Chennai Court March 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.
Peram Kistama Nayudu Vs. Minor Sankarayya Nayudu by Next Friend and Gr ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-17-1944
Reported in: AIR1945Mad278; (1945)1MLJ218
King, J.1. These petitions arise out of an order in execution passed by the learned District Munsiff of Tiruvallur. Execution proceedings were taken by the decree-holder in O.S. No. 379 of 1940, who had obtained a decree against three defendants on the strength of an endorsement on a promissory note. He sought to execute that decree against the sons of the second and third defendants and the question before the learned District Munsiff was whether he was entitled to do so. The learned District Munsiff quoted two decisions of this High Court--one reported in Ramanathan Chettiar v. Muthuraman Naidu : AIR1942Mad161 which according to the learned District Munsiff laid down the proposition that if a decree was obtained by the endorsee of a promissory note and the endorsement did not transfer the debt as well as the right to sue upon the promissory note, there could be no action in execution against any one other than the person liable under the promissory note. The learned District Munsiff ...
A. Jainulabdeen Vs. Commr. of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-17-1944
Reported in: AIR1944Mad408
Leach, C.J.1. In view of the decision of the Privy Council in I.L.R. (1939) 2 Cal. 300, l the answer to the first question must be in the negative. Their Lordships there held that an order of the Court appointing managers of an estate, the order being made in accordance with an agreement entered into between the parties, did not bring the case within the section. In the present case the order appointing M. Gulam Dastagir Sahib and Hajee K. Gulam Khader Sahib as managing agents was passed at the request of the parties. Mr. P.R. Srinivasan has suggested that this case is distinguishable from Kesher Deo v. I.T. Commr., Bengal , because here one of the parties is a minor. The fact that the law requires the Court to give leave to a guardian to enter into a compromise on behalf of a minor does not alter the position. All- that the Court does in such a case is to see that the proposed compromise is in the interests of the minor. An order passed on the terms agreed upon will still remain an ag...
S.N.A.S.A. Annamalai Chettiar Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-17-1944
Reported in: AIR1944Mad436
Leach, C.J.1. The assessee is a Nattukottai Chettiar and before the Japanese Occupation of the Malay Peninsula he carried on a money lending business at Penang. While engaged in business there he became the owner of a number of houses from which he received rent. In the year 1941-42 he was assessed to tax under the Income-tax Act in respect of the income derived from these houses during the previous year. The tax was levied on the basis of Section 9 ,of the Act. The assessee contended that Section 9 did not apply, but that Section 10 did. This contention was rejected by the Income-tax authorities and by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Calcutta Bench, on appeal from the order of the Additional Appellate Assistant Commissioner. At the request of the assessee the Tribunal has referred the following question for the opinion of this Court,Whether in the circumstances of the case, the provisions of Section 9, Income-tax Act, were rightly applied for assessment of the income from house pro...
Soorianarayana Chettiar Vs. Shenbagathammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-17-1944
Reported in: AIR1945Mad77
Kuppuswami Ayyar, J.1. The appeal arises out of proceedings in execution of the decree in O.S. NO. 236 of 1937 on the file of the District Munsif of Ambasamudram. It is a simple money decree passed in a suit for recovery of money due on a promissory note. The first execution petition was filed in 1939 for attachment of the immovable properties of the appellant. On a petition filed by the judgment-debtor the attachment was cancelled as the will under which the judgment-debtor derived his title to the properties did not disclose any such right as was specified in the execution petition. The attachment, therefore, was withdrawn. There was an observation that the decree-holder will have a right to attach and proceed against such interest as the judgment-debtor had in these properties under the terms of Ex. A. That was only an observation. Nothing further was done on that execution petition, as the next petition was filed in 1941 out of the proceedings in which this appeal arises. The praye...
A. Jainulabdeen Sahib Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-17-1944
Reported in: [1944]12ITR285(Mad)
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by the Honble the Chief Justice.)In view of the decision of the Privy Council in Keshardeo Chamria v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bengal, the answer to the first question must be in the negative. Their Lordships there held that an order of the Court appointing managers of an estate, the order being made in accordance with an agreement entered into between the parties, did not bring the case within the section. In the present case the order appointing M. Gulam Dastagir Sahib and Hajee K. Gulam Khader Sahib as managing agents was passed at the request of the parties. Mr. P. R. Srinivasan has suggested that this case is distinguishable from Keshardeo Chamria v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bengal, because here one of the parties is a minor. The fact that the law requires the Court to give leave to a guardian to enter into a compromise on the behalf of a minor does not alter the position. All that the Court does in such a case is to see that the proposed...
S. N. A. S. A. Annamalai Chettiar Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax Madra ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-17-1944
Reported in: [1944]12ITR254(Mad)
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by the Honble the Chief Justice.)The assessee is a Nattukottai Chettiar and before the Japanese occupation of the Malay Peninsula he carried on a money-lending business at Penang. While engaged in business there he became the owner of a number of house from which he received rent. In the year 1941-42 he was assessed to tax under the Indian Income-tax Act in respect of the income derived from there houses during the previous year. The tax was levied on the basis of Section 9 of the Act. The assessee contended that Section 9 did not apply, but that Section 10 did. The contention was rejected by the Income-tax authorities and by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Calcutta Bench, on appeal from the order of the Additional Appellate Assistant Commissioner. At the request of the assessee the Tribunal has referred the following question for the opinion of this Court :-'Whether in the circumstances of the case, the provision of Section 9 of the Income-tax A...
Chigurupalli Krishna Rao, Minor and anr. Vs. Manager, Bhashararaopuram ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-16-1944
Reported in: AIR1944Mad434
Happell, J.1. The question raised in this appeal is one of limitation. Three awards were obtained against the appellants under the Cooperative Societies Act, in 1931. Rule 15, Clause 7 of the rules made under the Co-operative Societies Act states that a decision or award shall be enforced in any of three ways. In the present case, the award was enforced under Rule 15 Clause 7, i.e., by an application to the Registrar. On 27th November 1934, in enforcement of the award under the provisions of Rule 22 the appellants' property was brought to sale and purchased by the decree-holder and the sale was confirmed on 21st January 1935. The execution petition out of which this appeal arises, E.P. No. 364 of 1940, was presented in the civil Court under the provisions of Rule 22, Clause 12 on 22nd July 1940. The learned District Munsif held that the application was out of time and repelled the contention put forward for the purchaser that the starting point for limitation was the date on which his ...
Kaza Sivaramakrishna Rao Vs. Jonnalagadda Seetharamayya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-16-1944
Reported in: AIR1944Mad446
Leach, C.J.1. This Letters Patent appeal raises a question with regard to the powers conferred by Section 42, Civil P. C, on a Court to which a decree has been transferred for purposes of execution. In order to understand what is involved we must set the facts in this case.2. On 31st May 1925 respondent 3 mortgaged a house belonging to him in Bezwada to the Cooperative Building Society of Bezwada to secure a sum of Rs. 4000. On 20th September 1926 respondent 3 and his sons (respondents 4 and 5) created a second mortgage on this property in favour of respondent 2 and by the same deed a first mortgage on other properties consisting of agricultural lands. Subsequently the Building Society advanced to respondent 3 a further sum of Rs. 800 in respect of which it obtained a third charge on the house. Respondent 3 failed to repay to the Building Society the moneys advanced by it to him and on 20th December 1933 the Building Society obtained an award against him. This was executed on 16th Dece...
A.K. SherfuddIn Vs. Kairoon Bi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-15-1944
Reported in: AIR1944Mad468
Leach, C.J.1. In the year 1674 a Rani of the Nayakhan dynasty made a grant of land to a Mahomedan named Dharves Ali Sha. The documentary evidence in this case leaves no doubt that the grantee was a member of a sect of Faqirs who were followers of Jalal-ud-din Bukhari. 'When Dharves Ali Sha died he was buried on the property. He has since been regarded as a saint and his tomb as a durga. After the tomb had been recognised as a durga a mosque was built by the side of it. When the mosque was erected is not known, but it is clear from the Inam register of 1864 that there was then a mosque in existence. The main question which arises in this appeal is whether the grant to Dharves Ali Sha was a grant to him personally or for the endowment of a mosque. We shall in due course examine in detail the evidence relating to this question; but before doing so we think it necessary to refer to two previous suits and to the course which the present litigation has taken. In O.S. NO. 96 of 1930, of the C...
G.F.F. Foulkes, Administrator of Estate of Robert Foulkes by Agent A. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-15-1944
Reported in: AIR1945Mad13
King, J.1. The appellant here is the administrator of the estate of the late Mr. Robert Foulkes. In that capacity, he was the judgment-debtor in O.S. No. 35 of 1937 on the file of the Ramnad Temporary Subordinate Court and a part of the estate was brought to sale in execution and was sold on 18th June 1942 for a sum of Rs. 2,01,700. Shortly after the sale was held the appellant filed an application under Order 21, Rule 90 to set it aside. Three days after the filing of the application, that is on 10th July the learned Subordinate Judge called upon the applicant to deposit in Court the amount realized by the sale under the proviso to Rule 90. The appellant protested against this and on 20th July the Court modified its order by dispensing with the production of cash and asking instead for the security of immovable property for the total amount of the sale proceeds. This security was not furnished. So far therefore as the petition alleged that the sale ought to be set aside on the ground ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »