Chennai Court February 1950 Judgments
Pethu Reddiar Vs. Kandaswami Pillai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-02-1950
Reported in: AIR1950Mad560
Govinda Menon, J.1. By Ex. D-2 dated 4th September 1934 the properties in dispute were sold to D. W. 2 by one Muthukaruppa Pillai who was the manager of a joint family consisting of himself and the present defendants 3 and 4. D. W. 2 sold the properties in her turn to defendant 1 under EX. D-1 dated 25th February 1942. The plaintiff is a purchaser of 1/3rd share of the suit properties from defendant 3, after he attained majority and on foot of that title brought the suit for partition and recovery of the 1/3rd share which he purchased. The trial Court found that the sale under Ex. D-2 by the manager of the joint Hindu family was valid and binding on the family and therefore defendant 1 had acquired absolute title so far as the properties were concerned and the sale by defendant 3 in favour of the plaintiff did not therefore convey any title or right to the properties. The trial Court also found that the sale-deed in favour of the plaintiff was not a genuine transaction. On these ground...
Tag this Judgment!Sree Kalahasteeswaraswami Varu Devasthanam Vs. Mareedu Adinarayana and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-02-1950
Reported in: AIR1950Mad691; (1950)IIMLJ817
Raghava Rao, J.1. In this appeal by defendant 2, in a suit for partition by the undivided sons of defendant 1, the point taken for the appellant is that the person under whom he claims as devisee--one C. Seetharamanjaneyulu--acquired, at the sale by the Official Receiver in the insolvency of defendant 1, not merely the interest of the insolvent in the joint family estate as would be the case under the Full Bench ruling of this Court in Ramasastrulu v. Balakrishna Rao, I. L. R. (1943) Mad. 83: A. I. R. 1942 Mad. 682, but also the interests of the sons, the plaintiffs, as well, by reason of Act (XXV [25] of 1948), which as pointed out in the ruling of this Court in Ammanna v. Ramakrishna, I. L. R. (1949) Mad. 904: A. I. R. 1949 Mad. 886 has altered the law as laid down by the Full Bench and altered with retrospective effect. The point so taken has not been, as indeed it could not be, resisted by the learned advocate for the respondents l and 2. A question of ultra vires in relation to Ac...
Tag this Judgment!V.M. Raghavalu Naidu and Sons by Executors, C.G. Krishnaswami Naidu an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-02-1950
Reported in: AIR1950Mad790; [1950]18ITR787(Mad); (1950)IIMLJ300
Satyanarayana Rao, J.1. This is a consolidated reference under Section 66(1), Income tax Act, by the Appellate Tribunal relating to the relevant assessment years 1942-1943 and 1948-1944; and also to the chargeable accounting period, 29th January 1941 to 18th January 1942 under the Excess Profits Tax Act.2. The questions referred to us are:(1) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was right in holding that the executors did not cease to be executors, and, therefore, Section. 41, Income-tax Act, had no application?(2) Whether on the facts of the case the Tribunal was right in upholding the decision of the department that the maintenance paid to the widow and the mother of the testator under the will was not an allowable deduction under the Income-tax Act?3. The assessee is V. M. Raghavalu Naidu and Sons (by executors C. G. Krishnaswami Naidu and M. R Krishnaswami Naidu). They were assessed to income-tax during the assessment years as an association of per...
Tag this Judgment!Depuru Veeraraghava Reddi Vs. Depuru Kamalamma and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-01-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Mad403; (1950)IIMLJ575
Viswanatha Sastri, J.1. The plaintiff is the appellant in this second appeal. The suit was filed for recovery of possession of the immovable and movable properties described in the plaint. The plaintiff's claim was based on his adoption by defendant 1, widow of the deceased Depuru Rami Reddi, who was the original owner of the properties described in the plaint. It is common ground that Rami Reddi left a will, Ex. P-1, dated 19-7.1921 disposing of his properties in the manner therein set out. Rami Reddi was the owner of landed properties situated in the village of Mahimalur of which he was also the hereditary village headman. He had lauded properties in other villages aa well. He died on 26-7-1921 leaving behind him his two widows, Venkamma and Kamalamma. The first wife, Venkamma had been living apart from Rami Reddi for some years before his death and a separate pro-vision for her maintenance had also been made by Rami Reddi during his lifetime. The will Ex. P-1, makes a provision for ...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Oomayan Alias Gnanaprakasam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-01-1950
Reported in: AIR1950Mad577
Govinda Menon, J.1. The appellant was convicted as a result of unanimous verdict of a jury under Section 397, Penal Code, and sentenced to seven years rigorous imprisonment by the learned Sessions Judge of South Arcot division. When his jail appeal was perused by our learned brother Mack J. he made the following note:'I think evidence in this case should be examined. There are some curious features about the case :(1) admission of P. W. 5 that accused was on bad terms with family;(2) identification in dark ;(3) apparent monopoly of violent activity by accused in this dacoity.Section 397 makes seven years rigorous imprisonment compulsory.'The learned Judge issued notice to the Public Prosecutor and directed that the matter may be heard by a Bench in order that the evidence may be gone into in the light of the note made by him.2. It seems to us that in view of Section 418, Criminal P. C., it is not competent to this Court to go into question of fact in an appeal against a conviction as a...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›