Chennai Court August 1948 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.
Kodavalur Subbamma Vs. Lota Narayanamurthi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-18-1948
Reported in: (1949)1MLJ56
Satyanarayana Rao, J.1. The first defendant is the appellant in this second appeal. The suit was for a declaration that the portion marked KLMN in the plaint plan is a public pathway and for possession of a portion out of the same after ejecting the first defendant and for a mandatory injunction directing the first defendant to remove a wall which was constructed on the pathway and for other reliefs. The plaintiffs five in number, instituted the suit not only in their individual capacity but also on behalf of the other residents of the village of Kota in their representative capacity and obtained leave of the Court under Order 1, Rule 8 of the Civil Procedure Code to institute the suit in that form.2. The main contesting defendant in this suit was the first defendant. The second defendant remained ex parte. The first defendant contended that the pathway was not a ' public' pathway, that there was no encroachment and that the suit was not maintainable without the sanction of the Advocat...
Bongu Sri Ramamurthy Naidu and ors. Vs. Bongu Satyanarayana Naidu and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-18-1948
Reported in: (1948)2MLJ511
Horwill, J.1. This is an application for leave to appeal to the Federal Court against the judgment and decree of this Court in A.S. Nos. 240 and 414 of 1945.2. The suit was one for partition. No less than fourteen issues were framed. One of the questions raised in the issues was whether the suit was maintainable in view of the allegation that there was a prior partition. The learned Subordinate Judge found that issue against the plaintiffs. He also considered some other issues; but with regard to issues 6 to 8, relating to the debts of the family, the F Schedule property, and the liabilities of the family, he gave no finding at all, directing that these matters might be determined by a commissioner in the course of execution. In appeal, this Court held that there had been no prior partition and that therefore the suit for partition was maintainable. This Court further held that it was wrong on the part of the learned Subordinate Judge not to have decided issues 6 to 8, on which evidenc...
The Commissioner of Income-tax and Excess Profits Tax Vs. Sri R.S.A. S ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-17-1948
Reported in: (1948)2MLJ493
P.V. Rajamannar, C.J.1. This case arises out of the assessment of one R.S.A. Sankara Aiyar, Kallidaikurichi, and the relevant period of accounting is from 16th December 1942 to 15th December, 1943. For a decision of the two questions referred to us, which will be set out later, the following facts have to be stated: The asessee is the manager of a Hindu undivided family. He carried on a money-lending business in partnership with one Kasi Aiyar. The business of this partnership was stopped in 1931, but the firm was not dissolved and continued to realise the outstandings due to it. A separate set of books was being maintained in respect of the realisations and outgoings of the firm. One of its outstanding debts was that due from one Kidar Pillai Maracair on a mortgage. There were some collections towards this debt, and finally a decree was obtained by the firm against the debtor sometime in 1940. In execution of the decree, certain lands of the debtor were sold. On nth September, 1942, a...
Commissioner of Income-tax and Excess Profits Tax, Madras Vs. Sri R. S ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-17-1948
Reported in: [1949]17ITR8(Mad)
RAJAMANNAR, C.J. - This case arises out of the assessment of the one R. S. A. Sankara Aiyar, Kallidaikurichi, and the relevant period of accounting is from December 16, 1942, to December 15, 1943. For a decision of the two questions referred to us, which will be set out later, the following facts have to be stated : The assessee is the a manager of a Hindu undivided family. He carried on a money-lending business in partnership with one Kasi Aiyar. The business of this partnership was stopped in 1931, but the firm was not dissolved and continued to realised the outstanding due to it. A separate set of books was being maintained in respect of the realisations of outgoing of the firm. One of its outstanding debt was that due from one Kidar Pillai Maracair on a mortgage. There were some collections towards this debt, and finally a decree was obtained by the firm against the debtor sometime in 1940. In execution of the decree, certain of the debtor were sold. On September 11, 1942, a sum of...
Burugu Nagayya and anr. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-16-1948
Reported in: (1949)1MLJ623
Yahya Ali, J.1. This is a reference made by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal under Section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act at the instance of the assessee and the question referred is:Whether in the circumstances of the case, the provisions of Section 42(3) are applicable to the profits on the sale of gold effected in British India by the assessee, a non-resident Hindu undivided family, in such manner as to override the provisions of Section 4(1)(c) and render only such portion of such profits assessable as are attributable to operations carried out in British India. 2. We may say at the outset that the frame of the question struck us at first sight as being not quite happy in view of the reference therein to Section 42(3) overriding the provisions of Section 4(1)(c). But after having heard the arguments we feel convinced that the question, for the reasons we shall state later, has been rightly framed.3. The applicant is a non-resident and he has been carrying on business in gold a...
The Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Sri A.Sp.S.Kr. Karuppan Chettiar Al ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-16-1948
Reported in: (1948)2MLJ445
P.V. Rajamannar, C.J.1. In accordance with the order of this Court dated 10th January, 1947, in C.M.P. No. 3199 of 1946 the Appellate Tribunal has stated a case and referred the following question for our decision:Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of this case the sum of Rs. 9,831 is expenditure allowable under Section 10(2)(xii) of the Indian Income-tax Act.2. By the date of this order, under the provisions of the amending Act VIII of 1946, Section 10(2)(xii) was renumbered as 10(2)(xv) and the question will be answered with reference to Clause (xv) of the Act as it stands now.3. The facts which appear from the statement of the case are that the assessee Karuppan Chettiar and his father were members of an undivided Hindu family carrying on money lending business in Rangoon and Tantapin. In 1926 there-was a partition between them and the money lending business at Rangoon fell to the share of the father while that at Tantapin fell to the assessee's share. In 1932 a person wh...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras Vs. A. Sp. S. Kr. Karuppan Chettiar ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-16-1948
Reported in: [1948]16ITR376(Mad)
RAJAMANNAR, C.J. - In accordance with the order of this Court dated 10th January, 1947, in C. M. P. No. 3199 of 1946 the Appellate Tribunal has stated a case and referred the following question for our decision :-'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of this case the sum of Rs. 9,831 is expenditure allowable under Section 10 (2) (xii) of the Indian Income-tax Act ?'By the date of this order, under the provisions of the Amending Act, VIII of 1946, Section 10 (2) (xii) was re-numbered as 10 (2) (xv) and the question will be answered with reference to clause (xv) of the Act as it stands now.The facts which appear from the statement of the case are that the assessee Karuppan Chettiar and his father was members of an undivided Hindu family carrying on money-lending business in Rangoon and Tantapin. In 1926 there was a partition between them and the money-lending business at Rangoon fell to the share of the father while that at Tantapin fell to the assessees share. In 1932 a person ...
Burugu Nagayya and Rajanna Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-16-1948
Reported in: [1949]17ITR194(Mad)
YAHYA ALI, J. - This is a reference made by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal under Section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act at the instance of the assessee and the question referred is :-'Whether in the circumstances of the case, the provisions of the Section 42(3) are applicable to the profits on the sale of gold effected in British India by the assessee, a non-resident Hindu undivided family, in such manner as to override the provisions of Section 4(1)(c) and render only such portion of such profits assessable as are attributable to operations carried out in British India.'We may say at the outset that the frame of the question struck us at the first sight as being not quite happy in view of the reference there in to Section 42(3) overriding the provision of Section 4(1)(c). But after having heard the argument we feel convinced that the question, for the reasons we shall state later, has been rightly framed.The applicant is a non-resident and he has been carrying on business in go...
Nandula Bhavani Sankaram Vs. Saladi Mangamma and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-13-1948
Reported in: (1948)2MLJ412
Mack, J.1. This petition raises a question of jurisdiction and court-fee. The petitioner is the plaintiff; he and the twelfth defendant were brothers. One Nagabhushanam, the deceased father of the first and second defendants, made a gift of some lands in the plaint A and B schedules on 9th March, 1935, to the twelfth defendant. In a partition between the plaintiff and the twelfth defendant the A and B scheduled lands were allotted to the share of the plaintiff. These lands admittedly formed part of Nagabhushanam's joint family property and there were, according to the plaint, recitals in the gift deed that Nagabhushanam would make his sons agree to the gift or that he would make other arrangements to compensate them. The ninth defendant was impleaded as a purchaser from the Official Receiver of the B schedule property after adjudication of the second defendant as an insolvent, under a sale deed under cover of which he is said to have entered into possession. The plaint schedule C compr...
P. Sundaresan and ors. Vs. P. Venkatesiah and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-13-1948
Reported in: (1948)2MLJ421
Horwill, J.1. The matter arising in this civil miscellaneous appeal is whether in view of the provisions of Section 7 of Madras Act XV of 1946 the defendants are-able to resist the execution of the decree for eviction passed in O.S. No. 169 of 1940.2. An agreement was entered into between the plaintiffs and the defendants, who belong to one family, whereby the plaintiffs were to own the whole of the family house-which is the subject-matter of the dispute-and in return for which they executed a promissory note in favour of the defendants. The defendants were however allowed to remain in possession of two rooms as tenants of the plaintiffs, the further arrangement being that the interest due on the promissory note executed by the plaintiffs in favour of the defendants should be set off against the rent due for the two rooms. The plaintiffs alleged that not only did the tenants-fail to pay the rent and that the tenancy was therefore at an end; but that they had trespassed into a third roo...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »