Chennai Court March 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.
In Re: Kuppuswami Naidu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-12-1943
Reported in: AIR1943Mad491; (1943)1MLJ344
ORDERHorwill, J.1. The petitioner has been convicted for exceeding by a few miles per hour the speed limit fixed by the Road Transport Board just outside Madura on the Madura-Dindigul Road.2. The first point raised in this petition is that the Road Transport Board has not ' fixed ' the speed of 15 miles an hour--which the petitioner is said to have exceeded--within the meaning of Section 71 (2) of the Motor Vehicles Act. It has been held in several decisions of this Court that the fixing of the speed by the Board is the publication in the Official Gazette. The expression ' Official Gazette ' is defined in the General Clauses Act, Section 37-A, as meaning the Gazette of India or, as the case may be, the Official Gazette of the province--which, in this Presidency, would mean the Fort St. George Gazette. It is admitted by the prosecution that there has been no publication in the Fort St. George Gazette but only in the District Gazette. As there has been no publication in the Official Gaze...
Annakutty Moothan's sons Maniappa Moothan and Ors. Vs. Ullattil Gopala ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-12-1943
Reported in: AIR1943Mad537; (1943)1MLJ418
Somayya, J.1. S.A. No. 1145 of 1941.--After hearing exhaustive and elaborate arguments on the meaning to be attached to the several Malayalam expressions used in Ex. F-1 and other documents, I see no reason to differ from the conclusion arrived at by the learned District Judge. The Subordinate Judge no doubt took a different view but having had the benefit of the full arguments and after consulting the dictionaries I have no hesitation in saying that the District Judge is right.2. The sole question for decision is whether land of no paras of seed covered by Ex. F-1 was dry land converted into wet land within Section 5 of the Malabar Tenancy Act. Wet land is, for the purposes of that Act, land which is adapted for the cultivation of paddy--see Section 3, Clause (x). Dry land is defined by Section 3, Clause (d) as land which is neither a wet land nor a garden land. We are not concerned with ' garden land ' in this case.3. Under Section 5 of the Act in the case of a dry land converted int...
The Travancore National Bank Subsidiary Company, Ltd. (Now in Liquidat ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-12-1943
Reported in: AIR1943Mad530; (1943)1MLJ425
Somayya, J.1. This is an appeal against the decree of the City Civil Judge passed in O.S. No. 900 of 1940. The plaintiff is the Travancore National Bank Subsidiary Company, Limited (now under liquidation) represented by its Official Liquidator. The lower Court dismissed the suit which was one to recover the balance of subscription due in respect of two chits. The plaintiff-company was carrying on a chit fund business. Various chits were started from time to time. The first defendant is styled ' Tranabank Union' which admittedly consists of the employees of the Travancore National and Quilon Bank, Ltd. (now in liquidation) and also of the plaintiff-company which is the Travancore National Bank Subsidiary Company. The first defendant subscribed for two chits and was the successful bidder of both the tickets at the auction held on the 4th January, 1938. A sum of Rs. 1,340 in cash was paid to the first defendant-company and an agreement was executed for the future instalments on the 10th J...
Pillalamarri Ramakrishnasomayajulu Vs. Yarranedi Krishnayya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-12-1943
Reported in: AIR1944Mad88; (1943)2MLJ494
Somayya, J.1. This case illustrates how, even in spite of amendment after amendment by the local Legislature, the way in which the drafting is done in the case of the Estates Land Act gives trouble to the Courts and involves the parties in heavy expenditure.2. The lands in question are situated in a whole inam village. Under the Madras Act XVIII of 1936, this village became an estate under the Act. When the Legislature converted inam villages into estates irrespective of the test laid down in Section 3(2)(d) of Act I of 1908, whether the grantee was or was not the owner of the kudivaram at the date of the grant. The Legislature passed Act VIII of 1934 which provided among other things that certain classes of suits should be stayed; The stay under Act VIII of 1934 is embodied in Section 127 of that Act. It runs thus:No tenant in possession on the 1st day of November, 1933, of any land in an inam village, not being an estate within the meaning of sub-clause (d) of Clause (2) of Section 3...
R.N. Devaki Ammal and ors. Vs. N. Adinarayana Chetty (Died) and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-12-1943
Reported in: AIR1944Mad28; (1943)2MLJ579
Happell, J.1. This is an appeal by the defendants from the decree and judgment of the Additional Judge of the City Civil Court in O.S. No. 861 of 1937. The question in the appeal relates solely to the construction of a deed of settlement. The deed relates to house property in Madras and was executed on 2nd November, 1916, by one Rangamma and one Dharaneepathi Naidu in favour of Rangamma's son-in-law, Deenadayalu. After reciting that Deenadayalu had paid Dharaneepathi Naidu a sum of Rs. 1,750 for his interest in the property the deed makes the following provisions:Deducting out of the rents of the house and ground, the rates, taxes, and expenses of repairs, the balance you (that is, Deenadayalu) shall enjoy during your lifetime (and) after you your daughters namely, (1) Tirumalamma and (2) Devakamma shall enjoy during their lifetime (and) after them, issue of both shall take in equal shares.2. The above is the translation made by the learned Additional Judge who has set beside it in his...
O. Rm. M. Sp. S.V. Meyyappa Chettiar Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-12-1943
Reported in: AIR1943Mad504
Leach, C.J.1. This reference has been made by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras, in accordance with a direction given to him by this Court under Section 66 (3), Income-tax Act, 1922. The reference involves the interpretation of Section 25 (3) of the Act. The petitioner and his brothers were members of an undivided Hindu family, and when joint the family carried on a money-lending business in India and in the Federated Malay States. The business was of long standing and had been assessed to income-tax under the Act of 1918. On 2nd June 1938 the joint status was severed. Thereafter, the members of the family continued the business in the same places as partners. The financial year with which this reference is concerned commenced on 13th April 1938. On 22nd December 1939, the petitioner claimed that the income of the family from 13th April 1938 to 2nd June 1938 was not liable to be taxed by reason of the provisions of Sub-sections (3) and (4) of Section 25. The Income-tax Officer acc...
O. Rm.M. Sp. S. Vs. Meyyappa Chettiar V. Commissioner of Income-tax Ma ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-12-1943
Reported in: [1943]11ITR247(Mad)
LEACH, C.J. - This reference has been made by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras, in accordance with a direction given to him by this Court under Section 66(3) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. The reference involves the interpretation of Section 25(3) of the Act.The petitioner and his brothers were members of an undivided Hindu family, and when joint the family carried on a money-lending business in India and in the Federated Malay States. The business was of long standing and had been assessed to income-tax under the Act of 1918. On the June 2, 1938 the joint status was severed. Thereafter the members of the family continued the business sin the same places as partners. The financial year with which this reference is concerned commenced on the April 13, 1938. On the December 22, 1939 the petitioner claimed that the income of the family from the April 13, 1938 to June 2, 1938 was not liable to be taxed by reason of the provisions of sub-sections (3) and (4) of Section 25. The In...
Public Prosecutor Vs. Ponnuswami Mudaliar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-12-1943
Reported in: AIR1943Mad570
Horwill, J.1. The respondent had built a house with a verandah; and he received notice from the President of the District Board to remove the front portion of it, the notice alleging that that portion was an encroachment on the public road. He failed to comply with the notice and so was prosecuted. The President examined the Local Fund Survey Maistry and the local Karnam as P.Ws. 1 and 2; but did not file any of the survey records or any other documents in proof of the encroachment. The Sub-Magis-trate felt that the evidence was rather weak, but finally found the accused not guilty on the ground that the dispute was of a civil nature. The Crown has appealed against the acquittal of the respondent. It is needless to say that the Sub-Magistrate ought not to have disposed of this case on the ground that he has. There may be a bona fide dispute between the District Board and the accused about the ownership of the land; but the Magistrate cannot avoid his responsibility to go into that ques...
Zohara Khathum Bi Bi Vs. Mahaboob Bi by Her Son and Agent, P. Abdul Ha ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-11-1943
Reported in: AIR1943Mad677; (1943)2MLJ99
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. The question here is whether a deed of gift of immovable property executed by one Ameena Bi on the 9th October, 1929, in favour of her niece, the third defendant in the suit, is valid according to Muhammadan law. The validity of the gift is challenged by the donor's sister, Mahaboob Bi, who claims to be entitled to a half share in the property covered by the deed. The appeal arises out of a suit filed on the original side of this Court by Mahaboob Bi for a declaration of her title and the possession of the share claimed by her in the property. The suit was tried by Somayya, J., who found the questions of fact in favour of the donee, but he granted the relief claimed by the plaintiff largely on the ground that Ameena Bi had not received independent advice before entering into the transaction. The third defendant has appealed. Before entering upon a discussion of the evidence it may be mentioned that the plaint contained an allegation of fraud, but the i...
Thadikonda Gopalaratnam Vs. Thadikonda Lakshmikantam and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-10-1943
Reported in: AIR1943Mad569; (1943)2MLJ17
Happell, J.1. The petitioner was the second defendant in a suit brought for; a: declaration of title in respect of certain properties and a direction that the defendants should execute a deed of conveyance in favour of the plaintiff. The second defendant (the present petitioner) was the brother of the first defendant and the plaintiff was their sister. She filed the suit on 2nd December, 1941, on the footing that the previous sale of the property to the defendants was nominal and that the norminal character of the sale had been recognised in agreements executed between herself and her brothers. As already stated the suit was instituted on 2nd December, 1941 but on 24th December, 1941, the plaintiff died. On 4th December, 1941, she had executed a will in favour of the second defendant and he consequently filed two applications; one on 16th February, 1942, and the other on 20th March, 1942, the first to be brought on record as the legal representative of the plaintiff and the second for ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »