Chennai Court November 1949 Judgments
V.S. Subramania Iyer Vs. Rm. V.V. Ramasami Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-30-1949
Reported in: AIR1951Mad531
Subba Rao, J. 1. These are two connected appeals and the only question that arises in both the appeals is whether the plaintiff would be entitled to the declaration asked for. On 19-4-1936 one T. N. S. Chockalingam Chetty executed a promissory note in favour of the defendant V. S. Subramania Ayyar for a sum of Rs. 31,500 and deposited with him the title deeds of three sets of properties by way of equitable mortgage. The properties so comprised in the equitable mortgage consist of 10 items of Chochaligam Chetty's own properties in Madras, two items in Madras in regard to which he had only mortgage interest and his mortgage interest in some properties situated in Karaikkal in the French territory. The said properties situated in Karaikkal were mortgaged by the plaintiff's father Vythilingam Pillai to Chockalingam Chetty by a deed of the year 1025. Subramania Ayyar filed O. S. 63 of 1939 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Sivaganga to enforce the equitable mortgage and i...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: M. Venkataswami
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-30-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Mad406
ORDERPanchapakesa Aiyar, J.1. I see no reason to interfere in revision in this case. Hurling down a bundle of bangles of a fellow passenger and breaking them will not allow a passenger, even though he is a railway official travelling in the train, not liable under Section 120, Railways Act, as such an act is not an act done or doable by a railway servant as such and the ruling in Gurunath Shankar v. Emperor : AIR1937Bom357 will not apply. There is no illegality or failure of justice in this case. 2. The petition is dismissed. ...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: T. Venkataraya Chetti
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-30-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Mad440
Panchapakesa Ayyar, J.1. In the peculiar circumstances of the case, I am of opinion that the congestion of the jaggery, which belonged to this petitioner, for the offence committed by the lorry driver whom he had engaged to transport it and who transported it at night time against the rules was not justified, as contended by Mr. Y. Rajagopalachari, advocate for the petitioner, since it was not proved that the offence of transporting the jaggery during the night was committed by the lorry driver with the knowledge or connivance or criminal negligence of the petitioner. There is a presumption of innocence under the law, and no man shall suffer in person or property normally unless he is proved to have had the necessary mens rea. Mere suspicion of knowledge or connivance or criminal negligence will not do even for confiscation. Nor will the act of a servant or agent or carrier do. Suppose a carrier of a gun of another was convicted under Section 19, Arms Act, the gun should not normally b...
Tag this Judgment!Nagammal and ors. Vs. Varada Kandar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-30-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Mad606
Rajamannar, C.J.1. Defendants 2, 8 and 10 in O. S. No. 96 of 1945 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Trichiropoly are the appellants before us. On 9th March 1939, properties described in Schedule B to the plaint which belonged to plaintiff-respondent 1 who was then a minor were sold by defendant 6 his mother as his guardian along with her co-widows defendants 5 and 7 to appellant 1 (defendant 2) for Rs. 2900/-. The plaintiff two years after attaining his majority filed the above suit to recover possession of the properties after setting aside the alienation. The consideration of Rs. 2900/- was made up of 11 items, all set out in the sale deed. The extent of the lands old was 2 acres 48 cents. The learned Subordinate Judge found that the sale deed was true and the entire sum of Rs. 2900/- recited as its consideration was paid by defendant 2 in cash or by adjustment or paid by her husband, D. W. l on her behalf to the persons named as creditors in the sale deed or to th...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Sri M.P. Viswanatha Rao (Died) and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-29-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Mad393; [1950]18ITR68(Mad)
Viswanatha Sastri, J.1. The question that has been referred to us is in these terms:'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the sum of Rs. 5750 described as additional dividend to be satisfied by issue of three per cent, bearer deposit certificates is not income liable to tax as dividend.'The assessee is a non-resident. In order to arrive at his total income for the purposes of Indian income-tax, the Income-tax Officer, included a sum of Rs. 5750 stated to have been paid to the assessee by the Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd., by the issue of 3 per cent, bearer deposit certificates. The company, in view of war conditions, decided not to pay the sum of Rs. 5750 in cash to the share holder but issued bearer deposit certificates for the sum which was made payable on or before 10th August 1945, with interest at 3 per cent interest being payable annually. The question is whether this sum of Rs. 5750 which was not paid in cash but which is represented by the deposit certificat...
Tag this Judgment!Katragadda Bapayya (Died) and ors. Vs. Dokku Bhushayya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-25-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Mad397
Rajamannar, C.J. and Mack J.1. We consider that this appeal should be heard by a Full Bench as it raises a question of some importance relating to the application of Order 32, Rule 7, Civil P. C.2. The plaintiff and defendants 5 and 6 are the sons of defendant 4. Defendant 1 obtained a decree in O. S. No. 88 of 1929 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Bapatla, for the amount due under a promissory note executed by defendants 3 and 4. In execution of that decree, the properties in suit which were the ancestral properties of defendant 4's family were attached and brought to sale subject to a mortgage which had been executed by defendant 4 in favour of defendant 1. In the court auction, the properties were purchased by one Vajja Bapiraju, the brother of defendant 2. He is alleged to be the clerk of defendant 1. The properties were sold for a sum of Rs. 205/- subject to the mortgage in favour of defendant 1, on 29th February 1932. On 29th March 1932 an application was file...
Tag this Judgment!The Governor-general in Council, Owning the Madras and Southern Mahrat ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-25-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Mad438
Govind Menon, J.1. The main and important point for consideration is whether the suit is barred under Article 30 or Article 31, Limitation Act. The plaintiff's suit was for recovery of the price of certain goods, namely, bales of cotton cloth which had been lost by the defendants who are common carriers during the course of the transit of the articles from Rajapalayam to Guntur. It is common ground that the goods in question were handed over to the South Indian Railway Company on 7th September 1944 at Rajapalayam for dispatch to Guntur. It is also proved beyond doubt that these goods reached the Tondiarpet Marshalling Yard in the Madras City on the midnight of 17th September 1944 and that sometime later the goods were lost. On enquiries made by the railway company, it was found that a gang of thieves had opened the wagon in the Yard and carried away the packages. Since the goods were not delivered at the destination to the plaintiff, who was the consignee of these goods in proper time,...
Tag this Judgment!Menankandi Madhavi Amma Vs. Kannoli Kalathi Sucheela
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-25-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Mad612
ORDERSubba Rao, J.1. The only question in this revision is whether the suit transaction is a kanom within the meaning of the Malabar Tenancy Act. A kanom is defined in Section 3(1), Malabar Tenancy Act as follows; ' 'Kanom' means the transfer for consideration in money or in kind or in both by a landlord of an interest in specific immovable property to another (called 'kanamdar') for the latter's enjoyment, the incidents of which transfer include: (1) a right in the transferee to hold the said property liable for the consideration paid by him or due to him which consideration is called 'kanartham', (2) the liability of the transferor to pay to the transferee interest on the kanartham, (3) the payment of 'michavaram' by the transferee, (4) the right of the transferee to enjoy the said property for twelve years or any other period, and(5) the liability of the transferee to pay a renewal fee to the transferor, if the transferee is permitted to enjoy the said property for a further period ...
Tag this Judgment!Public Prosecutor Vs. Munuswamy and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-24-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Mad365
Panchapakesa Ayyar, J.1. This is an appeal by the Madras Government against the acquittal of the three respondents by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Tiruvallur, and involves an important question of law, namely whether police constables can be subjected to criminal force by persons arrested by them for a non cognizable offence after their escape from custody and in revenge. The facts are briefly these. At about 7 P. M. on 21st June 1948, the three respondents and the mother of respondents 2 and 3 (accused 4 in the lower Court who was discharged, and is not the subject of this appeal) were quarrelling with each other and abusing each other in a public place, and were in fact committing an affray falling under Section 160, Penal Code. P. Ws. 1 and 2, two constables of Gummidipundi station, within whose limits the affray was taking place, went to the spot with a head constable, P. W. 3, and tried to stop the affray in progress, and warned the respondents not to quarrel. The story of P. Ws...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Gigina Pasha Saheb
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-24-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Mad619
ORDERPanchapakesa Ayyar, J.1. The only three points for determination in this case are whether in a prosecution under Section 15(b), Madras General Sales Tax Act, the validity of the assessment can be questioned by a party or gone into by a criminal Court in any prosecution or other proceeding before it, (1) where the turnover on which the person is assessed relates wholly to the period before 1st January 1948 and the assessment is made before 1st January 1948 but the prosecution is instituted after 1st January 1948 when the new Section 16A came into force; (2) when the assessment is made after 1st January 1948, as in this case, but a portion of the turnover on which the assessment is based relates to the period before 1st January 1948; and (3) where the turnover, assessment and prosecution are all after 1st January 1948. 2. I shall take the last case first. I agree with the learned Public Prosecutor that, as Section 16A stands, the validity (including therein both the legality and the...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »