 'sister' in the Hindu Law of Inheritance (Amendment) Act, 1929, includes a half-sister. That Act was passed because the Legislature deemed it to be expedient to alter the order in which certain heirs of a Hindu male dying intestate are entitled to succeed to his estate. Section 2 says that a son's daughter, daughter's daughter, sister, and sister's son shall, in the order so specified, be entitled to rank in the order of succession, next after a father's father and before a father's brother. There is a conflict of opinion on the question whether the word 'sister' includes a half-sister. The Allahabad High Court in Ram Adhar v. Sudesra I.L.R. (1933) All. 725, has held that the word 'sister' does not include a half-sister, and this decision has been followed by this Court in Angamuthu Muthirian v. Sinnapennammal (1937) 47 L.W. 286, and by the Patna High Court in Mst. Daulat Kuer v. Bishundeo Singh I.L.R. Pat. 382. On the other h...
Sri Venkateswaraswami Varu of Bezwada, by Trustees Rampilla Appalaswam ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-12-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Mad327; (1943)1MLJ66
Kuppuswami Ayyar, J.1. This is a petition by the managing trustees of the temple of Sri Venkateswara Swami Varu of Bezwada for revising the order of the learned Subordinate Judge of Bezwada in O. P. No. 33 of 1937 holding that a reference made to him under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act by the Sub-Collector of Bezwada was incompetent and that the subject-matter of the reference cannot be enquired into by him. Certain properties of the temple were acquired under the Land Acquisition Act and an award was made on the 16th May, 1937. The temple had then only two trustees holding the office and a third trustee was appointed by the Hindu Religious Endowments Board on 4th May, 1937, for a period of five years from that day. But he seems to have got the order actually subsequent to 31st May, 1937. He gave an application to the Land Acquisition Officer on 1st October, 1937, requesting him as Collector to make a reference under Section 18 of the Act as the amount fixed by the award was i...
Yarlagadda Abbayi Alias Veeranna and anr. Vs. the Official Receiver
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-12-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Mad369; (1943)1MLJ39
Horwill, J.1. On the 7th September, 1932, the appellants filed a partition suit against their father. Subsequently, he was adjudged an insolvent on an insolvency petition filed by a creditor on the 26th June, 1933. On the 1st August, 1933, a preliminary partition decree was passed in the partition suit; and on the 21st September, 1934, the decree became final. The Official Receiver thereupon filed an application under Section 53 of the Provincial Insolvency Act to set aside the partition decree on the ground that it was fraudulent and collusive. His application was also under Section 4 of the Act, in that he asked in the alternative that the partition which was grossly unfair and intended to screen as much property as possible from the creditors might be re-opened. The application was dismissed. In appeal, the learned District Judge held the opposite view; arid finding that the suit was a collusive one he set it aside under Section 53 of the Act. He did not find it necessary to give an...
Daggupati Nayudamma Vs. Salt Sivaraju Dharamchand Kottuvaru and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-10-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Mad515; (1943)1MLJ394
Kuppuswami Ayyar, J.1. The only question for consideration in these two appeals is whether the attachment before judgment effected in a suit can be availed of by a plaintiff decree-holder whose suit was originally dismissed by the trial Court but was decreed subsequently allowing a review petition filed by him.2. The appellants in both these appeals are purchasers from the judgment-debtor in O.S. No. 37 of 1931 on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Tenali. That was a suit on a promissory note executed by a lady. The properties in dispute in both these appeals were attached before judgment at the instance of the plaintiff. The suit was dismissed on the ground that the thumb impression in the document was not that of the defendant. The parties proceeded under the impression that the impression was that of the left thumb, but it was subsequently discovered that the impression was that of the right thumb; a review application was filed and the review was allowed. After the review w...
P.N.V. Ratnaswami Nadar Vs. Virudhunagar Municipal Council, Through It ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-10-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Mad553; (1943)1MLJ406
Kuppuswami Ayyar, J.1. The appellant was the plaintiff, whose suit for an injunction restraining the Commissioner of the Virudhunagar Municipality from starting or proceeding with any legal action against the plaintiff to remove the cornice and other projections in front of his house and for a declaration that he is entitled to keep the said cornice and other projections intact without any objection by the defendant, was dismissed by the appellate Court, though it was decreed, except in respect of the stone steps leading to the house, by the first Court.2. The appellant is the owner of a big house situate in a lane within the municipal limits of Virudhunagar municipality. Even in the lifetime of the appellant's father the municipality issued a notice to him to remove certain projections in and over the street in front of the house. The projections consisted of some cornices in the first and second terraces, monkey tops over the windows, steps leading to the house and a kodangai over th...
The Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. the Bar Council
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-09-1942
Reported in: (1942)2MLJ782
ORDERAlfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.6. The Chief Justice.--The learned Advocate-General on behalf of the Bar Council states that the Council will utilise its income from investments solely for legal education and for expenses, including establishment charges, in connection therewith. In future separate accounts will be maintained for this purpose. In past years the Council have been treating the investments and income therefrom as applicable to legal education, though no separate accounts have been maintained in respect of the investments. This makes it perfectly clear that the income of the Council received from investments is not taxable. As we have pointed out in our Order, dated the 2nd November, 1942, the income from enrolment and examination fees is taxable. The Commissioner of Income-tax accepts the statement of the learned Advocate-General.7. In these circumstances the assessment for the years in question should be made on this basis. The questions referred will be answered in ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »