Chennai Court January 1944 Judgments
In Re: a Pleader
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-31-1944
Reported in: AIR1944Mad268
Leach, C.J.1. The respondent is a pleader practising at Vellore. Five charges of professional misconduct were framed against him; and later three additional charges. These have been investigated by the Subordinate Judge of Vellore with whose report the District Judge has concurred. The Subordinate Judge has found in favour of the respondent on the first five charges and on charge 1 (b) of the additional charges. He has found against him on charge l (a) and charge 2 of the additional charges.2. The Subordinate Judge has carefully considered the evidence and we concur in his findings. The correctness of the findings which are against the respondent is not challenged by the learned Counsel who appears on his behalf. There can be no doubt on the evidence that these charges have been fully substantiated.3. Charge 1(a) has reference to a statement made in a plaint drafted by the respondent and filed in S. C. S. No. 93 of 1936 of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Vellore, The suit was on ...
Tag this Judgment!J.P. Hanumantha Rao Vs. J. Ramachandrayya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-31-1944
Reported in: AIR1944Mad376
1. These appeals arise out of a suit for partition brought by the minor plaintiff with his alleged mother as his next friend. Defendant 1 is alleged to be the father of the plaintiff; defendant 2 is the first wife of defendant 1, and defendant 3 is their daughter. In A. S. No. 79 the appellant is defendant 1. In A. S. No. 80 the appellant is defendant 2. There is also a memorandum of cross-objections by the plaintiff. The plaintiff's next friend, Lakshmiprasannama, was a widow when she married defendant 1 on 17th March 1935. For the sake of brevity, she will be referred to as P.W. 6. Defendant 1 is a pleader who at that time was carrying on a practice in two towns of the Guntur district, Narasaraopet and Gurzala. He had no son by his first wife, whose health was poor, though we are informed that a son has been born to her since the suit was filed. The parties are Brahmins and the marriage of defendant 1 to a widow was naturally regarded as unorthodox. P.W. 6 lived with her husband, fir...
Tag this Judgment!Sivakoti Audeyya Vs. Sivakoti Sarabhayya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-31-1944
Reported in: AIR1944Mad422
Byers, J.1. The only question which arises in this second appeal is whether a surrender or relinquishment by some of the holders of a service inam in favour of the remaining inamdars is bad.2. The inamdars were seven in number and two of them brought a suit to recover their two-sevenths share in the inam from the defendant, in whose favour the former holder of the inam had made an alienation. The suit was decreed but in the meanwhile the remaining five inamdars surrendered their interests in favour of the others. The successful plaintiffs endeavoured to have the decree modified but without success, and they eventually brought a second suit in respect of the five-sevenths share covered by the relinquishment. It is attacked by the defendant as bad.3. In the majority of cases cited on the validity of alienations of service inam lands, the alienations take the form of gift, sale, or mortgage; and in the present case it is contended that a relinquishment by one service holder in favour of a...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Amuluru Venkamma
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-28-1944
Reported in: AIR1944Mad252
ORDERKrishnaswami Ayyangar, J.1. The question which arises for consideration in this matter is whether a suit for specific performance of a contract for exchange of immovable property is one which is incapable of valuation or one which falls under Section 7 (x), Court-fees Act. Section 7 (x) of the Act provides for suits for specific performance of contracts of several kinds, contract of sale, contract of mortgage, contract of lease and for an award. There is no provision made in that section for a contract of exchange of immovable property. Learned Counsel for the appellant contends that the relief asked for must be taken to be incapable of valuation and that the proper court-fee is that payable under Article 17-B of Schedule 2 of the Act. As against this, the Appeal Examiner seeks to rely on a decision in Kundan Lal v. Anand Sarup A.I.R. 1923 Lah. 456 where it was held that a suit for specific performance of a contract of exchange of immovable property should be treated as being in t...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Aga Abbas Ali Shirazi, Trustee to the W ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-28-1944
Reported in: AIR1944Mad292
Leach, C.J.1. This reference has been made by the Income-tax Tribunal, Calcutta Bench, at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras. The Commissioner contends that the tribunal failed to appreciate the case put forward by the income-tax authorities in an appeal by the trustee of the waqf of Mirza Muhammad Ali Namazi in respect of the assessment to income-tax for the year 1940-41. It is evident from a perusal of the order of the tribunal passed in the appeal that the criticism is well founded. By a deed dated 17th January 1930 Mirza Muhammad Ali Namazi made a settlement of immovable property for the following purposes: (1) For the benefit of his poor relations; (2) for celebrating moharram and other religious festivals of the Shiahs; (3) for the conduct of marriages and burials of poor Mussalmans; (4) for the benefit of poor Syeds; and (5) for such other religious, pious or charitable purposes as are allowed by Mussalman law as applicable to Shiahs. He directed that ten per...
Tag this Judgment!Medam Gurumurthi Setty Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-28-1944
Reported in: AIR1944Mad368
Leach, C.J.1. The assessee was the managing member of a joint Hindu family consisting of himself and his four brothers. On 15th October 1938, the brothers agreed to separate and on 22nd January 1941 a deed of partition was executed and registered. The family estate consisted of immovable and moveable properties. On 15th October, they divided the cash which they possessed and to each member was allotted a house. The other immovable property was also divided among the members on that date. On 25th December 1938, they divided the furniture and household utensils. The family had carried on a grocery business. The assets of this business were not divided until 24th February 1939. The assessee contended before the income-tax authorities, and the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Calcutta Bench, that for the purposes of Section 25A, Income-tax Act, the partition must be deemed to have taken place on 15th October 1938. On the other hand, the income-tax authorities maintained that the partition mu...
Tag this Judgment!Palaniappa Chettiar and anr. Vs. L.P.L.P. Narayanan Chettiar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-28-1944
Reported in: AIR1944Mad427
King, J.1. This appeal arises from a suit by two Nattukottai Chetties, who are father and son, against plaintiff 1's brother, defendant 1, and the widow of plaintiff 1's father. The father of plaintiff 1 and defendant 1 died in 1930. The suit was laid in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Devakottai and the properties alleged to be those of the family in Schedules A and B were admittedly situated within his jurisdiction. By far the greater part of the family consisted in certain money lending businesses which were being carried on in Burma. It was contended by defendant 1 that the Subordinate Judge had no jurisdiction to deal with these properties. It was pointed out in the second place that a civil Court in Burma had already at the instance of defendant 1 taken cognizance of a suit for partition in regard to the properties situated in Burma and that it had passed a preliminary decree. It was contended therefore that under Section 13, Civil P. C, that preliminary decree was conclusi...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Madras Vs. Aga Abbas Ali Shirazi.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-28-1944
Reported in: [1944]12ITR179(Mad)
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by the Honble the Chief Justice).This reference has been made by the Income-tax Tribunal, Calcutta Bench, at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras. The Commissioner contends that the Tribunal failed to appreciate the case put forward by the Income-tax authorities in the appeal by the trustee of the waqf of Mirza Mohammed Ali Namazi in respect of the assessment to income-tax for the year 1940-41. It is evident from a perusal of the order of the Tribunal passed in the appeal that the criticism is well-founded.By a deed dated the 17th January 1930 Mirza Mohammed Ali Namazi made a settlement of immovable property for the following purposes :-1. For the benefit of his poor relations;2. For celebrating Moharrum and other religious festivals of the Shiahs;3. For the conduct of marriages and burials of poor Mussalmans;4. For the benefit of poor Syeds; and5. For such other religious, pious or charitable purposes as are allowed by Mussalman l...
Tag this Judgment!Medam Gurumurthi Setty Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax Madras.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-28-1944
Reported in: [1944]12ITR176(Mad)
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by the Honourable the Chief Justice.)The assessee was the managing member of a joint Hindu family consisting of himself and his four brothers. On 15th October 1938, the brothers agreed to separate and on 22nd january 1941 a deed of partition was executed and registered. The family estate consisted of immovable and movable properties. On the 15th October, they divided the cash which they possessed and to each member was allotted a house. The other immovable property was also divided among the members on the date. On 25th December 1938 they divided the furniture and household utensils. The family had carried on a grocery business. The assets of this business were not divided until 24th February 1939. The assessee contended before the Income-tax authorities and the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Calcutta Bench, that for the purposes of Section 25A of the Income-tax Act the partition must be deemed to have take place on 15th October 1938. On the other h...
Tag this Judgment!S. Ligamma Vs. S. Venkayya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-27-1944
Reported in: AIR1944Mad374
Mockett, J.1. The appellant is a Hindu widow who applied to the lower Court for a succession certificate in respect of a sum of money due to her deceased husband's estate. The respondent is her deceased husband's brother. He objected to the grant of the certificate alleging that he was the deceased man's undivided brother. The learned District Judge has directed the certificate to issue on condition that the appellant should furnish security. Accordingly a question under Sections 373 (3) and 375 arose. Though it seems there was material before him the learned Judge did not think fit to decide this question of fact. He preferred to decide the rights of the widow to the succession certificate purely according to her status and the terms of the will. He said, also : 'Prima facie the will gives the petitioner only a life interest with remainder to reversioners specified.' The will gives the petitioner a life interest in certain immovable properties with remainder to named persons. It also ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »