Chennai Court August 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.
A. Kuppuswami Konar (Since Deceased) and anr. Vs. the District Board o ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-17-1943
Reported in: AIR1943Mad754; (1943)2MLJ393
Wadsworth, J.1. The appellant is the legal representative of a market toll contractor who took a series of leases from the District Board of Tanjore in respect of a market which is the property of the Chatram Estate administered by the District Board. The District Board in three resolutions sanctioned certain remissions of the rent due from the contractor. On objections being raised that these remissions were beyond the powers of the District Board, the matter was referred to the Inspector of Local Boards who refused his sanction, and on a further representation to the Government, enquiry was made into the circumstances in which these remissions were claimed and granted and the Local Government upheld the action of the Inspector of Local Boards and directed the District Board to recover from the contractor the amounts remitted. The suit was decreed and hence the appeal.2. The essential facts are that the contractor took the lease of the market at Aran-tangi, a union village, for faslis...
Gopalaswami Rajapiriyar Vs. D. Narayanaswami Udayar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-17-1943
Reported in: AIR1944Mad65; (1943)2MLJ501
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. Three questions of law arise in this appeal, but before stating them we will set out the material facts. On the 15th April, 1912, the appellant's father mortgaged immovable properties belonging to the joint family of which he was the head in favour of the father of the first respondent to secure the repayment of a loan of Rs. 3,500. The deed stipulated that repayment should be made at the end of three years from the date Of the deed. On the 26th December, 1912, the mortgagor died and was survived by his two sons, Namasivaya and the appellant, who remained joint in estate: Namasivaya died in the month of January, 1919. On the 5th November, 1923, the mortgagee filed a suit (O.S. No. 72 of 1923) in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Kumbakonam to enforce' repayment of the amount due under the mortgage. He died during the pendency of the suit, and his son, the first respondent was substituted as the plaintff.2. The mortgagee did not specifically ask for...
Gaddam Chinna Venkata Rao and ors. Vs. Koralla Satyanarayanamurthy and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-16-1943
Reported in: AIR1943Mad698; (1943)2MLJ336
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. In my judgment the answer to the question referred should be in the affirmative, but before indicating my reasons I will set out the essential facts.2. The respondents sued in the Court of the District Munsiff of Amalapuram to recover the sum of Rs. 1,450-1-3, which they claimed to be due on a promissory note executed by the first appellant on the 27th January, 1937. The plaintiffs' case was that the first defendant (the first appellant) borrowed Rs. 3,000 on a promissory note dated the 12th December, 1934; on the 27th January, 1937, there was due on this instrument Rs. 4,359 ', on that date the first defendant repaid in cash Rs. 3,059 and in respect of the balance of Rs. 1,300 he executed the promissory note in suit. The first defendant's two sons were joined as defendants. The defence was that the note of the 12th December, 1934, really represented what was due in respect of a loan of Rs. 2,000 advanced in 1925; on the 23rd October, 1929, the first d...
O. Rm. Om. Rm. Pl. Muthukaruppan Chettiar, Minor by Mother and Guardia ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-13-1943
Reported in: (1943)2MLJ446
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. The assessee was a partner in a firm carrying On a money-lending business at Penang under the style of O. RM. OM. and as such had an interest in the business of a sub-partnership trading under the style of OM.PS. The business of the sub-partnership was also carried on at Penang. The firm of O. RM. OM. was dissolved on the nth January, 1939 and between that date and the 26th March, 1939, the assets of the business were realised. After the nth January, 1939, no business was transacted, beyond that involved in the realisation of the assets. One of the assets was sold to a stranger; all the other assets were sold to members of the firm. The winding up of the O. RM. OM. partnership meant, of course, the winding up of the subsidiary partnership as well.2. This reference relates to the year of account which ended on the' 13th April 1939- The assessee claims that in assessing his income as a partner in these businesses an aggregate sum of 1,38,349 should be tr...
Periakaruppan Chettiar Vs. A.L.V.R.S.T. Veerappa Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-13-1943
Reported in: AIR1944Mad46; (1943)2MLJ441
Mockett, J.1. The judgment-debtor is the appellant and the decree-holder is the respondent. The amount concerned is Rs. 1,809-1-8. An amount of Rs. 9,681-13-9 was paid into Court in pursuance of an order of the High Court on the 9th August, 1,937. By making that payment the judgment-debtor obtained a stay of execution. It is contended by the appellant-judgment-debtor that from that day, namely, the 9th August, 1937, interest should cease to run in favour of the decree-holder; and if that is so there will be a reduction in the amount now claimed of Rs. 1,809-1-8 being the difference between Rs. 11,981-0-r for which amount the judgment-debtor claimed credit and the sum of Rs. 10,171-14-9 for which he was actually given credit by the decree-holder.2. The short point before us is this : Does interest cease to run from the date of payment in, as contended by the appellant? There is no specific provision of law on the point. Order 24, Rules 1 to 3 of the Civil Procedure Code deals with payme...
Palaniammal Vs. Kothandarama Goundan and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-13-1943
Reported in: AIR1944Mad91; (1943)2MLJ432
King, J.1. The subject-matter of this appeal is a deed of gift executed in April, 1929. The donor is the plaintiff who was then a minor represented by his mother Lakshmi. The donee is the aunt of the plaintiff, Palani Ammal, who had been married in 1906. This appeal arises from a suit by the plaintiff to cancel the gift deed. The suit has been decreed by the learned Subordinate Judge of Coimbatore and the donee, the first defendant, has appealed.2. The case of the appellant as disclosed in the pleadings was that when she was married in 1906, the property which is the subject matter of the gift deed amounting to four acres of wet land was actually given to her by her father Peria Sennimalai. However, no formal deed of conveyance was executed. Subsequently, Peria Sennimalai died and in the period between 1916 and 1929, all her three brothers successively died. The last brother who survived was the father of the plaintiff, Kuttia, who died on the 17th April, 1929, just four days before th...
Parvateneni Bhushayya Vs. Potluri Suryanarayana and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-13-1943
Reported in: AIR1944Mad195
Krishnaswami Ayyangar, J.1. The suit out of which this appeal has arisen was instituted by a surety who has paid the principal debt and who therefore claims to be entitled to the benefit of the security held by the creditor at the time when the debt was discharged. The suit having been dismissed, the surety has preferred this appeal. In order to appreciate the questions which arise for consideration in the appeal, it is necessary to refer to a few facts. On 23rd May 1930, Bhushayya the appellant executed an on-demand promissory note in favour of Potluri Suryanarayana and brothers, Chitta Venkateswarlu and Anne Veerayya promising to pay at the Imperial Bank of India, Bezwada, a sum of Rs. 6000 for value received. The payees endorsed the promissory note in favour of the Imperial Bank and received the sum of Rs. 6000 from the endorsee. It is now common ground that by this transaction, whatever its form, the Imperial Bank lent the sum of Rs. 6000 to the endorsers, the appellant Bushayya be...
O. Rm. Om. Rm. Pl. Muthukaruppan Chettiar and Others Vs. Commissioner ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-13-1943
Reported in: AIR1944Mad58; [1943]11ITR540(Mad)
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by the Honourable the Chief Justice.)The assessee was a partner in a firm carrying on a money-lending business at Penang under the style of O. RM. OM. and as such had an interest in the business of sub-partnership trading under the style of OM. PS. The business of the sub-partnership was also carried on at Penang. The firms of O. RM. OM. was dissolved on the January 11, 1939 and between that date and the March 26, 1939 the assets of the business were realised. After the January 11, 1939 no business was transacted beyond that involved in the realization of the assets. One of the assets was sold a stranger; all the other assets were sold to members of the firm. The winding-up of the O. RM. OM. partnership meant, of course, the winding-up of the subsidiary partnership as well.This reference relates to the year of account which ended one April 13, 1939. The assessee claims that in assessing his income as a partner in these business an aggregate suit of ...
In Re: C.S. Swaminathan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-12-1943
Reported in: AIR1944Mad20; (1943)2MLJ380
ORDERKuppuswami Ayyar, J.1. The petitioner has been convicted by the Chief Presidency Magistrate, Madras for an offence punishable under Section 5(b) read with Section 7(1) of Ordinance XI of 1941 and sentenced to two months' rigorous imprisonment. He was recruited as a First Aider in the A.R.P., Madras in February, 1943, and after completing his training was posted to the A.R.P. depot situated in the Government School of Indian Medicine on the Poonamallee High Road. He reported himself for duty on the evening of 3rd March. On the same day he had an anti-cholera vaccine injection. Unfortunately as he happened to suffer from varicose veins there was a reaction to the injection and he had high fever. On the 4th he signed the declaration and a certificate of identity. He was late for physical training and was excused. On the 5th morning, he was sent for physical training and after that was over, he complained to P.W. 1, his depot superintendent that he was ill and was suffering from varic...
Muthu Goundan and ors. Vs. Pachayammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-12-1943
Reported in: AIR1943Mad749; (1943)2MLJ545
Krishnaswami Ayyangar, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit, O.S. No. 17 of 1941, instituted by the appellants in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Coimbatore, for a declaration that the document which purports to be the last will and testament of one Peruma Goundan is not genuine and had not been executed by him while in a sound disposing state of mind. The defendants to the suit were Pachayammal the widow, Kolandai Goundan a sister's son of the testator, Kunjam-mal a brother's daughter, and one Palani Goundan, who has been appointed as trustee of a piece of land set apart for charity by the testator in the will. There was another suit, O.S. No. 56 of 1941, which was also disposed of by the same judgment. The latter suit was instituted by Pachayammal, the widow of the deceased testator, for the recovery of possession of an item of property which according to her belonged to the testator and had been taken unlawful possession of by the appellant. This suit has been dismissed by th...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »