Chennai Court December 1945 Judgments
Ponnuswami Chettiar Vs. Mariappa Pannady
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-21-1945
Reported in: AIR1946Mad342; (1946)1MLJ239
Bell, J.1. This petition arises out of a question of court-fee. The circumstances are, one hopes, unusual. The plaintiff says that he entered into a sale deed with the defendant which was drawn up on seven pieces of papers numbered consecutively. The defendant apparently drafted the document and according to the plaintiff was clever enough to make each page complete in itself so far as the language is concerned. Then before he presented the document for registration he abstracted page 5 which contained a most material clause in favour of the plaintiff. I am told that the plaintiff objected but the registrar nevertheless registered the document. The plaintiff apprehends that it may be used against him in the future. He has therefore filed a suit setting out these allegations and specifying the alleged fraud of the defendant. In the prayer he asks for the following relief:The plaintiff prays the Court to pass a decree declaring that the document dated 17th November, 1943, purporting to h...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Patckamatla Chinna Sathiraju
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-20-1945
Reported in: AIR1946Mad495; (1946)1MLJ405
ORDERKuppuswami Ayyar, J.1. The petitioner was convicted by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Bhimavaram of an offence punishable under Rule 56(4) read with Rule 121 of the Delence of India Rules for having acted in defiance of an order passed by the District Magistrate of West Godavari under Rule 56 of the said rules. He was sentenced to one year's rigorous imprisonment. On appeal the sentence was reduced to six months' simple imprisonment.2. The charge runs thus:That you, on or about the 26th day of January, 1945, at Chinanindrakolanu village, in defiance of the order, dated 18th January, 1945, of the District Magistrate, West Godavari, passed under Rule 56 of the Defence of India Rules, prohibiting the celebration of the Indian ' Independence Day ' by conducting 'flag salutation ' etc., attempted to conduct a flag salutation by planting a tri-coloured Congress flag in a public street near Ramalayam and thereby committed an offence punishable under Rule 56(4) read with Rule 121 of the...
Tag this Judgment!Pulavarthi Venkata Subba Rao and ors. Vs. Valluri Jagannadha Rao and o ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-18-1945
Reported in: AIR1946Mad283; (1946)1MLJ159
Yahya Ali, J.1. This is a revision petition against the order of the Subordinate Judge of Narsapur refusing to add the widow of the deceased first defendant as a party defendant in O.S. No. 52 of 1941 on the ground that she is not a legal representative of her deceased husband. The respondents, the defendants in the suit, are not represented in this Court and the civil revision petition has been heard in their absence. The suit was by the creditors who impleaded the first defendant and his two undivided sons, the second and third defendants. The first defendant died pendente lite on the 17th May, 1943 and an application was made for bringing on record his two sons (defendants 2 and 3) and his widow, as the legal representative of the deceased defendant. The learned Subordinate Judge directed that the second and third defendants should be recognised as the legal representatives of their deceased father but so far as the widow was concerned he dismissed the application holding that she w...
Tag this Judgment!Moolchand Jothajee Vs. Rashid Jamshed Sons and Co., by Its Proprietor, ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-18-1945
Reported in: AIR1946Mad346; (1946)1MLJ185
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, CJ.1. While the Indian Arbitration Act, 1889, was in force a party to an arbitration award was entitled to enforce it by way of suit. The % question in this appeal is whether he has the same right now that the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940, is in force.2. The appellants entered into a contract with the respondents to sell to them a certain quantity of camphor. The respondents failed to take delivery of the goods in accordance with the terms agreed upon and consequently the appellants sold the camphor. The price realised was less than that which the respondents had contracted to pay and they failed to pay the difference. The contract provided that disputes in relation to' it should be referred to the arbitration of the Madras Kirana Merchants' Association. The appellants referred the dispute to arbitration, in accordance with the agreement and the arbitrators found that they were entitled to receive from the respondents by way of damages the sum of Rs. 1,605-6-...
Tag this Judgment!M.Y.A.A. Nachiappa Chettiar Vs. M.Y.A.A. Muthu Karuppan Chettiar and o ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-18-1945
Reported in: AIR1946Mad398; (1946)1MLJ310
Rajamannar, J.1. The plaintiff, who is the appellant and the first defendant who is the first respondent are the sons of one M.Y.A. Annamalai Chettiar. The plaintiff is the son by the second wife and the first defendant by the first wife. Defendants 2 to 4 are the sons of the first defendant. The fifth defendant is the mother of the plaintiff and the sixth defendant is his sister. Annamalai died on 18th September, 1926. Before his death he executed on 21st August, 1926, a will (Ex. D-I) in and by which, after stating that he owned a money-lending firm in Puttalam and immoveable properties and moveables, etc., in Karaikudi, he appointed two persons as executors and provided that his eldest son, the first defendant, should get immoveable property worth Rs. 35,000 as jeshtabagam from and out of his properties. after his lifetime. He also made certain provisions for his junior wife and others and finally directed that all his remaining moveable and immoveable properties should be taken by ...
Tag this Judgment!Ayiri Parambil Chozni and anr. Vs. Kolengot Devaswom Urlandar N. Param ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-18-1945
Reported in: AIR1946Mad369; (1946)1MLJ358
Yahya Ali, J.1. The first and second defendants who are the appellants here, are the kanom tenants under the plaintiff, who is the jenmi. The plaintiff is an Uralan or trustee of a Devaswom and he sued in that capacity to evict the appellants from the kanom lands under Section 20 of the Malabar Tenancy Act (herein called the Act). The ground for eviction that was urged in the plaint was that the property was required bona fide for cultivation on behalf of the Devaswom.2. The appellants raised two main contentions. The first was that the plaintiff, being only a trustee, was not entitled to institute an action for eviction on behalf of an idol, which not being an animate or sentient being, could not have required the property for its own cultivation as provided under Clause 5 of Section 20 of the Act. The second objection was that, as a matter of fact, the land was not required for the purpose of cultivation bona fide. The learned District Munsiff found against the plaintiff with regard ...
Tag this Judgment!Nacharammal and ors. Vs. Veerappa Chettiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-17-1945
Reported in: AIR1945Mad485; (1946)1MLJ128
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. The question in this appeal is one of limitation. On the 1st December, 1922, in O.S. No. 27 of 1920, in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Dindigul, the plaintiff obtained a conditional decree for possession of property in suit. On the 28th September, 1926, that decree was confirmed subject to a modification with regard to the amount to be paid under the decree. Both sides appealed to this Court. On the 21st November, 1930, their appeals were dismissed. On the 13th August, 1942, the decree holder filed an application for execution. The alienees from the first defendant contended that the application was barred by reason of the provisions of Section 48 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Subordinate Judge held that the petition was not barred and his decision was concurred in by the District Judge. On second appeal Kuppuswami Aiyar, J., agreed with the Courts below. This appeal is from his judgment.2. The appellants say that Section 48 of the Code of...
Tag this Judgment!Kaza Ramakotayya and ors. Vs. Nimmagadda Sitharamaswami, Minor by Moth ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-17-1945
Reported in: AIR1946Mad381; (1946)1MLJ192
Patanjali Sastri, J.1. This appeal arises out of proceedings for the passing of a final decree in a mortgage suit. The preliminary decree was passed on the 23rd December, 1937 and time for redemption was granted till the 23rd June, 1938. The application for final decree--I.A. No. 822 of 1943--was filed on 9th September, 1942, that is to say, more than three years after the time for redemption expired along with an application, I.A. No. 1193 of 1943, to excuse the delay in filing the former' application. It was alleged that some of the defendants were representing that they would settle and pay the amount due and that the next friend of the plaintiff being a woman devoid of worldly knowledge, believed their words and was under the impression that there would be no bar of limitation, as the decree was in the name of a minor. The learned Subordinate Judge accepting these grounds condoned the delay and overruling the objections raised in I.A. No. 822 of 1943, passed the final decree. The d...
Tag this Judgment!Kuppuswami Pillai Vs. the Taj Fraksha Thaikkal Estate by Its Managing ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-17-1945
Reported in: AIR1946Mad322; (1946)1MLJ190
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. The short question in this appeal is whether Ratnavelu Pillai v. Varadaraja Pillai : AIR1942Mad585 was rightly decided. The appellant in the present case is the plaintiff in the suit, which he filed in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Mayavaram, for recovery of possession of certain lands in an inam village and for payment to him by the second defendant of mesne profits. There are two defendants. The first defendant is the landholder. The second defendant has been admitted into possession of the property by the first defendant. The plaintiff says that he is entitled to occupancy rights in the land and that the landholder had no right to lease the land to the second defendant. He valued the relief under Section 7 (v)(c) of the Court-fees Act at fifteen times the net value of the kudiwaram. He deducted the rent payable to the landholder and the cost of cultivation including labour charges. In Ratnavelu Pillai v. Varadaraja Pillai : AIR1942Mad585 Chand...
Tag this Judgment!The Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Sri Visweswaradas Gokuldas
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-14-1945
Reported in: AIR1946Mad314; (1946)1MLJ161
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. The assessee is a merchant dealing in metals. Up to the end of the samvat year 1994, that is up to 23rd October, 1938, he adopted as the method of accounting for income-tax purposes the practice of valuing his stocks at the cost price. Both at the beginning and at the end of the year the cost price was taken. In respect of the, samvat year 1995 (20th October, 1938 to 11th November, 1939) the assessee made a change. He opened the account with stocks valued at cost price and closed it with a valuation at the market price. The market price was much higher than the cost price and this resulted in showing an increase in the profits to the extent of Rs. 24,797. The object of the change in the method of accounting is not far to seek. The Excess Profits Tax Act had come into operation. It actually came into force on the 13th April, 1940, but the Legislature applied its provisions from the 1st September, 1939. The Income-tax Officer accepted the assessee's retu...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »