Chennai Court December 1949 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.
Subba Naidu and anr. Vs. Kannia Naidu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-07-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Mad482
Chandra Reddi, J.1. C. M. P. No. 1065 is a petition for converting C. R. P. No. 1794 into a C. M. A. for reasons stated in the affidavit in support of the petition. The civil revision petition was filed in time and the requisite court-fee has been already paid. I therefore see no reason why this prayer for converting the C. R. P. into a C. M. A. should not be granted. I accordingly direct that the C. R. P. be converted into a C. M. A.2. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is brought from the decree and the judgment of the District Judge, Chingleput in A. S. No. 97 of 1948 by defendants 1 and 2 in O. S. No. 226 of 1946. This litigation relates to a claim based on a promissory note executed by defendant 3 in favour of defendant 1 who assigned it to defendant 2. Defendant 3 executed a promissory note for a sum of Rs. 400 in favour of defendant 1 who assigned it to defendant 2. On the foot of this promissory note, a suit was instituted by defendant 2 in the Court of small causes at Madras and ...
V.M.N. Radha Ammal Vs. the Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-07-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Mad538; [1950]18ITR225(Mad)
Satyanarayana Rao, J.1. The only question (that has been referred to us by the Appellate Tribunal under Section 66 (1) of the Act is whether in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the partnership deed cannot be registered. 2. One V.M. Narayanaswami Mudaliar carried on business in handloom cloth and piece goods. In respect of this business, he was assessed as the karta, of an undivided Hindu family up to the assessment year 1941-42. In 1942 he died leaving six minor sons and a widow. During the assessment years 1942-43, and 1943-44, the income was assessed on the basis of the income of an undivided Hindu family represented by the widow Radha Ammal. The assessment year with which we are now concerned is the year 1944-46 and the accounting year is the year ending 16th November 1943. During the accounting year the widow entered into two partnerships in respect of the two heads of business with two different persons. One was with one Arnmugha Mudal...
irulayee Ammal Vs. T.V. Murugiah and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-07-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Mad640; (1950)IIMLJ17
Somasundaram, J.1. This is an appeal against (be order in E. A. No. 627 of 1946 in E. P. No. 138 of 1943 in O. S. No. 20 of 1936, on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Madura.2. The circumstances under which this appeal is preferred are these. O. S. No. 20 of 1936 was filed by the plaintiff, respondent 2 herein, for recovery of the amount due under a mortgage executed by defendants 1 to 4 in the suit. Defendants 5 to 8 and 9 to 12 are purchasers of portions of the hypotheca. Defendant 13 is a purchaser of three houses from defendant 9 and defendant 14 is a purchaser of one of the three houses from defendant 13. Defendant 29, the contesting respondent 1 in this appeal, is the legal representative of defendant 14. On 13th September 1937, a preliminary mortgage decree was passed in O. S. No. 20 of 1936. Petitions for scaling down the debt under Madras Act IV [4] of 1938 were filed by the mortgagors, defendants 1 to 4 and the purchasers defendants 5 to 8 and defendants 9 to 12. The...
Vanka Lakshminarayana Sastri Vs. Mangalappalli Sundaramayya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-06-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Mad601
Rajamannar, C.J. 1. The plaintiff is the appellant. He filed a suit in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Amalapuram for a declaration that he was the adopted son of one Dattatrayalu and for possession of the properties set out in schedules B and C to the plaint from the several defendants who were in possession of portions of them. Defendant 1 who died pending the suit was the widow of Dattatrayalu. Dattatrayalu left behind him his last will and testament dated 27th November 1896. In and by this will he gave his widow authority to make an adoption to him, but he indicated that she should adopt one Durgayya son of Venkatanarasayya, his nearest gnati and only in case the natural father of the said boy was unwilling to give him in adoption, she was given authority to take in adoption any boy of her choice. He owned an extant of 11 acres 75 cents in Indupalli and he disposed of these properties as follows: He gave absolutely 2 acres to his elder brother Subbayya Sastrulu, l acre 50 cen...
M.S.M.M. Meyyappa Chettiar Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-05-1949
Reported in: AIR1951Mad506; [1950]18ITR586(Mad); (1950)2MLJ353
Satyanarayana Rao, J. 1. Under section 66 (i), Income-tax Act, the Appellate Tribunal referred to this Court the following question :'Whether in the circumstances of the case the finding of the Appellate Tribunal that there has been no partition within the meaning of Section 25-A is right.'The applicant who is the assessee is the karta of a Hindu undivided family which consisted of himself and his two minor sons, Chocka-lingam and Meyyappan. Daring the assessment year 1940-41, the assessee applied under Section 25-A, Income-tax Act, for an order recording a partition which had taken place among the members of the family. The family was assessed till that date as an undivided family. In December 1941, another son was born; but thepartition claimed was long before that date and even before the period of gestation. According to the applicant the partition was on 22-2-1940 which was reduced to writing on 5-4-1940, as evidenced by the partition deed of that date. The property of the family ...
In Re: E.B. Nagaratnammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-05-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Mad432
ORDERPanchapakesa Ayyar, J.1. The conviction of the petitioner was undoubtedly correct. An exchange of buildings by two persons inevitably involves the vacancies of both buildings. A vacates building A, B vacates building B then A occupies building B, and B occupies building A. The mere naming of such a double vacancy and double occupation as an exchange cannot alter the facts. So the petitioner was bound to notify the vacancy of the Rs. 35/- building to the Controller and take his permission to occupy it instead of quietly occupying it herself.2. I have held already in two recent cases that 'rent' under Section 3 (2) means the 'actual rent' paid or payable, and not a 'fair rent' when none has been fixed. Surely, a person receiving from another Rs. 35/- as rent in hard cash cannot be allowed to quibble and say that the actual rent will be much less. The rule that a person cannot approbate and reprobate or blow hot and cold in the same breath will apply here also.3. So, I confirm the pe...
Sayyed Usman Saheb and ors. Vs. Vegisena Sivaramaraju and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-05-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Mad463
Viswanatha Sastri, J.1. C. M. S. A. No. 37 of 1946, C. R. P. No. 822 of 1945 and C. R. P. No. 149 of 1946 all arose oat of C. M. P. No. 846 of 1944 in O. P. No. 57 of 1927 on the file of the District Munsif's Court, Amalapuram, and were all dismissed by Govindarajachari J. who, however, granted leave to appeal in C. M. S. A. No. 37 of 1946 from which this Letters Patent appeal has been filed.2. The facts are these. On llth October 1922 Viswanatharaju created a simple mortgage over his lands in favour of two brothers, Venkataraju and Sooraparaju for Rs. 2500/- repayable in eight annual instalments with interest at RS. 1-0-6 per mensem. Sometime later, the hypotheca was sold to Sayeed Oosman, the original appellant in the Letters Patent appeal since dead, and now represented by his legal representatives. Sayeed Oosman paid several instalments of principal and interest during the years 1925 to 1927 and deposited in the District Munsif's Court of Amalapuram a sum of Rs. 997/- being the bal...
Periannan and Ors. vs. Airabadeeswarar Soundaranayagi Amman Kovil of O ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-02-1949
Reported in: AIR1952Mad323; (1952)IMLJ71
1. These second appeals and the civil revision petitions arise out of a batch of suits relating to the village of Manamelpatti, a Dharmasanam village, in the Ramnad District. The suits out of which these second appeals arise were instituted by the trustees of Airabhadeswarar Soundaranayagi Amman Temple for ejectment of the defendants from the lands in their respective possession and for recovery of rent for faslis 1349 and 1350 and for future profits. The village comprises 80 pangus out of which the plaint temple in this batch owns 23 1/2 pangus purchased from the original owners and one pangu taken on othi from the owner. The plaintiffs in the batch of suits out of which the civil revision petitions arise are the managers of the Devasthanam of Nagara Vairavanpatti Valaroleeswaraswami Nagara Vairavaswami Devasthanam. This temple owns 54 and 5/8th pangus or shares in the village and suits were instituted for recovery of the balance of amounts due as 'iru bogam' for faslis 1349 and 1350....
Subramanian (Minor) and ors. Vs. M.P. Vasudevan Chettiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-02-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Mad488
ORDERKrishnaswami Nayudu, J.1. The question that arises for determination in this revision petition is whether in a petition filed by the arbitrators under Section 14, Arbitration Act (Act X [10] of 1940) for filing an award, persons who were eo nomine, not parties to either the agreement of reference or to the award could be added as necessary parties under Order 1, Rule 10, Civil P. C. On a reference made by three brothers, Subbaratnam Chettiar, Vasudevan Chettiar and Krishnaswami Chettiar to two arbitrators regarding the partition of their family properties the arbitrators gave an award. The award was filed by the arbitrators under Section 14, Arbitration Act, in O. P. No. 90 of 1947, on the file of the Subordinate Court of Trichinopoly. Subbaratnam Chettiar remained ex parte in the arbitration proceedings. He became insolvent since the filing of O. P. No. 9 of 1947, and the Official Receiver of Trichinopoly was brought on record as representing his estate. Subbaratnam Chettiar file...
In Re: P. Krishnamurthi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-02-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Mad511
ORDERPanchapakesa Ayyar, J.1. The petitioner, P. Krishnamurti, has been convicted under Section 37(4), City Police Act and has been fined Rs. 35 by the 3rd Presidency Magistrate, Madras, for receiving beta on horses running at the Guindy races at about 3-30 P. M. on 4th December 1948.2. Mr. Ghatala, for the petitioner, raised three main contentions: The first was that P. W. 2, who swore to his giving the petitioner Rs. 1.4.0 three times that day for betting, cannot be believed as P. W. 2 did not know the petitioner before and could not have paid him the three bet amounts, especially as there were the regular race course men ready to receive bets. I cannot agree. The regular race course men don't receive petty amounts like Rs. 1-4-0 from betting enthusiasts of poor means like P. W. 2. They cater to gentlemen who can afford to pay the regulation bet amount. Bucket-shop men secretly cater to men of petty means like P. W. 2. Nor is previous friendship essential for giving and taking bets. ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »