Chennai Court July 1958 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.
Ayyamperumal Chettiar (Died) and ors. Vs. Palaniandi Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-11-1958
Reported in: (1958)2MLJ540
Ramaswami, J.1. This Second Appeal is preferred against the decree and judgment of the learned Subrodinate Judge of Tiruchirappalli in A.S. No. 31 of 1954, reversing the decree and judgment of the learned District Munsif of Kulitalai in O.S. No. 499 of 1950.2. The facts are: The appellant plaintiff instituted O.S. No. 494 of 1945 on the foot of two promissory notes for Rs. 150 and Rs. 160, dated 5th September, 1938 and 6th March, 1939, respectively executed by one Meenakshisundaram Pillai and his undivided sons and obtained a decree against them and in execution thereof attached the suit properties. The respondent defendant claiming to be a mortgagee of the said properties from Sellathammal, the daughter of Meenakshisundaram Pillai, who in her turn claims to be the vendee from her brothers to whom it is alleged that these properties were allotted in the partition between them and their father in 1941, filed E.A. No. 441 of 1949. That claim was allowed. Thereupon the suit out of which t...
Mahalinga Pathar Vs. Santhanagopalakrishnan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-10-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Mad80; (1958)2MLJ580
P.V. Rajamannar, C.J.1. All these appeals arise out of proceedings in execution of the decree in O. S. No. 90 of 1950, on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court of Tanjore. That suit was brought on foot of a mortgage executed by one Ramiah Asari on behalf of himself and his minor son in favour of one Natesa Asari. The suit was actually brought by the executor appointed under the will of Natesa Asari who died before the suit. Ramiah Asari, the executant, was impleadcd as the first defendant and his son who was then a minor was impleaded as the second defendant represented by his mother as guardian.A separate written statement was filed on his behalf challenging the validity of the mortgage. Two grounds, namely, (1) that the properties comprised in the mortgage were trust properties of which Ramiah Asari was only a trustee and (2) that even assuming that they were the ancestral properties of the family, the father, Ramiah Asari, had no power to make the alienation as there was neither...
Pachai Ammal Vs. Anguswami Gramani and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-09-1958
Reported in: (1958)2MLJ439
Ramaswami, J.1. This is an appeal preferred against the Decree and Judgment of the learned District Judge of Chingleput in A.S. No. 58 of 1955 confirming the Decree and Judgment of the learned District Munsif of Chingleput in O.S. No. 302 of 1953.2. The suit was for a declaration of plaintiff's title to the suit properties and for an injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiff's possession of the said lands in Zamin Mogaiyur village and comprised in Patta No. 89.3. It is admitted in the plaint itself that the village has been taken over by the : State under the provisions of the Madras Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act of 1948. The provisions of the Act became applicable to the suit village from 1st October, 1951. Under Section 3(b) of the Act the proprietor was divested of his title to the suit village and the suit village vested in the Government.4. The dispute between the parties is as follows: The plaintiff based her title to the sui...
Estates and Agency Co. Ltd. by Matheson Bosanquet and Co. Ltd., Coonoo ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-09-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Mad81; (1958)2MLJ388
1. The two questions that were referred to this court for determination were :1. Whether the words "income arising in the taxable territories" in Section 4-A (c) of the Income-tax Act would also include agricultural income arising in taxable territories.2. Whether the assessee was rightly assessed as a resident within the meaning of Section 4-A(c).The answer to the second of these questions depends on that to the first, and what decides the first question is the interpretation of the word "income" in Section 4-A (c) the relevant portion of which runs :"A company is resident in the taxable territories in any year ..... if its income arising in the taxable territories in that year exceeds his income arising without the taxable territories in that year, account not being taken in either case of in-come chargeable under the head 'capital gain'".2. The Departmental authorities, and the Tribunal concurring with them, held that the assessee was resident and ordinarily resident in India for pu...
V. Ramaswami Naidu and anr. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-07-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Mad126; [1959]35ITR33(Mad)
1. Under Section 66(1) of the Income-tax Act the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal of Bombay has referred the following question for the decision of this Court:Whether the assessment of the gross income from the investment in the| aforesaid foreign company, before deduction of the Ceylon income-tax thereon, as having accrued in full, is valid and proper ?2. The material facts are these: V. Ramaswami Naidu, the Kartha of a Hindu undivided family, held in the names of various members of the family 10,208 shares of Rs. 10 each in Agravas Estates, Limited, a company incorporated in Ceylon. For purposes of the Indian Income-tax Act this company is a foreign company. G.V. Govindaswami Naidu, another assessee, and, his wife Govindammal, held 10,000 shares in the same company between them. At a meeting of the general body of shareholders of this company held on nth November, 1950, certain dividends were declared and subsequently paid in the manner and to the extent indicated below:Gross Ceylon Net...
V. Ramaswami Naidu and anr. Vs. the Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-07-1958
Reported in: (1959)2MLJ358
Balakrishna Ayyar, J.1. Under Section 66(1) of the Income-tax Act the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal of Bombay has referred the following question for the decision of this Court:Whether the assessment of the gross income from the investment in the| aforesaid foreign company, before deduction of the Ceylon income-tax thereon, as having accrued in full, is valid and proper 2. The material facts are these: V. Ramaswami Naidu, the Kartha of a Hindu undivided family, held in the names of various members of the family 10,208 shares of Rs. 10 each in Agravas Estates, Limited, a company incorporated in Ceylon. For purposes of the Indian Income-tax Act this company is a foreign company. G.V. Govindaswami Naidu, another assessee, and, his wife Govindammal, held 10,000 shares in the same company between them. At a meeting of the general body of shareholders of this company held on nth November, 1950, certain dividends were declared and subsequently paid in the manner and to the extent indicated be...
Varadarajaswamivari Temple Represented by Its Managing Trustee, A.S. G ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-04-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Mad40; (1958)IIMLJ463
1. After Hosakotta in Salem District had been notified by the Government under the provisions of the Madras Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 26 of 1948 hereinafter referred to as the Abolition Act -- the Settlement Officer initiated proceedings suo motu under Section 9 to determine whether Hosakota was an inam estate within the meaning of Section 2(7) of the Abolition Act. Sri Varada-rajaswami Devastanam contended that what had been granted in inam to the Devastanam did not constitute an estate at all as defined by Section 3(2)(d) of the Madras Estates Land Act, and that it could not be and was not an inam estate within the meaning of Section 2(7) of the Abolition Act.The tenants contended that it was an estate and an inam estate. Virtually the only evidence on which the question at issue had to be decided was that afforded by the entries in the Inam Fair Register, to the scope of which I shall advert later. It is enough to note at present that the village included...
Sampathkumara Ayyangar and ors. Vs. Perumal Dhasari and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-03-1958
Reported in: (1958)2MLJ412
Ramachandra Iyer, J.1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order of the learned Subordinate Judge of Tanjore in O.S. No. 33 of 1956 directing the plaintiff to pay the deficit Court-fee of Rs. 2,557-8-0. The plaintiff is the petitioner herein. The suit is one for a declaration that the lands described in the Schedule to the plaint are the private lands of the plaintiffs, defendants 107 to 109 having title to some portions thereof, and that defendants 1 to 106 have no permanent rights of occupancy in them. According to the plaintiffs defendants 1 to 106 are purakudi tenants cultivating the suit lands on waram basis. In paragraph 15 of the plaint it is stated:In fasli 1363 the defendants failed to pay the waram and carried away the produce entirely. 'Subsequently also they behaved in the same way, jointly conspiring and combining together for the purpose. The plaintiffs had, therefore, to take proceedings against them before the Conciliation Officer of Pattukottai under Sect...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›