Chennai Court February 1953 Judgments
Pusuluri Puchamma Vs. Sankaramanchi Ramasitamma and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-27-1953
Reported in: AIR1954Mad191; (1953)IIMLJ392
Mack, J.1. Appellants are alienee defendants in four suits instituted by one Sitamma to set her alienations to them aside. The District Munsif of Kovvur dismissed the four suits. In appeal, the learned Subordinate Judge, following a procedure which cannot be defended under Order 41, Rule 23, remanded the suits for fresh-disposal.2. The relevant facts necessary to determine these appeals are briefly these: Sitamma, was the only surviving daughter of one Venka-taramiah, whose estate was a large one comprising about 200 acres of land. After her mother's death in 1932, Sitamma, on the footing that she had only a life estate, executed a surrender deed in favour of her sister's sons one of whom Venkataramana Rao, defendant 1 in all these suits, who subsequently alien ated plots of land to these four different alienees by four sale deeds Exs. D-ll to D-14 in 1938. Altogether 7 acres 82 cents of land were conveyed for a consideration of Rs. 5260. The plaintiff sued to set aside these alienatio...
Tag this Judgment!Provincial Government of Madras Vs. Koda Lakshmi Devamma and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-27-1953
Reported in: AIR1954Mad290; (1953)2MLJ312
ORDERRajagopalan, J.1. A check slip by the Court-fee examiner was issued when the appeal was pending on the file of the District Court, Eluru. After the transfer of the appeal to be heard along with the connected appeals in this Court, this check slip comes up before me for orders.2. The question of court-fee has to be decided only with reference to the subject matter of the suit and the appeal thereon, and the way in which the plaintiff formulated the reliefs may have little bearing on the subject. The suit, property was attached in proceedings in a criminal court under Section 88 (6-D), Criminal P. C. The plaintiff applied to the criminal Court which had ordered the attachment of the properties for releasing the attachment on the-ground, that the properties belong to the plaintiff and not to the accused person against whom these proceedings had been taken. That petition was dismissed by the Magistrate. Thereupon the plaintiff filed the suit. The suit provided for by Section 88 (6-D),...
Tag this Judgment!A.G. Ramiah Pillai and ors. Vs. Adikesavalu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-27-1953
Reported in: AIR1953Mad869; (1953)IIMLJ88
Krishnaswami Nayudu, J.1. This appeal is against the order of the District Judge of East Tanjore allowing the application of the respondent to bring himself on record as the legal representative of the deceased plaintiff and remanding the suit for disposal according to law. The plaintiff was the widow of one Veerasami Pillai, who died leaving his last Will and testament dated 10-8-1938. Under the said will he directed his widow the plaintiff to take and enjoy absolutely all the moveable properties including the jewels and cash. As regards the immoveable properties, she was after his lifetime to enjoy the same without any power of disposal and only receive the income therefrom. The further direction in the will is that the immoveable properties and any moveable property left out of the properties given absolutely to the plaintiff shall be taken absolutely after her lifetime by Audikesavalu Pillai, the respondent, who is the son of the sister of the deceased. After the death of the testa...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras Vs. Vellingiri Gounder and Brothers ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-26-1953
Reported in: AIR1954Mad118; [1953]24ITR166(Mad); (1953)2MLJ469
Satyanarayana Rao J. 1. Under Section 66(1), Indian Income-tax Act the Appellate Tribunal referred to this Court for decision the following question:'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case an appeal lay to the Ap-pellate Assistant Commissioner against theorder of the Income-tax Officer made underSection 35.'The facts as they appear from the statement of the case were ; The assessees were the managing agents of certain mills at Coimbatore. In respect of the sssessment year, 1944-45, they were assessed to tax as a registered firm. In making this assessment the Income-tax Officer did not deduct from the amount of excess profits tax payable by the firm the proportionate excess profits tax payable on the commission paid to one Nanjappa which commission the firm was entitled to claim under Section 12-A of the Act. After the order of assessment, the Income-tax Officer thought that he failed to deduct proportionate excess profits tax attributable to commission paid to Nanjap...
Tag this Judgment!Soorneedi Sathiraju and ors. Vs. Batchu Venkata Rao
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-26-1953
Reported in: AIR1953Mad873; (1953)2MLJ152
Krishnaswami Nayudu, J.1. The appellants are the judgment-debtors in a mortgage decree passed against them and their father, defendant I, in O. S. No. 39 of 1941 on the file of the Sub-Court of Kakinada. This appeal arises out of their application, I. A. No. 1640 of 1951 filed in the said Court under Sections 8 and 19 of the Madras Agriculturists' Relief Act 4 of 1933 as amended by Act 23 of 1948. The mortgage is dated 18-4-1924 and the principal sum of the mortgage is Rs. 3,000. The appellants and their father were also indebted to the plaintiff decree-holder on a pro-note dated 31-1-1933. The plaintiff obtained a decree on the pro-note in O. S. No. 458 of 1938 on the file of the District Munsif's Court, Kakinada, and brought one out of three items of properties that were mortgaged, to sale and purchased the same for Rs, 1140 subject to the mortgage in his favour. He filed E. P. No. 195 of 1946 in Sub-Court, Kakinada, for execution of the mortgage decree. The appellants contested the ...
Tag this Judgment!Madura Municipality Represented by the Municipal Commissioner Vs. P.M. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-25-1953
Reported in: AIR1954Mad454
1. I need not recapitulate the facts which have been detailed in extenso in the judgment of my learned brother. But I wish to add only a few words on the question of law that has been elaborately argued at the Bar.2. The learned Judge's finding that the introduction of the labour scheme is within the purview of the powers of the municipality and is therefore not 'ultra vires' has not been questioned before us; nor is the opinion that the formalities as provided under the Madras Town Planning Act, 1920, have been complied with, controverted. Thus the only question which arises for determination is whether the levy of the betterment tax is unreasonable and excessive and whether the fixation of the betterment tax was done in an arbitrary manner. In considering this question the basic question of the jurisdiction of the Court to enquire into the right of levy of betterment tax will have to be decided in the first instance. On behalf of the appellant, reliance is placed upon Sections 24, 26...
Tag this Judgment!Governor-general in Council, Represented by the General Manager, Madra ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-25-1953
Reported in: AIR1953Mad838; (1953)2MLJ76
Ramaswami, J.1. This is a second appeal which has been preferred against the decree and judgment of the District Judge of Kurnool in A. S. 101 of 1947 reversing the decree and judgment of the learned District Munsif in O. S. 167 of 1945.2. The facts are: Six bundles of cotton cloth were consigned on 14-9-1943 by the plaintiff's deceased father Devappa from the Tuggali railway station under R. R. No. 63/17791 and invoice No. 116 for delivery to himself at Hindupur. Of these six bundles, only three bundles, weighing 3 maunds & 26 seers, arrived at Hindupur on 16-9-1943. The plaintiff's father took delivery of these three bundles under protest and informed the railway authorities on 30-9-1943 about the non-delivery of the remaining three bundles. The Chief Commercial Manager, M. & S. M. Railway wrote to the plaintiff's father on 14-10-1943 that he would make enquiries into the matter and send a reply in due course. As no reply was however received by the plaintiff's father for nearly a mo...
Tag this Judgment!A.M.S.S.V.M. and Co., Ramanathapuram Chank Lessees, Kilakkarai, Ramana ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-24-1953
Reported in: (1953)IIMLJ587
Venkatarama Aiyar, J.1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for issuing a 'writ of certiorari' or other appropriate writ to quash an order of the State of Madras dated 13-3-1951. The second respondent is the Rajah of Ramanathapuram, whose Zamindari was one of the estates permanently settled under Regulation 25 of 1802. On 1-7-1946 he granted a lease to the petitioners of the right to fish chanks in the Gulf of Mannar and Palks Bay opposite the coast of the Zamindari for a period of ten years on an annual rent of Rs. 14,000. The Legislature of the Province of Madras passed the Madras Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act (26 of 1948), hereinafter referred to as the Act, abolishing the estates within the State of Madras and the Ramanathapuram Zamindari was notified in accordance with the provisions of that Act on 7-9-1949; and the result of that Notification was that under Section 3 of the Act the entire zamindari vested in the State of Madras.Acting u...
Tag this Judgment!Chandra Bhogi and anr. Vs. Guddappa Bhandary
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-24-1953
Reported in: AIR1953Mad846; (1953)IMLJ662
ORDERSubba Rao, J.1. These are references under Section 5, Court-fees Act. O. S. No. 201 of 1949 was filed on the file of the court of the Subordinate Judge of South Kanara for division of the plaint B Schedule immoveable properties and the C Schedule in moveables into 16536 shares and for allotment to the plaintiff 851 shares therefrom and to direct the first defendant to account for the income of the family properties realised by him and sale proceeds of the clay sold by him from items 13 and 14 of the B Schedule to defendants 99 to 102, and other incidental reliefs. The suit was valued in respect of the relief of partition at a sum of Rs. 100. On 30-7-1952 the learned Subordinate Judge passed a supplementary preliminary decree whereunder, defendants 1, 4 and 8 were directed to render accounts to the family for the sale proceeds of clay realised by them and they were also made liable to pay the other members of the family their shares of Rs. 21600 after deducting their own share. Def...
Tag this Judgment!Kanakkasseril Kaliani Amma's daughter 3rd tavazhi Karnavansthi Pappiku ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-23-1953
Reported in: AIR1953Mad910
Ramaswami, J.1. This is a second appeal which has been preferred against the decree and judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge of Ottapalam in A. S. No. 100 of 1948 confirming the decree and judgment of the learned District Munsif of Chowghat in O. S. No. 11 of 1947.2. The facts are: The plaintiff and defendants 1 to 15 are members of one Kanakkasseri tarwad. In a partition in the tarwad evidenced by Ex. A. 1 dated 26-8-1955, the tarwad properties were put in possession of various thavazhis. The plaintiff is a member and karnavathi of the 3rd tavazhi. Defendants 1 to 12 form members of the 2nd thavazhi while defendants 13, 14 and 15 each represent one unit. According to the terms of the partition deed (Paras. 3 to 6) certain items scheduled as schedule I, which are the plaint items, are set apart in common to be kept in possession by the second thavazi under certain conditions. The conditions are that the second thavazhi has to, from out of the income of these items, pay Rs. 25-8-0 ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »