Chennai Court August 1949 Judgments
N. Muhammad UssaIn Sahib and anr. Vs. S.N. Abdul Gaffoor Sahib and ors ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-05-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Mad758
Satyanarayana Rao, J.1. This appeal arises out of proceedings for passing of a final decree in a partnership action. The partnership in dispute was commenced on 1st January 1937 under an agreement between three partners, one N. Abdul Wahab now represented by defendants 1 to 8, Abdul Wahab, defendant 9 and Abdul Gafoor, respondent 1-plaintiff. A period of ten years was fixed as the duration of the partnership. Under the provisions of the agreement the two Wshabs had contributed the capital and Gaffoor was only the working partner. The articles of partnership also provide for annual settlement of accounts and the method of settling those accounts. The settlement proceeds on the basis of the book value of the assets and not on the real value. On 5th December 1942, N. Abdul Wahab died which brought about the dissolution of the partnership. The plaintiff Gaffoor instituted the action, out of which this appeal arises for taking accounts of the dissolved partnership from 1st January 1937, the...
Tag this Judgment!Udipi Municipal Council Represented by Its Commissioner, T. Harichandr ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-04-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Mad222
K. Srinivasa Rao, J.1. This second appeal has been preferred by the Udipi Municipal Council whose suit for the recovery of Rs. 103-5-9 as arrears of property tax due from the three defendants has been dismissed by the Courts below. The tax is sought to be levied under Section 81(3), Madras District Municipalities Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) on 6 acres and 88 cents of vacant land belonging to the defendants and situate within the limits of the municipality. The defendants, here respondents, resist the claim on the grounds that they should: have been assessed to property tax under Section 81 (i) of the Act and not under Section 81 (3) and they should have been separately and individually assessed on the share of the property held by each of them. Their contentions were accepted by the Courts below. It is unnecessary to set out Other defences which are not now material.2. The appellant urged two points before me: (i) the assessment in this case was rightly made under Section ...
Tag this Judgment!The Udipi Municipal Council, Represented by Its Commissioner, T. Haric ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-04-1949
Reported in: (1949)2MLJ629
Viswanatha Sastri, J. 1. This second appeal has been preferred by the Udipi Municipal Council whose suit for the recovery of Rs. 103-5-9 as arrears of property tax due from the three defendants has been dismissed by the Courts below. The tax is sought to be levied under Section 81(3) of the Madras District Municipalities Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) on 6 acres and 38 cents of vacant land belonging to the defendants and situate within the limits of the Municipality. The defendants, here respondents, resist the claim on the grounds that they should have been assessed to property tax under Section 81(4) of the Act and not under Section 81(3) and they should have been separately and individually assessed on the share of the property held by each of them. Their contentions were accepted by the Courts below. It is unnecessary to set out other defences which are not now material. 2. The appellant urged two points before me (i) the assessment in this case was rightly made under Sec...
Tag this Judgment!Chebrole Narayana Vs. Chendra Rudrayya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-03-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Mad183
ORDERSomasundaram, J.1. On a private complaint, the petitioner was prosecuted for cheating, an offence punishable under Section 420, Penal Code. The prosecution witnesses were examined and when the case was posted for hearing, the complainant was absent and the trial Magistrate discharged the accused under Section 259, Criminal P. C. In revision the Additional District Magistrate set aside the order of discharge on the ground that though the offence may be lawfully compounded, still as, the offence required permission of the Court for compounding (vide Section 345, Criminal P. C.) and as such permission was not granted, it was not open to the Magistrate to discharge this petitioner. 2. The Additional District Magistrate is wrong in thinking that in cases where offences may be lawfully compounded, the accused cannot be discharged under Section 259, Criminal P. C, without giving permission for compounding. What the section says is that in case, where the offence may be lawfully compounde...
Tag this Judgment!Ramanujulu Naidu Vs. Gajaraja Ammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-03-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Mad146
Viswanatha Sastri, J.1. The plaintiff whose suit on a mortgage dated 17th February 1935 has been dismissed by the Courts below is the appellant in-this second appeal. The defence of the defendant (here respondent) was that the mortgage was a nominal transaction and that in any case there was a want or failure of consideration for the mortgage.2. The facts are these: One Rangappa Chetty who died in 1915 was the owner of a house in Trichinopoly and an extent of 1 acre 80 cents of cultivable land. He died leaving him surviving a widow Seshammal, his grand-daughter (daughter's daughter) Gajarajammal who is the defendant and Govindaswami, a grandson of his paternal uncle. The widow died on 21st December 1932. By that time the Hindu Law of Inheritance (Amendment) Act, (II [2] of 1929) had come into force. In the year 1933, a Division-Bench of this Court decided in Krishnan Chettiar v. Manikammal, 57 Mad. 718 : A. I. R. I934, Mad. 138 that Act II [2] of 1929 applied only in respect of success...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›