Chennai Court February 1950 Judgments
Dr. Mohammad Ibrahim Vs. Syed Ahmed Khan and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-10-1950
Reported in: AIR1950Mad556
Rajamannar, C.J. 1. These two applications for the issue of writs of certiorari are directed against two orders of the Court of Small Causes passed as the appellate authority, in two appeals against an order of the House Rent Controller made on a petition by one Sayed Ahmed Khan the contesting respondent before us for possession of a building in Ellis Road, Mount Road, Madras. He sought the eviction of the two petitioners before us who were occupying the ground floor and the first floor of the building respectively. The ground on which the petition was based was that the respondent required the building for his own occupation. He alleged that he was not occupying a residential building of his own in the city. The Rent Controller dismissed the petition against the petitioner in C. M. P. No. 7472 of 1949 but ordered the eviction of the petitioner in C M. P. No. 7678. There were two appeals, one by the landlord and another by the petitioner in C. M. P. No. 7678 of 1949. Both the appeals w...
Tag this Judgment!Panguluru Pullappa Naidu and ors. Vs. Lakku Venkatanarappa Reddi and o ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-10-1950
Reported in: AIR1950Mad578
1. This is a revision petition against an order of the learned Subordinate Judge of Nellore, allowing an amendment of the decree in A. S. No. 162 of 1944 on the file of his Court. The respondent's counsel takes a preliminary objection to the filing of this civil revision petition on the ground that the remedy of the petitioner was by way of an appeal from the amended decree and that this civil revision petition is therefore incompetent.2. In Narayanaswami v. Natesa, 16 Mad. 424, it was held by this Court that an order allowing an amendment of a decree was open to revision, although the decree, as amended, was appeal-able; but this view was not accepted in Viswanathan Chetti v. Ramanathan Chetti, 24 Mad. 646 by the Division Bench. In Bhagirathi v. Minakshi, (1917) 31 M. L. J. 438 :A. I. R. 1917 Mad. 599 it was held by a learned Judge of this Court that in exceptional cases an order allowing an amendment of a decree could be interfered with in revision by this Court though in that case t...
Tag this Judgment!Payingatan Chappan and ors. Vs. Kelu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-08-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Mad460; (1950)IIMLJ271
Satyanarayana Rao, J.1. Defendants 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 are the appellants in this second appeal. This second appeal raises an important and interesting question under the Malabar Tenancy Act, 1929 (XIV [14] of 1930). The suit out of which this second appeal arises was instituted for redemption of an othi (usufructuary mortgage), and for recovery of possession of the plaint scheduled properties which consists of two items, on payment of the othi amount of Rs. 50 and the value of the improvements after making certain other deductions which are not very material. The document on which the suit was based is EX. p.-1 an othi marupat, dated 15-1-1921, executed by one Kannan, a predecessor of defendant 1, in favour of Chandu, a predecessor of the plaintiff. Defendants 2, 3 and 6 were impeaded as persons who were in actual possession of the items. Defendants 2 and 6 obtained a sub-lease from defendant 1 of item 1 and defendant 3 a sub-lease from defendant 1 of Item 2. The principal question apart...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Kuchampudi Satyanarayana Raju and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-08-1950
Reported in: AIR1950Mad729
ORDERChandra Reddi, J.1. The petitioners in this case were convicted under Section 12, Madras Gaming Act, and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 15 each and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one week each by the Stationary Sub-Magistrate, Bhimavaram. It was also ordered that the sum of Rs. 251-13-3 seized by the police should be confiscated. On appeal the Sub-Divisional Magistrate confirmed the conviction and sentence passed on the petitioners. The case against the petitioners is that on the night of 13th February 1949 the petitioners were found playing cards for money by the Station House Officer who was examined as a prosecution witness, in a dilapidated house belonging to D. W. 1.2. The Courts below held that the house wherein the petitioners were gambling was a public place within the meaning of Section 12, Gaming Act because it was a dilapidated house by the side of a road in a conspicuous place and there was a killi shop by the side of it and therefore the accused were gu...
Tag this Judgment!Natesa Sastrigal and anr. Vs. Alamelu Achi by Power Agent, K.S. Sundar ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-07-1950
Reported in: AIR1950Mad541
1. On 3rd March 1933, one Sivakami Achi obtained an order for restitution against another, Sivaramakrishna Aiyar, in respect of a sum of Rs. 5280 odd. On 29th August 1933, Sivaramakrishna Aiyar died leaving a will dated 1st December 1918 by which he disposed of his properties in various ways. One of the properties dealt with under the will is a house in Kumbakonam. He gave a life estate in this house to his widow Dharmambal and the remainder to Kuppalu Ammal and her heirs. This Kuppalu Ammal, it may be mentioned, was a daughter of Dharmambal's sister. In November1933 Dharmambal orally surrendered her life estate in the house in favour of Kuppalu Ammal. In 1940 Kuppalu died and thereafter her sons--they are the appellants before us--obtained possession of the house. Sivakami Achi died in September 1938 and her interests devolved on her daughter Alamelu Achi. On 7th February 1942 Alamelu Achi filed E. A. No. 196 of 1942 in the Court of the District Munsif of Mayavaram praying that the de...
Tag this Judgment!Rasa Koundan and anr. Vs. Janaki Ammal and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-06-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Mad333; (1950)IIMLJ177
Satyanarayana Rao, J.1. Defendants 1 and 3 are the appellants in this second appeal. The lands in suit of the extent of 5 acres 20 cents were held by the plaintiff's predecessors as Devadasi service Inam for rendering service in a temple. After the enactment of Section 44-A, by Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Amendment Act (Madras Act v [5] of 1929), the Government disannexed the inam from the service and granted a title deed to the plaintiff on 13-4-1931 which is marked as Ex. P-1 in the case. The plaintiff instituted the suit for recovery of possession of the property from the defendants who resisted it on the ground that they had acquired title to the lands by adverse possession. Without referring to the long history of the previous proceedings in the suit, it would be sufficient for the purpose of disposing of this appeal to state that, on an issue remitted for trial by the District Court, it has now been finally determined that the inam grant consisted of both the warams. The on...
Tag this Judgment!Nanjappa Goundan Vs. Peria Ramaswami Goundan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-03-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Mad459; (1951)IIMLJ343
Satyanarayana Rao, J.1. The plaintiff is the appellant in this second appeal and his suit for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from taking water from the well in S. No. 309 in Naranapuram village to their field in S. No. 287 of the same village was dismissed by both the Courts below. Hence this second appeal.2. The dispute relates to the use of the water of the well which is admittedly situate in S. No. 309. There was a partition arrangement of 9-2-1927 between the predecessors-in-title of the plaintiff and the defendants respectively under which it was arranged that thewater of the well should be enjoyed in equal shares by the parties, one party drawing water from the southern side of the well and the other from the northern side. The schedule to the partition deed contains the description of the shares allotted to the respective parties in S. No. 309 and from that it will be seen that the well and the survey number were practically divided into two parts, the divisio...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras Vs. K.R.M.T.T. Thiagaraja Chetty an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-02-1950
Reported in: AIR1952Mad305; [1951]19ITR261(Mad)
Satyanarayana Rao, J. 1. By an order of this Court in C. M. P. No. 2928 of 1947 dated 25th August 1947, the Appellate Tribunal was directed under S. 66(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act to refer to this Court the following two questions and they have been accordingly referred to us. They are : '1. Whether there is any material for the Tribunal's finding that the appellants (Respondents in this case) were being assessed on cash basis in the prior years? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Appellate Tribunal's finding that the sum of Rs. 2,26,850/- could not be assessed for the assessment year 1942-43 is correct in law?' The assessment year with which we are now concerned in this reference is the year 1943-43, corresponding to the accounting year ending with 31st March 1942. The assessees are the firm of Messrs. K.R.M.T.T. Thiagaraja Chetty and Company. They were originally members of an undivided Hindu family and alter partition in the family they constituted ...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Alamelu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-02-1950
Reported in: AIR1950Mad561
Rajamannar, C.J.1. We are of opinion that if a plaintiff who has filed a suit in forma, pauperis abandons a part of his claim he should be called upon to pay the proportionate court-fee on the part abandoned. This follows from the language of Order 33, Rule 11, Civil P. C., as amended in Madras. If the suit is withdrawn in its entirety, then undoubtedly, the pauper plaintiff has to pay court-fee on the entire claim. Abandonment of a part of the claim is tantamount to withdrawal of the suit in part. He will therefore be liable to pay court-fee on the part withdrawn or abandoned. We find that a similar view was taken by Shahabuddin J., in C. R. P. 454 of 1946. The reference is answered accordingly. ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income- Tax Vs. K.E. Sundara Mudaliar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-02-1950
Reported in: AIR1950Mad566; [1950]18ITR259(Mad)
Satyanarayana Rao, J.1. The only question that has been referred in these cases is :'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of this case, the income derived from casuarina plantations is agricultural income within the meaning of Section 2 (1), Income-tax Act.' We understand that besides these cases in which a reference has been made, there are also other cases in which similar questions have been raised and are pending decision. The appellate tribunal was of opinion that the income derived from casuarina plantations is 'agricultural income' which is exempted from taxation under section 4 (3) (viii), Income tax Act.2. The facts are not seriously in dispute; and it is also common knowledge that in order to raise casuarina plantation it is necessary to prepare the soil, raise seedlings, cultivate the land and plant them. After the plantation, the plants require watering for periods, ranging from 3 to 5 years according to the nature and quality of the soil. Even after the expiry of ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »