Chennai Court December 1944 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.
Vemuri Swarajya Lakshmi Vs. Vemuri Anantha Padmanabha Rao and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-15-1944
Reported in: AIR1945Mad505; (1945)1MLJ177
Kuppuswami Ayyar, J.1. This is an appeal by the petitioner in O.P. No. 32 of 1943 on the file of the learned District Judge of Kistna against his order directing the petitioner to furnish security before a succession certificate could be issued to her in respect of a debt owing to her husband and inherited by her. The learned Judge observes:The widow, however, is entitled only to a life estate. It may be that the certificate she claims relates to the Reserve Bank shares. It is doubtful whether she can be given a certificate without security. The corpus itself may be disposed of by her as against the future claims of the reversioners. Certificate will be granted on furnishing security for Rs. 1,000.The learned Judge was wrong in observing that the widow is entitled only to a life estate. The estate can at the worst be described as a limited estate--limited to this extent, namely, that she could not validly alienate except for necessary purposes. Such an estate cannot be called a life es...
Manicka Sundara Bhattar and ors. Vs. R.S. Nayudu, Executive Officer an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-15-1944
Reported in: (1945)1MLJ372
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. The main question in this appeal is whether the Provincial Legislature had power to pass the Madras Temple Entry Authorization and Indemnity Act, 1939, the object of which was to throw open the Hindu temples of the Province for the purpose of worship to all Hindus who by custom or usage had previously been excluded from entry therein. The Courts below have held that the Act is intra vires the Provincial Legislature. For reasons which we shall in due course state we consider that this decision is right.2. The suit which has given rise to the appeal was filed on the 13th July, 1939, some two months before the Act came into force. At the time of the institution of the suit there were six plaintiffs and ten defendants.. The first defendant was the executive officer of the Sri Minakshi Sundareswarar Devasthanam at Madura, one of the famous temples of South India. Defendants 2 to 7 were described as members of ' the prohibited or scheduled classes,' by which...
P. Venugopal Mudaliar Vs. P.V. Neelakanta Mudaliar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-15-1944
Reported in: AIR1945Mad255; (1945)1MLJ303
Happell, J.1. This criminal revision petition is against the order passed by the Additional First Class Magistrate of Chingleput under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in M.C. No. 34 of 1943. The petitioner in the present case was the petitioner in that case. The leanaed Additional First Oass Magistrate found that the tenants of the petitioner were in possession. He considered however that he was unable to make an order declaring the petitioner to be in possession until evicted in due course of law because the tenants and not the landlord were in actual possession and because the tenants were not parties to the petition for this view of the law he relied on the decision of Pandrang Row, J., in Rama Raju v. Jagannath Rao. It is true that in that case Pandrang Row, J., refused to accept the contention that the tenants' actual possession is the landlord's actual possession and held that the first respondent in the case before him, even though his tenants were in possession, w...
Pethu Reddiar and ors. Vs. Rajamba Ammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-15-1944
Reported in: (1946)1MLJ245
ORDER1. Two suits were filed in the Subordinate Judge's Court of Trichinopoly by the same plaintiff to have it declared that various alienations effected by her husband, one Somasundara, were invalid for the reasons set out in the plaints. The suits were dismissed by the trial Court but on appeal this Court reversed the decision of the lower Court and granted a decree in both the suits. The petitioners, who were defendants 1, 3 and 6 in the lower Court and respondents 1, 3 and 7 in the appeal, seek to take the matter to His Majesty in Council in appeal. There was only one defendant in the other suit, O.S. No. 27 of 1933 and he also desires to appeal to His Majesty in Council. Taking the first suit which is treated as the main suit (O.S. No. 28 of 1933), three alienations were effected in favour of the petitioners for a stated consideration of Rs. 7,250. It is not disputed by Mr. Srini-vasa Aiyar, the learned advocate for the respondent before us, that the market value of the properties...
Rm. P. Rm. P. Valliappa Chettiar, Madura Vs. Commissioner of Income-ta ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-15-1944
Reported in: [1945]13ITR49(Mad)
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by the Honourable the Chief Justice).The assessee carried on a money-lending business at Kualalumpur in the Federated Malay States at all times material to this reference. In the course of the money-lending business immovable properties had been acquired and one of the questions was whether the assessee was liable to excess profits tax in respect of that income. He also owned rubber estates in the Federate Malay States and the further question was raised whether he was liable to excess profits tax in respect of that income. The Excess Profits Tax authorities and the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Calcutta Bench, held that he was assessable to excess profits tax in respect of both these sources of income. At the request of the assessee the Tribunal has referred to this Court the following question :-'Whether in the circumstances of the case, it is correct to include in the profits of the assessees business, the income from the house properties and ru...
Devineni Subbarao Vs. Devineni Pattabhiramayya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-14-1944
Reported in: AIR1945Mad498; (1945)1MLJ200
Wadsworth, J.1. The appeal arises out of a pauper suit for the recovery of a sum of money by way of contribution in respect of the discharge of debts binding on a former joint family consisting of the plaintiff, his elder brother the third defendant and his cousins, defendants 1 and 2. There was a partition in 1926 as a result of a suit brought by defendants 1 and 2, the cousins. Plaintiff and his elder brother the third defendant remained joint. Plaintiff was then a minor. The third defendant was a major. After the partition the creditors of the family recovered the debts largely through proceedings against the properties of the plaintiff and the third defendant. The plaintiff sued for contribution alleging that he became a major in July 1938, the suit being filed on the 6th February, 1941. The lower Court has held that the suit was barred by limitation on the ground that the date of the plaintiff's birth must have been much earlier than the date given in the pleadings. We are incline...
Chella Subbanna and anr. Vs. Chella Balasubbareddi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-12-1944
Reported in: AIR1945Mad142; (1945)1MLJ140
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. The question propounded is whether one member of a joint Hindu family consisting of several members can, irrespective of a partition of the family estate, give his own interest therein to one of the other coparceners. If the judgments of this Court in Peddayya v. Ramalingam I.L.R. (1888) Mad. 406 and Thangavelu Pillai v. Doraiswami Pillai : AIR1915Mad113 are to be followed the answer must be in the affirmative, but it is said that the decision of the Privy Council in Venkatapathi Raju v. Venkatanarasimha Raju (1915) 2 L.W. 850 has made it clear that the observations in Peddayya v. Ramalingam I.L.R. (1888) Mad. 406 and Thangavelu Pillai v. Doraiswami Pillai : AIR1915Mad113 cannot'be regarded as embodying a correct statement of the law.2. In Peddayya v. Ramalingam I.L.R. (1888) Mad. 406, a joint Hindu family governed by the Mitakshara law consisted of four brothers. Disputes arose with regard to the right of succession to the movable property left by the...
Pathuri Venkata Narayana and ors. Vs. the Hindu Religious Endowments B ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-06-1944
Reported in: (1945)2MLJ220
Somayya, J.1. One common question arises in all these second appeals and that is whether certain lands which were granted to the holders of two offices of swastivachakam and vedaparayanam are liable to contribution under Section 69 of the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act, Under that section:Every math or temple and every specific endowment attached to a math or temple shall pay annually for meeting the expenses of the Board such contribution not exceeding one and a half per-centum of its income as the Board may determine.And endowment is defined by Section 9(11) as meaning:all property belonging to, or given or endowed for the support of, maths or temples or for the performance of any service or charity connected therewith and includes the premises of maths or temples but does not include gifts of property made as personal gifts or offerings to the head of a math or to the archaka or other employee of a temple.2. There is an observation of Curgenven, J., in Kotayya v. Tellamanda :...
Kadamban Nambudiripad and ors. Vs. the English and Scottish Joint Co-o ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-05-1944
Reported in: AIR1945Mad199; (1945)1MLJ243
King, J.1. The subject-matter of these appeals is the right which has been claimed by the English and Scottish Joint Co-operative Wholesale Society, Ltd., to the renewal of a lease of land granted to their predecessor in title in the year 1891 for 48 years. In O.S. No. 38 of 1942, the Society filed a suit for specific performance of a covenant in that lease to renew it. In O.S. No. 72 of 1942 there was a suit by some of the lessors to eject the Society. The learned Subordinate Judge of Coimbatore has decreed the suit of the company, though not in full. He has held that the company had the right to renew the lease but that the lease could-not be renewed upon the original terms. He has therefore fixed other terms which shall be current for the renewed period of 48 years. As a consequence of this the suit by the lessors to eject the company has been dismissed. It is the plaintiffs in O.S. No. 72 of 1942, who are now the? appellants in both these appeals.2. The lease in question has been e...
Thammineni Paparao and ors. Vs. Dhavala Polinaidu and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-04-1944
Reported in: AIR1945Mad205; (1945)1MLJ323
Chandrasekhara Ayyar, J.1. The plaintiffs' father, one Latchayya, purchased certain properties from defendants 1 and 2 under the sate deed Ex. A on 29th October, 1933, for a sum of Rs. 4,500. The properties consist of jeroiti lands and inam lands. The step-mother of the defendants had obtained a maintenance charge decree against the jeroiti lands in O.S. No. 480 of 1930. In execution of this charge decree, the jeroiti lands were sought to be brought to sale and it is said that the plaintiffs had to deposit a sum of Rs. 96-6-0 into Court to avoid the sale. It is further alleged that on a later occasion they had to pay Rs. 170 towards the charge decree and that finally the properties were brought to sale in Court auction and were purchased by a third party on the 7th December, 1942, for a sum of Rs. 238 subject to the payment of the annual maintenance of Rs. 60 to the decree-holder. The purchaser obtained delivery through Court and ejected the plaintiffs. All these are stated in the affi...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »