Chennai Court December 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.
Sri Kallalagar Devasthanam, Through Its Present Executive Officer, Sri ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-14-1945
Reported in: AIR1946Mad451; (1946)1MLJ252
Yahya Ali, J.1. The questions involved in these two appeals are common. The suits out of which these appeals arise were instituted by the proprietor of Amaradakki village in Melur division of Madura district for recovery of rent from his tenants, the defendants, for falsis 1349 to 1351. Two matters were in dispute in the suits. The first was in relation to the water charge claimed by the proprietor for the second crop raised on the lands in the occupation of the defendants which had been registered as single crop wet lands. The second question concerned fishery rents which is not now pressed by the learned advocate for the appellant.2. As regards the water charge for the second crop, the Deputy Collector of Melur division found that the plaintiff was not entitled to levy the same and on appeal the learned District Judge affirmed the Deputy Collector's decree. After having heard both sides I am of the opinion that the view taken in the Courts below is correct. Various questions have bee...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras Vs. Sri Visweswardas Gokuldas.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-14-1945
Reported in: [1946]14ITR110(Mad)
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by the Honourable the Chief Justice.)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 Of...
Mahommad Isack Alias Papa Saheb Vs. Doddapaneni Sreeramalu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-13-1945
Reported in: AIR1946Mad289; (1946)1MLJ187
Rajamannar, J.1. The only question that falls for decision in this second appeal is whether the agreement on 'which' the suit has been brought by the respondent is opposed to public policy and therefore unenforceable. The facts in so far as they are relevant for disposal of this issue are these: The plaintiff and the defendant are owners of motor buses. Both the plaintiff and the defendant made tenders to the postal authorities to secure the licence for carrying mails between Ellore and Chintalapudi. The defendant who desired to secure the licence himself entered into the agreement now in suit, Ex. p-1. Under the agreement the defendant was to secure the licence and the plaintiff, was to withdraw his tender. In consideration of the withdrawal by the plaintiff the defendant had to pay to the plaintiff, Rs. 15 per month for a certain period and Rs. 20 per month in a certain contingency. It is not necessary to go into more detail as to the other terms, as they are not material for the sec...
Nidamarti Venkata Narasimham Vs. Pogaku Nagojirao
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-12-1945
Reported in: AIR1946Mad344; (1946)1MLJ216
Koman, J.1. The first respondent was the judgment-debtor in O.S. No. 18 of 938 on the file of the Court of the District Judge, East Godavari. Some of the first respondent's properties were sold in execution of the decree and were purchased by the decree-holder and two others who are the appellants before this Court. In E.A. No. 298 of 1941 the first respondent applied for setting aside the sale on the grounds of certain irregularities in the conduct of the sale. A compromise petition was filed by which the parties agreed to the petition being allowed on payment of the decree amount with poundage interest and commission, etc. The first respondent deposited a sum of Rs. 16,500 and applied in E.A. No. 296 of 1942, for setting aside the sale under Order 34, Rule 6. The auction purchasers opposed the applications on the ground that the correct amount had not been deposited. ?On 25th February, 1943, when the petition came on for hearing as the first respondent was not present they were dismi...
Merla Veeramma, Zamindarini Velangi, Represented by General Power-of-a ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-12-1945
Reported in: AIR1946Mad315; (1946)1MLJ226
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. This second appeal has been placed before a Bench for hearing as two judgments of this Court which have bearing on the question of law involved are in conflict. The first was delivered by Venkataramana Rao, J., in Subbarayulu v. Arunachala Nadar : AIR1936Mad465 and the second by Wadsworth, J., in Appanna Sastri v. Raja Sobhanadri : AIR1942Mad84 .2. Before turning to the law we will state the facts. On the 30th October, 1937, in S.S. No. 82 of 1937 filed in the Court of the Deputy Collector, Kowur, under the provisions of Section 77 of the Madras. Estates Land Act the first defendant obtained a rent decree against a pattadar. By three sale deeds dated the 18th August, 1937, 7th September, 1937 and 29th March, 1938, respectively, the plaintiffs purchased portions of the land covered by the patta. Notice of the sales 'was duly given to the landholder under Section 145(2) of the Act. On the 7th February, 1939, the first defendant applied for execution of t...
Gonjalada Bbojarajappa Vs. Korlahalli Halappa and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-11-1945
Reported in: (1946)1MLJ57
1. This appeal has to be dismissed on two short points. The learned District Judge found that the first loan, the land improvement loan, was fully discharged and had been closed before the sale of S. No. 320 which took place on the 8th February, 1934. He was of the view that this land was wrongly sold for the balance of the agricultural loan which was still outstanding. He took that view apparently because he was of the opinion that it was only the land which constituted security for the loan that could be sold for the realization thereof. That view does not seem on an examination of the provisions of the Agriculturists' Loans Act to be correct. Under Section 5 of that Act every loan made under that statute could be recovered from the person to whom the loan was made as if it was an arrear of land revenue; and the procedure for realizing arrears of revenue is laid down in the Revenue Recovery Act. Section 5 of that Act provides that whenever revenue may be in arrear, it shall be lawful...
Abdul Kader Rowthen Vs. Velu Nayar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-11-1945
Reported in: AIR1946Mad318; (1946)1MLJ229
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. The appellant is a trader in timber. On the 14th January, 1937, he acquired a lease from the respondent of a small piece of land at Olavakode in the Palghat Municipality. His object in taking the lease was to store timber on the land. When he entered into occupation he erected three sheds. The landlord had the right to determine the tenancy on demand and required the tenant to vacate in the early part of 1940. As his demand for possession was not complied with he filed a suit for ejectment in the Court of the District Munsiff of Palghat. The appellant pleaded that he could not be evicted until the respondent had paid to him the value of the three sheds as they had been erected with the knowledge and consent of the respondent. This plea was rejected by the District Munsiff who granted a decree for ejectment without requiring the respondent to make any payment on account of the structures. The appellant appealed to the Subordinate Judge of South Malabar....
Gonjalada Bhojarajappa Vs. Korlahalli Halappa and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-11-1945
Reported in: AIR1946Mad226
Yahya Ali, J.1. This appeal has to be dismissed on two short points. The learned District Judge found that the first loan, the land improvement loan, was fully discharged and had been closed before the sale of Suit No. 820 which took place on 8th February 1934. He was of the view that this land was wrongly sold for the balance of the agricultural loan which was still outstanding. He took that view apparently because he was of the opinion that it was only the land which constituted security for the loan that could be sold for the realisation thereof. That view does not seem on an examination of the provisions of the Agriculturists Loans Act to be correct. Under Section 5 of that Act every loan made under that statute could be recovered from the person to whom the loan was made as if it as an arrear of land revenue; and the procedure for realising arrears of rent is laid down in the Revenue Recovery Act. Section 5 of that Act provides that when-ever revenue may be in arrear, it shall be ...
Puthenveettil Thalasseri Veettil Ammu Amma and ors. Vs. Chelakuttiyil ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-10-1945
Reported in: AIR1946Mad229; (1946)1MLJ94
Yahya Ali, J.1. The short question involved in this appeal is whether the plaintiffs who are the appellants have established sufficient grounds for evicting the res-pondents'from the suit property. That in turn depends upon the question whether the plaintiffs required the holding bonafide for their own cultivation or for that of any member of their family or tarwad or tavazhi who had a proprietary and beneficial interest in it. The learned District Judge after going into the evidence and the attendant circumstances found that the claim for eviction had not been substantiated. This finding is now attacked as being incorrect. As a finding of fact it is not open to the appellants to canvass it before the second appellate Court. It is therefore urged that the finding is not supported by any evidence whatsoever. The provisions of Clause (5) of Section 20 of the Malabar Tenancy Act of 1929 would seem to throw upon the landlord the onus of proving affirmatively that the holding is required bo...
Sri Rajah Ravu Venkata Mahipathi Gangadhara Rama Rao Bahadur, Yuvaraja ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-10-1945
Reported in: (1946)1MLJ120
1. The assessees are the sons of the Maharajah of Pithapuram, the proprietor of the Zemindari of Pithapur which was permanently settled under the Madras Permanent Settlement Regulation (Madras Regulation XXV of 1802). They are the joint proprietors of an estate settled upon them by their father, The estate which formed part of the Zamindari of Pithapur includes certain forests from which the assessees derive income by the sale of wood, bark, leaves, other usufruct of trees, minor forest produce and license fees. They supplement this income by the sale of trees in non-forest areas of the estate held by them. It is admitted that the trees in the forest and non-forest areas have grown wild and that agricul.2. Rural operations are not carried on in any of the areas.- For the year of account, 1941-42, the income from these sourcesamounted to Rs. 7,612 and the assessees were taxed on this sum for the year 1942-43. They maintained that they were exempt from taxation for two reasons. In the fi...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »