Chennai Court March 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.
Muthal Achi Vs. Doraisami Pillai and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-23-1942
Reported in: AIR1942Mad662; (1942)2MLJ123
Patanjali Sastri, J.1. The view taken by the lower Court that the plaintiff though, a woman was not entitled to claim the exemption under Section 4 (h) of Act IV of 1938 merely because her assignor a male was not entitled to such exemption is clearly unsupportable. Having taken the assignment the plaintiff became the owner of the debt and when she claims the benefit of the exemption provided by the Act for woman creditors, it is no answer to say that the original payee under the suit note was a male.2. Whether the plaintiff has fulfilled the other conditions necessary for the application of the provision has not been enquired into in the view taken by the lower Court. The decree of the Court below is therefore set aside and the case is remanded for enquiry and disposal according to law. Costs of this Civil Revision Petition will abide and follow....
Titti Krishnamurthi Vs. Sri Jagannadhapadhi Khadanga and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-23-1942
Reported in: AIR1942Mad598; (1942)2MLJ153
Wadsworth, J.1. The only question in this revision petition is whether the petitioner is excluded from the definition of agriculturist on the ground that he paid profession tax for two years preceding 1st October, 1937, so as to come within proviso (B) to Section 3(2) of the Madras Act IV of 1938. The facts are clearly established. The petitioner was assessed to profession tax for four years from 1933 to 1937. Apparently he made a protest in 1937, but there was no appeal filed in respect of any tax for any of these four years. In 1938 when the arrears of tax were demanded he objected that he had no property within the limits of the panchayat board and did not carry on any trade within those limits. Thereupon the president took legal advice and on being advised that the tax was not properly payable, he requested the orders of the Inspector of Local Boards whether he should enforce the collection of, the tax or write it off as irrecoverable. The Inspector advised the panchayat board that...
P.K. Subramania Ayyar Vs. K.T.S. Thandavamurthi Chetty
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-20-1942
Reported in: AIR1942Mad670; (1942)2MLJ115
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. The question here is whether a decree passed by the City Civil Court declaring that the appellant is entitled to a charge over the proceeds of the sale of property belonging to one Natesa is effective as against the respondent, who is Natesa's brother. In 1931 Sabapathi Chetti, the father of Natesa and the respondent, died leaving a will dated the 15th October, 1931, by which he bequeathed to Natesa a house known as 2|46, Erulappan Street, Madras and to the respondent a house known as 17,, Kuniarappa Mudali Street. The respondent was then a boy of about ten years of age. On the 28th. October, 1936 the estate of the minor was vested in the Official Trustee of Madras and as the guardian of the respondent's property he obtained probate of the father's will. Natesa had taken possession of both, the properties and the Official Trustee was compelled to file a suit (No. 79 of 1937) on the Original Side of this Court to recover possession of the minor's intere...
Sri Raja Manyam Kanakayya Garu Vs. Sriman Mudamba Venkata Ranga Anahar ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-20-1942
Reported in: AIR1942Mad649; (1942)2MLJ100
Wadsworth, J.1. The petitioner is a landholder against whom an application was preferred under Section 15 of Act IV of 1938. The main contention in revision is that the lower Court had no jurisdiction in an application under Section 15(4) of the Act to go into the question whether the applicant was entitled to any abatement of rent for non-possession of part of the lands in his holding or whether the applicant was entitled to any abatement of rent for failure of irrigation supply. The contention now put forward in revision is that the enquiry under Section 15 (4) must be confined to ascertaining what is the figure of rent according to the patta and whether that figure has been paid and that the Court is not entitled to go into subsidiary questions affecting liability for rent. No doubt in an ordinary case it would not be open to the Court under Section 15 (4) to entertain a plea which amounted in substance to an attempt to reduce the rent from that previously payable or even to enterta...
Saradambal Ammal and anr. Vs. T.C. Kuppusami Sastrigal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-20-1942
Reported in: AIR1942Mad663; (1942)2MLJ281
Patanjali Sastri, J.1. Two questions have been argued in this appeal: first, that the suit is barred by limitation so far as the third defendant is concerned, and, secondly, that the payments made have been wrongly appropriated by the lower Court towards interest though they were made towards principal and interest without any specific appropriation to principal or interest.2. The facts so far as they are material for the first question may be briefly stated. The promissory note on which the suit was brought was executed by the first defendant on her own behalf and as the guardian of her minor sons defendants 2, and. 3 who were members of an undivided Hindu family. Various payments were made by the first defendant from time to time and endorsed on the note, and the last of such payments was on 9th October, 1937. The suit was filed on 9th September, 1940. The second defendant who was the elder attained majority in 1930, and it was held by the lower Court that payments subsequently made ...
Chulliyat Govindan Nair Vs. Moozhiyut Imbichi Mammad
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-20-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Mad31; (1942)2MLJ422
Wadsworth, J.1. The petitioner here was the plaintiff in the lower Court and he filed a small cause suit for rent, The petitioner demised the land to the respondent in 1924 under a kanom document whereby he received Rs. 300 and the respondent undertook to pay annually Rs. 36 as rent or michavaram together with certain sundry charges. On 14th October, 1927, the petitioner borrowed a further sum. of Rs. 200 on what is known as a puramkadam which is embodied in a document the terms of which are that a further charge to the extent of Rs. 200 should be created over the jenm interest in favour of the kanomdar and that in consideration of this further advance, the petitioner jenmi agrees to pay Rs. 20 annually as labham and it is further provided that the respondent the kanomdar is entitled to adjust this sum of Rs. 20 annually towards the rent which he has to pay to the petitioner and pay only the balance. Now the petitioner in suing for rent claimed that this amount of labham which he was e...
The Public Prosecutor Vs. Bhasker Kamath
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-20-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Mad208(2); (1942)2MLJ628
Horwill, J.1. The appellant, as the manager of the Kallianpur Sugar Mills, Limited, was called upon by the Panchayat Board of Kallianpur to take out a licence for working his boiler. This he failed to do; and so he was prosecuted under Section 193 read with Section 207 of the Madras Local Boards Act. His vakil raised a preliminary objection before the Bench of Magistrates at Udipi that he, as manager, was not liable under that section; for Section 193 read with Section 207 makes punishable failure to take out a licence only by the owner or occupier. The Crown has appealed.2. 'Owner' is defined in the Act as including 'the person for the time being receiving or entitled to receive, whether on his own account or as agent, trustee, guardian, manager...the rent or profits of the property in connection with which the word is used. . . .' From this it is seen that although a manager may under certain circumstances be deemed to be the owner, it is not every manager who is an owner for the pur...
S. Subbiah Pillai and Sons Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-20-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Mad212; [1942]10ITR467(Mad)
.(Judgment of the Court was delivered by the Honourable the Chief Justice).The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Calcutta, has referred to this court under Section 66 (1) of the Income-tax Act the Following questions :-' (1) Whether the appeal is liable to be rejected as barred by limitation in the circumstances of the case.(2) Whether the assessee is entitled t a refund of the deposit of Rs. 100 when the appeal is rejected not on the merits but on the ground of limitation.'The reference discloses a surprising situation, but fortunately it is not likely to arise again. The assessee desired to appeal to the Tribunal against an order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, dated the 24the November, 1940. When this order was passed the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal had been constituted, but the assessee did not know, and had not the means of knowing, that the office of the Tribunal was to be opened in New Delhi. Section 33 of the Act, as now amended requires, that an appeal to the Appellate...
Karingamanna Melathil Karnavan Rama Kurup and Anr. Vs. Thirnnavaya, Ka ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-19-1942
Reported in: (1942)2MLJ99
Patanjali Sastri, J.1. The petitioner asks for return of the memo, of Civil Revision Petition for presentation to the District Court as an appeal as in view of the decision in Venkayya v. Pullayya : AIR1942Mad466 an appeal lies in a case like this to the District Court and the Civil Revision Petition is therefore incompetent. Mr. Govinda Menon for the petitioners relies on the provision of Order 7, Rule 10 read with Sections 107(2) and 141 of the Code of Civil Procedure as supporting the prayer. I do not consider that these provisions are applicable to the case as revisional jurisdiction is peculiar to this Court and there can be no question of returning the Civil Revision Petition for presentation as a Civil Revision Petition to any other Court in the province. The prayer cannot therefore be allowed. There can be no objection to the return to the petitioner of the enclosures he has filed and they will accordingly be returned.2. The Civil Revision Petition is dismissed with costs....
Rm. N.L. Kr. Ramanathan Chettiar Vs. Unnamalai Achi and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-18-1942
Reported in: AIR1942Mad632; (1942)2MLJ213
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. This appeal discloses a case of gross fraud and a fraud practised on the Court. The appellant was a party to this fraud and seeks to retain the benefit of his fraudulent conduct on a technical plea, but it is a source of satisfaction that this technical plea avails him of nothing. 2. The first respondent instituted a suit (O.S. No. 56 of 1934) in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Devakottai to recover moneys said to have been deposited by her with a money-lending firm carried on by the second respondent's father at Pyabwe in Burma. The second respondent contested the claims and said that he was only an agent and not a partner in the firm. On the 23rd January, 1935, the Court granted the first respondent a decree for Rs. 5,318-13-9, limited so far as the second respondent was concerned to his share in the family estate, as there was no proof that he was a partner. , On the 24th July, 1935, the first respondent commenced proceedings in execution and ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »