Chennai Court December 1947 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.
G. Ammanna Vs. Mrs. Epsey Gidion Ammanna
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-15-1947
Reported in: (1948)2MLJ77
Frederick William Gentle, C.J.1. This matter comes before the Court pursuant to Section 17, read with Section 3(1)(b) of the Indian Divorce Act. It is a petition by a husband seeking dissolution of his marriage from his wife on the ground of her adultery with an unmarried man. The adultery is said to have commenced in the year 1933 or 1934 and no proceedings were taken until the institution of the petition, out of which this reference arises, on September 20, 1946. The name of the adulterer is not mentioned in the petition and there is a prayer, for which no reason is manifested, that the petitioner may be excused from making the adulterer a counter-petitioner.2. The only evidence which was given was that of the petitioner, who stated very little. Summarised it is the following. The wife left the petitioner 12 years before he gave evidence in 1946. She ran away with another Christian named G.S. Maben and the petitioner did not know where they were living. In 1936 he found in a copy of ...
In Re: a Pleader
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-15-1947
Reported in: AIR1948Mad273; (1948)1MLJ170
Frederick William Gentle, C.J.1. This case comes before the Court under Section 15 of the Legal Practitioners Act upon the finding expressed by the learned District Judge of Madura after holding an inquiry into a complaint against a pleader of pro-fessional misconduct. The relevant provisions of that Act are found in Section 13 which provides as follows:The High Court may also, after such inquiry as it thinks fit, suspend or dismiss any pleader or mukhtar holding a certificate as aforesaid. * * *(b) who is guilty of fraudulent or grossly improper conduct in the discharge of his professional duty.2. The pleader was engaged by clients to propound a will as the last testament of a deceased person. He filed a vakalat, together with the necessary papers and documents seeking grant of probate. In regard to the will the pleader was not an attesting witness, but, according to his own statement contained in his counter-affidavit affirmed on 28th July, 1947, he had drafted the will and was prese...
T.N.V. Kailasa thevar Vs. V. Ramaswami Ayyangar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-12-1947
Reported in: (1948)2MLJ28
Govindarajachari, J.1. The appellant in the above appeal was the first defendant in O.S. No. 30 of 1934 on the file of the District Court, East Tanjore, at Negapatam. The main facts which led up to this appeal are the following:The first defendant for himself and on behalf of his minor brother, the 2nd defendant, and the guardian of defendants 3 to 7 who are the sons of a cousin of the 1st and 2nd defendants gave a simple mortgage over some properties to the plaintiffs. The mortgage was sued on and resulted in a preliminary decree, dated 15th May, 1937 and a final decree, dated 28th January, 1938. It was held that the mortgage was not binding on the 2nd defendant and the decree fixed the amount payable by defendants 1 and 3 to 7 at Rs. 1,08,008. Defendants 3 to 7 filed Appeal No. 48 of 1938 in this Court contending that the mortgage was not binding on them and that their shares should not have been made liable. The 1st defendant was also a party to this appeal. The plaintiffs appealed ...
N. Appavu Udayan and anr. Vs. Nallammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-12-1947
Reported in: (1948)1MLJ110
Frederick William Gentle, C.J.1. The material facts in this Letters Patent Appeal can be stated shortly. The plaintiff's husband and the two defendants were brothers and together with their father, they formed a joint Hindu family governed by the Mitakshara school of Hindu law. By a deed of partition, dated 31st December, 1924, the family was disrupted and each member was allotted and took a one-fourth share of the family property; after the partition each lived separately from the others. The plaintiff's husband died in 1929; the plaintiff sold the property which devolved upon her from her husband and utilised the proceeds to discharge his debts, the surplus remaining was a sum of about Rs. 85, or its equivalent. She was in indigent circumstances, her father-in-law took her into his house and maintained her out of his self-acquired property, until he died in 1943. Upon his death, the two defendants, as the heirs of their father, inherited his self-acquisitions.2. In the suit, out of w...
The Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Rm. M. Sm. Sv. Sevugan Alias Manick ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-11-1947
Reported in: (1948)1MLJ157
Frederick William Gentle, C.J.1. This reference is made by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal under Section 66(1) of the Income-tax Act, at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras. The question referred to this Court is the following:Whether in the circumstances of the case where it has been held that the liability of a Hindu-undivided family after disruption has been imposed upon the members thereof the order of the tribunal that the appeal is allowed could be sustained.2. At the outset, learned Counsel on behalf of the respondent-assessee, raised a preliminary objection that this reference is incompetent, and should not have been made by the Tribunal since the application by the Commissioner for a case to be stated pursuant to Section 66(1) of the Act, was made after the expiration of 60 days following the passing of the order by the Tribunal. In considering this objection reference is necessary to some material facts.3. Prior to 1938, the assessee was the karta of a Hi...
Vai Km. Vayyapuri Vathiar Vs. R. Somianarayana Iyengar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-11-1947
Reported in: (1948)1MLJ193
Satyanarayana Rao, J.1. This is a revision petition filed against the order of the learned Subordinate Judge of Devakottai directing the plaintiffs to pay court-fee on an amount of Rs. 14,200. The plaintiffs claiming to be the hereditary trustees of a temple instituted the suit for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiffs' management of the suit temple and its properties, delivery of cash and moveables collected on 13th March, 1945 and declaration that the plaintiffs are the sole trustees and managers of the Poeisolla Meyyar Ayyanar temple at Sankarapuram. These reliefs were valued separately. As regards the injunction they paid court-fee of Rs. 100 under Section 7, Clause (iv)(d) of the Court-Fees Act. As regards the relief for account they paid court-fee of a sum of Rs. 400 under Section 7, Clause (i); for declaration they paid a fixed fee of Rs. 100 under Schedule II, Article 17-B. The Court below on a consideration of the allegations in...
Sahul Hameed Rowther Vs. K.C.P. Mohideen Pichai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-11-1947
Reported in: AIR1948Mad451; (1948)1MLJ270
Horwill, J.1. The respondent, alleging that a sale deed executed by him in favour of the petitioner was sham and nominal, prayed for a declaration to that effect and for an injunction restraining the defendant (petitioner) from interfering with his possession; in the alternative, in case the Court should find that his possession had been disturbed, he prayed for possession. He paid Court-fee under Section 7 (v)(b), at ten times the kist, which was higher than the Court-fee payable on the alternative relief for declaration and injunction under Section 7 (iv)(c). The District Munsiff before whom the suit was filed held that the suit should have been valued and Court-fee paid according to Section 7 (iv-A), since by implication the plaintiff was asking for cancellation of the sale deed. He found that the value of the suit according to Section 7 (iv-A) was Rs. 6000, which was beyond his jurisdiction. So he returned the plaint for presentation to the pro-per Court. The plaintiff took the mat...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras Vs. O. Rm. M. Sm. Sv. Sevugan.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-11-1947
Reported in: [1948]16ITR59(Mad)
GENTLE, C.J. - This reference is made by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal under Section 66 (1) of the Income-tax Act, at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax Madras. The question referred to the Court is the following :-'Whether in the circumstances of the case where it has been held that the liability of a Hindu undivided family after disruption has been imposed upon the members thereof the order of the Tribunal that the appeal is allowed could be sustained.'At the outset, learned counsel on behalf of the respondent assessee, raised a preliminary objection that this reference is incompetent and should not have been made by the Tribunal since the application by the Commissioner for a case to be stated, pursuant to Section 66 (1) of the Act, was made after the expiration of sixty days following the passing of the order by the Tribunal. In considering this objection reference is necessary to some material facts.Prior to 1938, the assessee was the karta of a Hindu undivided fam...
R. Ramaswami Chettiar Vs. Sriperumbudur M. Ramaswami Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-10-1947
Reported in: AIR1948Mad333; (1948)1MLJ272
Horwill, J.1. This is an appeal against the decree of the Principal Judge, City Civil Court, dismissing the appellant's suit for ejectment of his tenant (the respondent) and for mesne profits.2. The respondent and another entered into possession of the suit land on the 14th July, 1921, by Ex. D-1, which was a registered lease for a term of ten years, agreeing to pay Rs. 12 per month for the first five years and Rs. 15 per month for the second period of five years. According to the evidence of the respondent, which has not been refuted, the respondent alone continued in possession after the expiry of the lease in 1931. The other lessee is said to have died in 1936, where-upon his relatives took away his cows and took no further interest in the sheds which had been erected on the suit land after the execution of the lease in 1921. On the 15th July, 1944, after the suit land had been sold to the plaintiff by Bala-sundara Achari, son of Gangadhara Achari (the lessor under Ex. D-1) the defe...
Papanasam Chettiar and anr. Vs. Muthayya Chettiar (Dead) and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-09-1947
Reported in: (1949)1MLJ52
1. The plaintiffs in a partition suit whose claim to a major portion of the properties that belonged to the joint family was rejected by the trial Court and which was affirmed in appeal by the learned District Judge of Tinnevelly, are the appellants in this second appeal. There were four brothers Sankaralingam, Muthiah, Subbiah and Kandasami who constituted a joint family of which Sankaralingam was the managing member. Subbiah had died some years ago leaving behind a son Isakimuthu. For the purpose of this second appeal, the existence of Isakimuthu is not of special concern. The managing member had subscribed to a chit fund of which one Ramachandra Iyer, father of the third respondent and brother of the second respondent, was the stake-holder. The manager had executed a receipt in favour of the stake-holder on 30th June, 1919, in acknowledgment of the receipt of the prize amount and; agreeing to pay future subscriptions properly. Since he committed default, the stake-holder filed O.S. ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »