Chennai Court December 1947 Judgments
Kunhilakshmi Ammal and ors. Vs. Kizhakke Palat Krishna Menon and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-19-1947
Reported in: AIR1948Mad460; (1948)1MLJ274
Happell, J.1. This appeal arises out of two suits for partition of a Malabar tarwad which were brought respectively by the karnavan of the tarwad and the senior anandravan.2. The appellants were the 46th to 55th and the 65th defendants in O.S. No. 28 of 1942 and defendants 19 to 28 and the 65th defendant in O.S. No. 37 of 1943.3. The question to be decided can be shortly stated. The 65th defendant, who belongs to the tavazhi of defendants 46 to 55, was born during the pendency of the suit. It is admitted, however, that the date of her conception was subsequent to the date of the plaint but prior to the date on which the written statements of the several defendants were filed in which they expressed their desire for severance of status. If, therefore, the severance of status of defendants 46 to 55 dates from the date of the plaint, the 65th defendant who was not conceived by that date, would not be entitled to a share. On the other hand, if the dates of severance are the dates on which ...
Tag this Judgment!Badam Satyanarayanamurthi Son of Venkataratnam Vs. Badam Venkataramana ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-19-1947
Reported in: AIR1948Mad312; (1948)1MLJ196
Rajamannar, J.1. This appeal has been directed to be posted before a Full Bench of three Judges, because the learned Judges, Happell and Govindarajachari, JJ., who heard it in the first instance, were of the opinion that there was a conflict between the decisions of two division benches of this Court in Bala Pattabhirama Chetti v. Seetharama Chetti I.L.R. (1894) Mad. 498 and Muthyala Narayanappa v. Muthyala Ramachandrappa (1930) 60 M.L.J. 676 : I.L.R. 54 Mad. 469 and that the view taken in the latter decision of the judgment of the Privy Council in Sadiq Husain v. Nazir Begum (1911) 21 M.L.J. 1151 : 1911 L.R. 38 IndAp181 : I.L.R. All 743 seemed to require reconsideration.2. The appellant Satyanarayanamurthi and Krishnamurthi were brothers. The respondents are the legal representatives of Krishnamurthi who died pendente life. The appellant and Krishnamurthi executed, on March 25, I935, a muchilika agreeing to refer certain disputes between them, relating to their joint cultivation and t...
Tag this Judgment!A.M.A. Firm by Managing Partner Murugappa Chettiar in the Place of A.M ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-19-1947
Reported in: AIR1948Mad412; (1948)1MLJ284
Satyanarayana Rao, J.1. This second appeal is preferred by the plaintiff whose suit was decreed by the District Munsiff, Tirupur, but dismissed on appeal by the District Judge, Coimbatore.2. One Sivasubramania Chettiar and four others executed on the 18th April, 1925, a security bond in favour of the defendants 9 to 13 and the father of the plaintiff and the father of defendants 8 and 14. Suit O.S. No. 301 of 1928, Sub-Court, Coimbatore, was filed to enforce the security bond against the suit house and other properties. Defendants 4 to 7 who were not the executants of the security bond contested the claim and the suit as against their 1/3rd share in the suit house was dismissed and a preliminary decree against the 2/3rd share of the executants was passed on 12th November, 1932 (Ex. P-1). While that suit was pending the Tirupur Municipality instituted suit O.S. No. 943 of 1930 in the District Munsiff's Court, Tirupur, for recovery of arrears of property tax due in respect of the suit ho...
Tag this Judgment!Y.L. Paul Vs. G.C. Joseph and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-19-1947
Reported in: AIR1948Mad512; (1948)1MLJ376
Clark, J.1. This is an application to revise an order of the District Munsiff of Bezwada directing a decree to be passed in terms of an award dated 26th Novem-ber, 1944. The dispute in which this award was given was one between two brothers in respect of business they carried on under the name or style of 'Y.L. Mark, Paul and Co.' They were engaged on military contracts. The dispute was admittedly referred to 15 persons who made an award on the 26th November, 1944. The President of the arbitrators,' or Umpire, as he has been referred to for con-venience in the Court below, filed the award in Court under the provisions of Section 14. It has been found that the parties were given notice, both of the making of the award and of its filing in Court. The present applicant, one of the brothers, objected to the passing of the decree on a number of grounds of which three have been agitated again before me. In the first place, he objects on the ground that admittedly, only 14 of the 15 arbitrato...
Tag this Judgment!Bandaru Rattayya and ors. Vs. Gaddam Chandrayya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-19-1947
Reported in: AIR1948Mad526; (1948)1MLJ392
Satyanarayana Rao, J.1. This is an appeal against an order of remand passed by the learned Subordinate Judge of Masulipatam reversing the decree of the District Munsiff of Bezwada. The plaintiffs are the appellants before me. They are the sons of one Rajayya. On the 15th of June, 1935, Rajayya agreed to sell land of the extent of 11 acres 81 cents to the first defendant for a sum of Rs. 12. Ex. D-1, is an unregistered sale-deed executed on the same day. In pursuance of that document the first defendant is in possession of the property. Defendants 2 to 5 are the sons of the first defendant. Rajayya died some time ago and the suit out of which this appeal arises was instituted by the plaintiffs for a declaration of their title to the plaint schedule property and for recovery of possession on the footing that the property was the joint family property of themselves and their father and that the father had no power to sell the property; that the first defendant, taking advantage of the old...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Sathirnalan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-19-1947
Reported in: AIR1948Mad467; (1948)1MLJ428
ORDERGovinda Menon, J.1. This is an application to revise the appellate Order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Ramnad, confirming the conviction and sentence of the petitioners herein, by the Stationary Sub-Magistrate, Srivilliputtur of an offence under Section 24 of the Cattle Trespass Act and sentencing each of the petitioners to pay a fine of Rs. 50 and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for six weeks each.2. Within the ambit of the Zamindary of Seithur in the Ramnad District, there lies a forest by name Sembarambu to which the provisions of the Madras Forest Act have been applied by the Provincial Government and rules to regulate the management of this Forest were promulgated and published in pages 105 to 108 of the Madras Forest Manual, Volume II. The prosecution case is that on the 30th May, 1946, a Forest Range Officer belonging to the Seithur estate when he was inspecting the forest with his watchers P. Ws. 1 and 2, found a herd of cows grazing in a coupe of the forest ...
Tag this Judgment!Subbiah Pillai Alias S.S.M. Subramania Pillai Vs. Sankarapandiam Pilla ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-18-1947
Reported in: AIR1948Mad369; (1948)1MLJ227
Frederick William Gentle, C.J.1. The three plaintiffs and the first defendant are first cousins, being grandsons of one Sankarapandiam Pillai; the plaintiffs are the sons of Subbasamia Pillai and the first defendant is the son of Narayanasamia Pillai, who were sons of the parties' grandfather. Sankarapandiam Pillai married a second time in 1915. Previously, there was an arrangement in the family regarding the division of the property belonging to it and Sankarapandiam Pillai took a one-third share. He died in 1923. A son by the second wife, Subbiah Pillai, died in 1925. The widow's death took place in 1943. The three plaintiffs claimed three shares, each one-fourth, in Sankarapandiam Pillai's property, agreeing that the first defendant was entitled to the remaining one-fourth share. The plaintiffs' claims were the subject-matter of the suit. It is unnecessary to refer to the second and third defendants.2. After the pleadings were closed, issues were framed, the first issue being as fol...
Tag this Judgment!Kayichankandi Ayissa Vs. Variyil Kunhaikalanthan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-17-1947
Reported in: AIR1948Mad420; (1948)1MLJ194
Satyanarayana Rao, J.1. The plaintiff is the appellant. He sued for recovery of possession of a site alleging that the defendant came into possession under an oral lease of 1932. The Courts below have found that the oral lease set up by the petitioner is false but that he has title to the suit property. The learned District Munsiff also found on a consideration of the evidence adduced by both parties that neither side had established effective possession of the site till 1932 and that the site was vacant. Following the decision in Ramanathan Chettiar v. Lakshmanan Chettiar (1930) 61 M.L.J. 224 : I.L.R. 54 Mad.622 the learned District Munsiff decreed the suit. On appeal, however, the learned District Judge while agreeing with the District Munsiff in all the findings of fact dismissed the suit on the ground that the petitioner had failed to prove effective possession before 1932. In his view, it is not enough for the petitioner that he is the owner and that the dispossession took place i...
Tag this Judgment!The Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Sri T.M.M. Dharmaraja Nadar and ors ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-16-1947
Reported in: (1948)2MLJ89
Frederick William Gentle, C.J.1. In these three cases, referred to the Court by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, the facts and circumstances in many respects are the same; by agreement of learned Counsel for the parties they have been heard together. The questions referred in each case are substantially of like effect but the wording in one of them is slightly different. In Referred Cases Nos. 19 and 27 the question is:Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of this case the claim of the respondent to deduct the sum of Rs. 10,000 was allowable in law. In Referred Case No. 23 the question is:Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of this case the claim to deduct the sum of Rs. 10,000 as a bad debt incurred in the account year made by the respondent was legally sustainable. 2. The Tribunal, setting aside the order of the Income-tax Officer, which was upheld by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, decided that by virtue of the provisions of Section 10(2)(xi) of the Indian ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Madras Vs. T. M. M. Dharmaraja Nadar and Ot ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-16-1947
Reported in: [1948]16ITR281(Mad)
GENTLE, C.J. - In these three cases, referred to the Court by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, the facts and circumstances in many respects are the same; by agreement of learned counsel for the parties they have been heard together. The questions referred in each case are substantially of like effect but the wording in one of them is slightly different. In Referred Cases Nos. 19 and 27 the question is :-'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of this case the claim of the respondent to deduct the sum of Rs. 10,000 was allowable in law.'In Referred Case No. 23 for question is :-'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of this case the claim to deduct the sum of Rs. 10,000 as a bad debt incurred in the account year made by the respondent was legally sustainable.'The Tribunal, setting aside the order of the Income-tax Officer, which was upheld by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, decided that by virtue of the provisions of Section 10(2)(xi) of the Indian Income-tax Act,...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »