Chennai Court January 1945 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.
Puthiyetath Mayan Vs. Amminikandi Krishnan Nayar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-10-1945
Reported in: AIR1945Mad248; (1945)1MLJ170
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. The only question which arises in this appeal is with regard to the meaning to be given to the word 'family' in Section 33 of the Malabar Tenancy Act, 1929.2. On the nth June, 1931, the appellant granted a lease of the kudiyiruppu in suit to the respondent's father, his father's two brothers, and his father's sister, who constituted a tavazhi Scetion 3(m)(1) of the Act defines 'kudiyiruppu' as meaning and including the site of a residential building, the site or sites of other buildings appurtenant thereto, such other lands as are necessary for the convenient enjoyment of the residential building, and the easements attached thereto. In the year 1935 (the exact date has not been disclosed) the father purchased the interests of his two brothers in the lease. On the 6th July, 1936, he assigned his interest therein to the respondent. Sometime in 1937, the respondent purchased his aunt's interest in the lease and thereby became the sole lessee. Admittedly h...
In Re: T.V. Seshu Iyer and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-10-1945
Reported in: AIR1945Mad355; (1945)1MLJ274
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. In 1943 the petitioners with others were accused of being members of a conspiracy to blow up a railway bridge. Charges were preferred under Rules 35(1)(b) and (4) read with Rule 121 of the Defence of India Rules and under Section 126 of the Indian Railways Act read with Sections 34, 435 and 511 of the Indian Penal Code. They were tried under the provisions of the Special Criminal Courts Ordinance, 1942 (Ordinance No. II of 1942). The charge against the first petitioner in Crl. M.P. No. 883 of 1944 was not proceeded with and he was discharged. The second and third petitioners were acquitted. The petitioner in Crl. M.P. No. 892 of 1944 was convicted by the Special Judge, but acquitted by this Court on appeal.2. In King-Emperor v. Benoari hall Satma and Ors. (1943) 2 M.L.J. 207 : 6 F.L.J. 79 : 1943 F.C.R. 96 the Federal Court held that certain sections of the Special Criminal Courts Ordinance, 1942, were invalid1 as they were ultra vires. The consequence ...
Mattapalli Raju and ors. Vs. Challa Venkata Raghavayya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-09-1945
Reported in: AIR1945Mad225; (1945)1MLJ212
Patanjali Sastri, J. 1. These appeals have been brought from decrees passed by the Court of the Subordinatejudge of Cocanada in two suits, one for redemption and the other for ejectment. The suits were tried and decided separately but the appeals have been heard together as they arise out of the same mortgages and lease. As the parties are differently arrayed in the suits, it will be convenient to refer to them as the mortgagor, the mortgagees and the lessees. 2. On the 2nd January, 1914, the mortgagor acting for himself and as the guardian of his undivided minor son granted a mortgage of 51 20 acres of inam lands in Veera varamj East Godavari District (hereinafter called the suit lands) along with certain other lads to secure a sum of Rs. 30,00a lent by the mortgagees. The mortgage was nonsossessory in respect of the suit lands and possessory in respect of the other lands to which no further reference need be made as they we're sold with the consent of the mortgagees to satisfy the de...
The District Judge of Anantapur Vs. K.V. Vema Reddi (Advocate) and ors ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-08-1945
Reported in: AIR1945Mad144; (1945)1MLJ106
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. These two references have been heard together and cari conveniently be dealt with in one judgment. The first reference has been made by the District Judge of Anantapur and the question raised is whether the respondent, who is an advocate of the Bombay High Court, having been enrolled by that Court on the 13th September, 1937, is entitled to practise in the Courts of the Anantapur District. Although he was enrolled by the Bombay High Court he has never practised in that Court subordinate thereto. He has confined his practice entirely to the Courts of the Anantapur District. The second reference has been made by the District Judge of South Kanara. There are here three respondents and all of them were enroled by the Bombay High Court after the Indian Bar Councils Act, 1926, came into force in that province, as was the case in the first reference, and they have since been made in consequence of the wording of Section 4 of the Legal Practitioners Act. We sh...
H.H. the Prince of Arcot Endowment, Administered by H.H. the Prince of ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-08-1945
Reported in: AIR1945Mad138; (1945)1MLJ69
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. The Principal Bistrict Munsiff of Trichinopoly has referred under Section 60(1) of the Indian Stamp Act to this Court for decision, the following question:Where a lessor, acting on an application in writing submitted to him by the lessee embodying all the terms of the tenancy, purports to orally let out his property to the lessee for the stipulated rent on the same conditions as are mentioned in the application, does the application submitted by the lessee to the lessor not constitute a lease liable to stamp duty under Article 30 of Schedule I-A of the Madras Stamp (Amendment) Act, 1922?As the result of suits filed in the District Munsiff's Court it appeared that the respondent was in the habit of granting oral leases on terms embodied in written applications made by prospective tenants. Whether a stamp duty is required depends upon whether such an application can be held to be a lease. It is quite clear from the definition of 'lease' to be found in Se...
The Official Receiver of Ramnad Vs. the Income-tax Officer, Special Ci ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-05-1945
Reported in: (1945)1MLJ173
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. The petitioner is the Official Receiver of Ramnad and in that capacity represents the estate of one P.P.V. CT. Chidambaram Chettiar. For the year 1941-1942 the petitioner was assessed to income-tax on the income of the estate. The petitioner challenged the correctness of the assessment and appealed, first to the Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax and then to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras, in each case unsuccessfully. The order of the Appellate Tribunal dismissing his appeal was received by the petitioner on the 12th May, 1944. He was of the opinion that the question involved was one which justified a reference to the High Court under Section 66(1) of the Income-tax Act, but before taking steps in this direction he desired to have the sanction of the Subordinate Judge of Devakottai. Sanction was obtained and the petition was presented at the office of the Appellate Tribunal in Madras on the 11th July, 1944, the last day of the period of li...
Bombalikuppam Murugappa Naicker Vs. Padmanabha Mudaliar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-05-1945
Reported in: AIR1945Mad265; (1945)1MLJ206
Horwill, J.1. The plaintiff contended that the suit property was originally a blacksmith inam, which was resumed about 70 years ago and had been in possession of the plaintiff and his predecessors throughout the whole of that period. The defendant, who purchased the land in 1936, claimed that it was a blacksmith inam and that his vendor was the blacksmith entitled to this property. The first Court held that the plaintiff had not proved his case that he had title to the property; and it did not seem to think that the plaintiff's evidence with regard to possession was of very much value. It moreover held that as the plaintiff had already failed in a summary suit under Section 9 of the Specific Relief Act, he could not be given a decree on the basis of his possession; and it therefore dismissed the suit. At the same time, the Court did not consider that the defendant had proved that he had title to the property, but thought that immaterial in view of the fact that the plaintiff had failed...
Official Receiver of Ramnad at Madura Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-05-1945
Reported in: AIR1945Mad169
ORDERLeach, C.J. 1. The petitioner is the Official Receiver of Ramnad and in that capacity represents the estate of one P.P.V. CT. Chidambaram Chettiar. For the year 1941-1942 the petitioner was assessed to income-tax on the income of the estate. The petitioner challenged the correctness of the assessment and appealed, first to the Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax and then to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras, in each case, unsuccessfully. The order of the Appellate Tribunal dismissing his appeal was received by the petitioner on 12th May 1944. He was of the opinion that the question involved was one which justified a reference to the High Court Under Section 66(1), Income-tax Act, but before taking steps in this direction he desired to have the sanction of the Subordinate Judge of Devakottai. Sanction was obtained and the petition was presented at the office of the Appellate Tribunal in Madras on 11th July 1944, the last day of the period of limitation. Section 6(1) provid...
In Re: S. Devaraja Tharakan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-05-1945
Reported in: AIR1945Mad460
ORDERHappell, J.1. The petitioner has been convicted of an offence under the Foodgrains Control Order and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 400. The grain in respect of which the offence was committed was also ordered to be confiscated. The conviction was based on the fact that the petitioner was in possession of 50 1/2 maunds of paddy. Rule 3(2) of the Food Grains Control Order provides that for the purpose of Clause 3(1) any person who stores food grains in quantities exceeding 50 maunds may, unless the contrary is proved, be deemed to store the grains for purposes of sale. The petitioner was therefore deemed to have stored 50 maunds of paddy for purposes of sale. The propriety of the conviction is not now canvassed, but it is argued that the order of confiscation should have been confined only to the paddy in possession of the petitioner in excess of 20 maunds for the reason that storage for sale is not an offence in itself but only storage for sale in wholesale quantities, 'storage fo...
Official Receiver, Ramnad Vs. Income-tax Officer, Special Circle, Kara ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-05-1945
Reported in: [1945]13ITR112(Mad)
ORDERLEACH, C.J. - The petitioner is the official Receiver of Ramnad and in that capacity represents the estate of one P. P. V. CT. Chidambaram Chettiar. For the year 1941-1942 the petitioner was assessed to income-tax on the income the estate. The petitioner challenged the correctness of the assessment and appealed, first to the Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax and then to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras, in each case unsuccessfully. The order of the Appellate Tribunal dismissing his appeal was received by the petitioner on the 12th May, 1944. He was of the opinion that the question involved was one which justified a reference to the High Court under Section 66 (1) of the Income-tax Act, but before taking steps in this direction he desired to have the sanction of the Subordinate Judge of Devakottai. Sanction was obtained and the petition was presented at the office of the Appellate Tribunal in Madras on the 11th July, 1944, the last day of the period of limitation. Secti...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »