Chennai Court August 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.
Gopalakrishna Kunikullayya and anr. Vs. Narayana Kamada and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-25-1947
Reported in: (1947)2MLJ585
Bell, J.1. This appeal arises out of the rejection of the plaint in O.S. No. 12 of 1943 by the then Subordinate Judge of South Kanara on the ground that additional Court-fee which had been ordered to be paid by the plaintiff was not paid within the time limited. We think that a few dates may be of importance in this case. The enquiry with regard to the Court-fee was held on 10th September, 1943. The order was then made that an additional Court-fee of Rs. 345 and odd was to be paid by 30th September, 1943. Time was extended from that date twice until 16th October, 1943. As Court-fee was not paid within the time specified the plaint was rejected. It is urged and it is no doubt true that the proper course for the plaintiff to have pursued was to appeal against that order. But instead he filed an application under Order 9, Rule 9, of the Code of Civil Procedure and Section 151 to set aside the order. The application was filed on 2nd November, 1943. It was supported by affidavit and the Sub...
In Re: Chinnappa Goundan Alias Karuppanna Goundan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-22-1947
Reported in: (1948)2MLJ148
Govinda Menon, J.1. This is an appeal against the decision of the District Judge of Trichinopoly in A.S. No. 265 of 1944 on his file.2. The appellant was the first defendant in O.S. No. 219 of 1940 on the file of the District Munsiff's Court of Karur wherein there were preliminary and final decrees on foot of a mortgage. The final decree was passed on 1st September, 1941 and the same was assigned to the respondent on nth November, 1941, who filed E. P. No. 58 of 1942 for executing the decree by sale of the mortgaged property. The appellant then applied to the Debt Conciliation Board, Karur, for scaling down the decree and applied to the District Munsiff for stay under Section 25 of the Debt Conciliation Act. The District Munsiff stayed the sale but on 30th October, 1942, this application was rejected under Section 7 of the Act by the Debt Conciliation Board. Sometime later, the respondent again took steps to execute his decree whereupon the appellant filed a fresh application before th...
Rachapudi Ranga Rao Vs. Balabhadrapatruni Subba Rao and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-22-1947
Reported in: (1948)2MLJ461
Govinda Menon, J.1. The appellant is a transferee decree-holder and the second appeal arises out of the dismissal by the lower appellate Court of his application (E. P. No. 306 of 1942) to execute the decree in O.S. No. 177 of 1930, District Munsiff's Court, Bapatla.2. O.S. No. 177 of 1930 was a decree for a sum of money passed against the respondents on the 9th of July, 1930. Applications in the nature of steps-in-aid of execution had been made on five prior occasions by the original decree-holders and finally the execution petition out of which this civil miscellaneous second appeal arises was filed on 9th July, 1942, by the present appellant in the District Munsiff's Court of Tenali, wherein he stated that the decree has been assigned to him and the Court was requested to execute it by attachment and sale of immoveable property. In the meanwhile on 14th June, 1942, the appellant had filed E.A. No. 756 of 1942, in the District Munsiff's Court, Bapatla, for recognising the assignment ...
The Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. V.V.R.N.M. Subbiah Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-22-1947
Reported in: (1947)2MLJ474
William Gentle, C.J.1. This reference is made by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras. The question raised is:Whether in the circumstances of the case the assessee (a Hindu undivided family) is ' resident in British India under section 4-A ( b) of the Income-tax Act.2. The.assessment was made upon the karta of a joint Hindu family in respect of its income as such. Since 1923 the karta has lived in Ceylon with his wife, son and three daughters ; it is stated they are domiciled in that country where, at one time, the karta carried on business in partnership with a stranger to the family ; in 1930 the partnership was dissolved and since that year a joint family business has been conducted in Colombo. The joint family owns immoveable property at Kanadukathan, Madras, including the ancestral family house ; that house is not let on lease but is occupied, in part at least, by the assessee's mother and where the karta stays when he visits...
A. Moses Pillai Vs. M.K. Govindan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-22-1947
Reported in: AIR1948Mad346; (1948)1MLJ51
Govindarajachari, J.1. The appellant in this second appeal is the owner, and the respondent is the tenant, of a house in Coimbatore. The suit was for obtaining pos-session of the house and for the recovery of Its. 70 as arrears of rent due till the date of the plaint. Out of this amount, Rs. 25 was said to be the balance of rent due for five months from 3rd February, 1943 to 3rd July, 1943; and Rs. 45 was, claimed as the rent which was payable from 3rd July, 1943 to 3rd August, 1943. It was admitted in the plaint that from 3rd February, 1943 to 3rd July, 1943, the defendant paid at the rate of Rs. 40 per month; but the plaintiff claimed that he was entitled to Rs. 45 per month even for those 5 months and that was why he claimed Rs. 25 as the balance due in respect of that period. The learned District Munsiff of Coimbatore dismissed the suit. An appeal to the Subordinate Judge of Coimbatore was also unsuccessful. Hence, the present second appeal, which is confined to the claim for rent,...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras Vs. V. V. R. N. M. Subbiah Chettiar ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-22-1947
Reported in: [1947]15ITR502(Mad)
GENTLE, C.J. - This reference is made by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal sat the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras. The question raised is :-'Whether in the circumstances of the case the assessee (a Hindu undivided family) is resident in British India under Section 4A (b) of the Income-tax Act ?'The assessment was made upon the karta of a joint Hindu family in respect of its income as a such. Since 1923 the karta has lived in Ceylon with his wife, son and three daughters; it is stated they are decided in that country where, at one time, the karta carried on business in partnership with a stranger to the family; in 1930 the partnership was dissolved and since that year a joint family business has been conducted in Colombo. The joint family owns immovable property at Kanadukathan, Madras, including the ancestral family house; that house is not let on lease but is occupied, in part at least, by the assessees mother and where the karta study when he visits British India....
In Re: Somasundaram Chettiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-21-1947
Reported in: AIR1948Mad264; (1947)2MLJ541
ORDERRajamannar, J.1. 19 accused were tried by the Additional Sub-Magistrate,Tiruppattur,for offences under the Madras Gaming Act, 1930. Accused 1 to 17 were convicted under Section 9 of the Act for being found gaming, or present for the purpose of gaming, in a ' common gaming house' and accused 18 and 19 were convicted under Section 8 of the Act for keeping, or permitting to be used, a ' common gaming house.' On appeal, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Devakottai, set aside the conviction against accused 8 to 17 but confirmed the conviction against the rest of the accused. Accused 1 to 7, 18 and 19 are the petitioners in this Court.2. It has now been found-and it is not disputed-that at 5-15 p.m., on 31st January, 1946, accused 1 to 7 were actually playing a game of cards called ' three cards ' in the precincts of the Lakshmi Club at Karaikudi. Accused 8 to 17 were found merely watching the gaming and they were acquitted by the appellate Magistrate on the ground that it could not be con...
In Re: Gopal Naidu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-14-1947
Reported in: AIR1948Mad221; (1947)2MLJ455
Rajamannar, J.1. Accused 1, 3 and 4 who are the petitioners were convicted by the Second Class Magistrate of Sankari under Rule 81(4) of the Defence of India Rules read with Rule 221 of the Defence of India Rules for attempting to transport rice bran and fried Bengal gram outside the district without a permit. Accused No. 1 was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months and accused 3 and 4 to pay a fine of Rs. 200 each, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six weeks. The first accused is the owner of the lorry in which the commodities were attempted to be transported. Accused 3 is the driver of the lorry and accused 4 is the cleaner and brother of accused 1. On appeal, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Namakkal, confirmed the conviction and sentence of the lower Court.2. There is nothing that can be said in favour of the petitioners on the merits. But the learned advocate for them raised a point as to the jurisdiction of the Second Class Magistrate to try the case...
Maduri Lakshminarasimham Vs. Maduri Suryanarayana and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-14-1947
Reported in: AIR1948Mad246; (1947)2MLJ443
Govindarajachari, J.1. The appellant was the first judgment-debtor in O.S. No. 16 of 1932 on the file of the District Court, Vizagapatam, which on transfer was re-numbered as O.S. No. 6 of 1936 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Chicacole. The suit was one for partition and consequential reliefs by a member of a joint Hindu family. The final decree which is dated 31st March, 1939, provided inter alia for the payment of Rs. 4,515 by the first defendant personally and by defendants 2 and 3 out of their family properties towards mesne profits from the year 1924 till date of suit (3 1st August, 1932) with interest thereon at the rate of six per cent per annum from date of plaint and also for the payment similarly of three sums of Rs. 530 each towards mesne profits for the years 1932-33, 1933-34 and 1934-35 with interest on the respective amounts at six per cent, per annum from 1st March, 1933, 1st March, 1934, and 1st March, 1935. Costs of the suit were also awarded to th...
Kundaniyil Ayamutty Vs. Bapputty Alias Muhammad and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-14-1947
Reported in: (1947)2MLJ460
ORDERRajamannar, J.1. The petitioner preferred a complaint to the Second Class Magistrate, Perintalamanna, accusing ten persons of the offence of murder of one Mammali alleged to be a servant of the petitioner in September 1945. The complaint was made on 16th February 1946. The Second Class Magistrate after referring to the report made by the police on investigation and the sworn statement of the complainant dismissed the complaint under Section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure stating that there was no sufficient ground for proceeding with the enquiry. The petitioner sought the Court of Session to revise the order of dismissal passed by the Magistrate. The learned Sessions Judge in revision set aside the order of dismissal so far as accused 3 to 8 were concerned and directed the District Magistrate to make further enquiry into the complaint as against them either by himself or by any other Magistrate. The petitioner complains that the enquiry should have been directed against the...