Chennai Court November 1946 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.
Subbu Naidu and ors. Vs. Varadarajulu Naidu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-15-1946
Reported in: (1947)1MLJ90
Patanjali Sastri, J.1. This is an appeal brought by defendants 1, 4 and 5 from a preliminary decree for partition and accounts passed by the District Court of North Arcot. The suit was originally brought by the first respondent in the Court of the District Munsiff at Arni but as the value of the properties involved was found to be beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of that Court the plaint was returned to be presented to the proper Court and was later filed in the Court of the Subordinate Judge at Vellore from where it was transferred to the District Court.2. The relationship of the parties to one another will appear from the following genealogical table:Pasam Lingappa Naidu : Muniyammal (6th defendant),(died 55 years ago). | (died after suit). | ___________________________________________________________ | | | |Subbu Naidu Doraiswami Naidu Chinnaswami Naidu Gopal Naidu(1st Deft). (died in 1932). (2nd Deft.). (3rd Deft). | | | | Varadarajulu Naidu. Badrachalam Naidu | (Plaintiff). (7th ...
Kollipara Nagendram Vs. Chundru Appayya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-11-1946
Reported in: AIR1947Mad235; (1947)1MLJ15
Rajamannar, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit filed originally by one Dharma-raju as the sole plaintiff for partition of properties set out in schedule A to E to the plaint and for separate possession, of a fourth share therein. Dharmaraju is one of the sons of the first defendant, defendants 2, 3 and 4 being the other sons. The suit was valued for purposes of jurisdiction at Rs. 5,100 but a Court fee of Rs. 100 was paid as the proper Court-fee on the plaint praying for partition of the family property by a member of the family. Subsequently Dharmaraju purported to convey his interest in the family properties to his father-in-law, who is the appellant before us, by a deed dated 19th August, 1940. The appellant thereupon filed I. A. No. 862 of 1940, to be impleaded as an additional plaintiff. This application was not opposed by Dharmaraju and was ordered on 10th October, 1940. The appellant was brought on record as the second plaintiff and Dharmaraju was described as the first plain...
The Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. S. Ramsay Unger
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-08-1946
Reported in: (1947)1MLJ38
Patanjali Sastri, J.1. This is a reference by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras, under Section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax, 1922.2. One Mr. S. Ramsay Unger (hereinafter called the assessee) was assessed to income-tax for the year 1942-43 on a total income of Rs. 70,766 in which was included a sum of Rs. 46,061 as income derived from the business of ice manufacture and cold storage carried on by him under the name of 'Ramsay & Co.' He claimed before the Income-tax authorities a deduction of a sum of Rs. 22,108 as being interest paid to the estate of his father, the late Jehn Ramsay Unger, on capital said to have been borrowed from the estate for the purposes of his business. The claim was disallowed except to the extent of only Rs. 1,984 on the ground that, in the circumstances hereinafter mentioned, the assessee had become the sole owner of the residuary estate subject to certain pecuniary legacies payable under his father's will and that, therefore, except in regard to the ...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras Vs. S. Ramsay Unger.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-08-1946
Reported in: AIR1947Mad279; [1947]15ITR87(Mad)
This is a reference by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras, under Section 66 (1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922.One Mr. Ramsay Unger (hereinafter called the assessee) was assessed to income-tax for the year 1942-43 on a total income of Rs. 70,766 in which was included a sum of Rs. 46,061 as income derived from the business of ice manufacture and cold storage carried on by him under the name of 'Ramsay and Co.' He claimed before the Income-tax authorities a deduction of a sum of Rs. 22,108 as being interest paid to the estate of his father, the late John Ramsay Unger, on capital said to have been borrowed from the estate for the purposes of his business. The claim was disallowed except to the extent of only Rs. 1,984 on the ground that, in the circumstances hereinafter mentioned, the assessee had become the sole owner of the residuary estate subject to certain pecuniary legacies payable under his fathers will and that, therefore, except in regard to the aforesaid sum of Rs. 1,...
Guntur Akkayya Vs. Pathuri Appayya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-07-1946
Reported in: AIR1947Mad238; (1947)1MLJ4
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment of Happell, J., under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent. The question involved is one of construction of Section 78(2) of the Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920.2. On the 25th February, 1933, the appellant obtained a decree against the respondent for the payment of Rs. 1,148-6-8 and costs. During the pendency of the suit the respondent applied to the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Bapatla for his adjudication in insolvency and on the 4th July, 1933, an order of adjudication was passed. The respondent was given one year in which to apply for his discharge. He did not make the application and on the 11th November, 1934, a creditor applied for the annulment of the order of adjudication under Section 43 of the Act. On the 21st November, 1934, the Court annulled the order of adjudication and under Section 37 passed an order vesting the insolvent's property in the Official Receiver for administration for the benefit of the cre...
Mahaboob Saheb and ors. Vs. Mahaboob Saheb, Son of Paravati Chinna Hus ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-07-1946
Reported in: (1947)1MLJ107
Rajamannar, J.1. The lower Courts were clearly right in holding that the suit mosque fell within the category of institutions to which Section 3 of the Religious Endowments Act (XX of 1863) is applicable. It is certainly a mosque to which the provisions of Madras Regulation VII of 1817 were applicable. Mr. Chandra Reddi, the learned Advocate for the appellants urges that even if it be so there is no proof that the other condition laid down in Section 3 has been satisfied in this case; namely, that the nomination of the trustee, manager or superintendent thereof, at the time of the passing of that Act was vested in, or may be exercised by, the Government or any public officer. He contends that there is no evidence to show that this right was vested in or exercised by Government or the Revenue Board or any other public Officer.2. He relies on the rulings of this Court in the Tinnevelly Siva Devasthanam Committee v. Sri Ambalavana Pandara Sannadhi Avergal and Anr. (1915) 28 I.C. 833 and P...
Seeyali Achari and ors. Vs. K. Doraiswami Achari and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-06-1946
Reported in: (1947)2MLJ49
Govindarajachari, J.1. This is an appeal against the judgment and decree of Kunhi Raman, J., dismissing C.S. No. 46 of 1945 in which the appellants sued the first respondent, their uncle and the second respondent, their father, for a partition of certain properties claimed to be family properties and for the separation of their three-eighths share therein. The grandfather of the plaintiffs, Seeyali Achari, died on 27th August, 1926, after having executed a will on the 12th May, 1926, whereby he distributed his property amongst his three sons (respondents 1 and 2 and one Arumugha) and four daughters. It is common ground that the property dealt with by Seeyali Achari's will was his self-acquired property. It is unnecessary to refer to the legacies given to the daughters. A house belonging to the testator j in Kallukaran Street, Mylapore, was bequeathed to Arumugha and his wife for their joint and several lives with remainder in favour of their issue, if any, natural or adopted. In the ab...
In Re: Vellai Mudali
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-01-1946
Reported in: AIR1947Mad193; (1946)2MLJ428
ORDERYahya Ali, J.1. This case was taken up by this Court on a perusal of the Calendar and notice was given to the Public Prosecutor and the accused. The accused is not represented.2. The accused was convicted by the Assistant Sessions Judge of Coimbatore under Section 496 of the Indian Penal Code for dishonestly or fraudulently going through the ceremony of being married, without lawful marriage, and was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year. The case against him was that on 31st January, 1946, at about 6 p.m. when the girl, P.W. 2, was returning from her father's house with a head-load of fuel the accused seized her, pushed her down and tied a tali round her neck and then let her go. He had intended to marry her but he was rejected and she was about to be married to somebody else. He committed the act apparently to spite the girl and her parents. The facts were not seriously questioned by the accused but the question to be considered is whether even on the showing of the pr...
In Re: Mayilvahanam and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-01-1946
Reported in: AIR1947Mad308; (1946)2MLJ480
ORDERYahya Ali, J.1. The seven petitioners were convicted by the Additional First Class Magistrate of Negapatam under Rule 84(3) read with Rule 121 of the Defence of India Rules punishable under Rule 84(6) of the same rules. On appeal the Sessions Judge of East Tanjore at Negapatam confirmed the conviction but reduced the sentences. The case against the accused was that they transported rice by sea from British India to Ceylon which is prohibited under a notification issued under Rule 84(3) of the Defence of India Rules. The learned Sessions Judge has set out the facts with care in his exhaustive judgment. The conviction depends exclusively upon the statements made by each of the petitioners to the Assistant Inspector of Customs who proved them as P.W. 1. The main contention throughout on behalf of the accused has been that these statements are not admissible in evidence being repugnant to the provisions of Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act. Under that section, no confession made t...
Muttalooru Bojjanna Vs. Boya Kristappa
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-01-1946
Reported in: AIR1947Mad268; (1947)1MLJ10
Sidney Wadsworth, Officiating C.J.1. This is an appeal against the decision of Koman, J., and it raises the question of the extent of the inherent powers of the Court in dealing with a sale in execution of a mortgage decree. The appellant obtained a decree on a mortgage of 1929. The final decree was passed on 10th February, 1942. The part of the hypotheca with which we are now concerned was put up for sale on 2nd April, 1943, but there were no bidders and the sale was adjourned to the 19th April, 1943, when four items were sold, including items 6 and 9 with which we are now concerned. Both of these items were purchased by the decree-holder at a price slightly in excess of the upset price. Item No. 6 which is S. No. 440-B is of an extent of 103 acres 9 cents of dry land which the decree-holder valued at Rs. 200. The upset price fixed by the Court was Rs. 400 and the successful bid was Rs. 405. Item No. 9 is of an extent of 1993 acres which was valued by the decree-holder at Rs. 50, the ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »