Chennai Court November 1943 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.
Muna Pona Muthupalani Chetty Vs. Suppiah Ambalam and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-08-1943
Reported in: AIR1944Mad250
ORDERByers, J.1. The petitioner challenges the jurisdiction of the executing Court to sell his property in execution of the decree against him, his objection being that he had already made an application for the settlement of his debts under Section 1, Madras Debt Conciliation Act, and, therefore, under Section 25 of the Act the executing Court was powerless to proceed further until that application had been dismissed. The sale proceedings were once adjourned but on the adjourned date it transpired that the application made to the Board was defective in material particulars. The Board, instead of following the mandatory provisions of Section 7 of the Act, chose to return the application for amendment. It was in the interval between this return and its re-presentation that the sale was held and the learned District Munsif took the view that the order directing the return of the application for amendment was equivalent to an order of rejection under Section 7 of the Act. It is possible a...
Atmaram Rao's Charity estate represented by Its trustee, Vasudeva Rao ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-05-1943
Reported in: AIR1944Mad171
Horwill, J.1. The appellant sued as trustee for recovery of trust property alienated to the respondent. The first Court dismissed the suit, holding that the appellant had failed to prove that he was a de jure trustee and that he could not succeed merely as a de facto trustee. The lower appellate Court substantially agreed with the District Munsif; but held that if the appellant was a de facto trustee, he could be given a declaratory decree that the alienation was not binding on the institution. The lower appellate Court, however, refused a decree for possession. Hence this appeal. The learned Subordinate Judge in holding that the appellant . was not entitled to possession as a de facto trustee purported to follow Vedakannu Nadar v. Singikulam Annadana Chatram A.I.R. 1938 Mad. 982. a decision in which a Bench of this Court held that a de facto trustee was a trustee de son tort and was in no better position than a trespasser. Mr. Sundaralingam argues that this decision is wrong; because ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Katragadda Madhusudhana Rao and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-05-1943
Reported in: AIR1944Mad248
Leach, C.J.1. We disagree with the opinion of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal that a question of law arises in this ease. The question is one of fact.2. Section 2(1)(b)(ii), Income-tax Act, defines agricultural income as income derived from land by the performance by a cultivator of any process ordinarily employed by a cultivator to render the produce raised or received by him fit to be taken to market. The assessees are growers of tobacco in the Kistna District. The leaf which they produce is used for the making of Virginia cigarettes. They have been in the habit of selling most of their produce to the Indian Leaf Tobacco Development Co., which has an office at Guntur. In order to make the leaf suitable for the market the assessees dry it by a process known as 'flue-curing.' There are four methods of curing tobacco: (1) flue-curing, (2) raw-curing, (3) ground or sun-curing, and (4) pit curing. Mr. Rama Rao Sahib who appears for the Commissioner of Income-tax admits that if the asses...
V. Subramania Ayyar Son of Vaidhyanatha Aiyer on Behalf of and in the ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-05-1943
Reported in: AIR1944Mad256
Wadsworth, J.1. The appellant is a creditor acting on behalf of and in the name of the Official Receiver in the insolvency of one Kumarappa Chetti. Kumarappa Chetti's grand-father many years ago on the occasion of the marriage of his son; the husband of the present respondent 1, received from respondent 1's family a deposit of the amount of her stridhanam. Following the usual Nattukottai Chetti practice, this money was left in the firm of the father-in-law to accumulate interest for the benefit of the bride and her offspring. The proprietor of the firm and both his sons having died, the insolvent Kumarappa became the proprietor of the firm and continued to hold this deposit along with other moneys of the business. There can be no doubt in the circumstances of the case that when he succeeded to the management of the family firm he must have been fully acquainted with the circumstances in which this deposit was made. A suit was filed for the return of the deposit with accumulated interes...
Alla Venkataramanna Vs. Palacherla Manqamma and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-05-1943
Reported in: AIR1944Mad457
Patanjali Sastri, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by respondent 1 for enforcement of an indemnity bond executed by defendant 1 for himself and as the father and guardian of defendant 2 in favour of defendants 4 and 5 who assigned it to respondent 1. The Additional Subordinate Judge of Coconada who tried the suit has passed a preliminary decree for payment of Rs. 12,122-5-6 the sum claimed, with subsequent interest and costs, and, in default, for sale of the immovable properties charged under the bond. Defendant 3 who purchased the rights of defendants 1 and 2 in the properties at an execution sale and was the sole contesting defendant in the Court below has preferred this appeal. The litigation has a long antecedent history, and attempts at compromise have only served to complicate it by giving rise to fresh technical pleas. Plaintiff's husband, who was the undivided younger brother of defendants 4 and 5, died in 1925 when she was yet a girl of ten years, and her father, ...
The Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras Vs. Katragadda Madhusudhana Rao ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-05-1943
Reported in: [1944]12ITR1(Mad)
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by the Honourable the Chief Justice).We disagree with the opinion of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal that a question of law arises in this case. The question is one of fact.Section 2(1) (b) (ii) of the Indian Income-tax Act defines agricultural income as income derived from land by the performance by a cultivator of any process ordinarily employed by a cultivator to render the produce raised or received by him fit to be taken to market. The assessee are growers of tobacco in the Kistna District. The leaf which they produce is used for the making of Virginia cigarettes. They have been in the habit of selling most of their produce to the Indian Leaf Tobacco Development Company which has an office at Guntur. In order to make the leaf suitable for the market, the assessees dry it by a process known as 'flue-curing'. There are four methods of curing tobacco :- (1) Flue curing, (2) raw curing, (3) ground or sun-curing and (4) pit curing. Mr. Rama Rao Sa...
Gollamudi Venkatappayya Vs. Official Receiver and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-04-1943
Reported in: AIR1944Mad278
ORDERKuppuswami Ayyar, J.1. This is an appeal by a person who purchased the properties of an insolvent under a sale deed executed subsequent to the filing of the petition to adjudge him an insolvent and prior to the passing of the order of adjudication, against the order on a petition filed under Section 1, Provincial Insolvency Act, for a declaration that he has a valid title to them. The properties which he purchased as well as other properties were brought for sale in execution of a decree obtained against the insolvent debtor before the petition to adjudge him an insolvent was filed. They were all sold in execution, but during the pendency of the insolvency proceedings, the debtor by selling the properties in dispute to the appellant for Rs. 1750 and by selling other properties for Rs. 4250 or so to another person, raised Rs. 6000 and directed the same to be paid into Court for getting the court sale set aside. The money was accordingly deposited by the appellant and the other purc...
Velaguru Asari Vs. Suppa Naicken and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-03-1943
Reported in: AIR1944Mad209; (1943)2MLJ678
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. The question in this second appeal is whether an application for a final decree in a mortgage suit is barred by the law of limitation. The case has been placed before a Bench as the facts are unusual and it was considered that there was no authority directly bearing on this case.2. In O.S. No. 391 of 1935, on the file of the Court of the District Munsiff of Kulitalai, the first, second and third respondents sued to enforce the payment of a debt due on a mortgage which had been created by the grandfather of the appellant. At the time of the institution of the suit the mortgagor was dead, and his son and his two grandsons, of whom the appellant is one, were made defendants in his place. There were six other defendants. These persons were made parties as they had interests in the property by reason of subsequent mortgages. On the 30th September, 1936, the District Munsiff passed a preliminary mortgage decree, -in which he directed that two months' time sh...
Sankaram Pillai Vs. M.S. Ananthanarayana Aiyar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-03-1943
Reported in: AIR1944Mad313
Kunhi Raman, J.1. The appeal is from the order of the learned Subordinate Judge of Trichinopoly dismissing an application made under Order 21, Rule 90, Civil P. C, for setting aside a sale in execution. The reason why the application, which was made by the judgment-debtor in the Court below, was dismissed, was that the judgment-debtor who was called upon to furnish security under proviso 1 to Order 21, Rule 90, had failed to furnish such security.2. It is contended on behalf of the judgment-debtor who is the appellant here that there is an error of law in the order made by the lower Court directing security to be furnished because before that stage the petition for setting aside the sale had been 'admitted.' According to the proviso referred to, the Court may call upon the judgment-debtor (applicant) to furnish security before 'admitting' his application. The word 'admitting' in this provision of law has been construed in the decisions reported in Narasimha Pattamahadevi v. Annan Naidu...
S.K.R.A.K.N. Athappa Chettiar and ors. Vs. S.K.A.R.K. Somasundaram Che ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-03-1943
Reported in: AIR1944Mad428
ORDERByers, J.1. This petition under Section 115, Civil P. C, arises out of an order passed by the learned Subordinate Judge of Sivaganga, directing the sale of two houses under the following circumstances. The suit was filed for partition by alienees who were strangers to the family and after granting a preliminary decree for the division and separate possession of their share, the learned Subordinate Judge found that the houses were incapable of equitable division and must therefore be sold amongst the sharers. The sale was then held, at which the plaintiffs were permitted to bid and the learned Subordinate Judge then directed that in lieu of taking their shares in the property they were to be paid the proportionate share of the highest bid reached for these two items. It is against this order that some of the members of the family have now come up in revision.2. One of the difficulties in the case is the absence of any accurate information as to whether there were formal application...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »