Court : Chennai
Decided on : Oct-14-1949
Reported in : AIR1950Mad358
..... question whether the sales were really void and not merely voidable. in my view such sales in disregard of the absolute provisions of any of the sections of the estates land act apart from cases where there is no jurisdiction at all to sell, relate only to illegalities which make the sale voidable and in such cases the ..... an earlier decision of a single judge in kadirvelu ambalam v. alagappa ambalam : air1934mad725 that where the sale officer has not done things referred to in section 117, estates land act, the sale would be unlawful or illegal although it was a superior officer who actually fixed the terms of the proclamation and the other relevant matters. consequent ..... contention. 5. i shall now proceed to deal with the two questions raised and pressed before me. it is now settled law that proper notice under section 112, madras estates land act, is a condition precedent for creating jurisdiction in the collector to sell a ryot's holding under chap. vi. where there has been no such notice .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Oct-14-1949
Reported in : AIR1950Mad355
..... purchaser and the intermediate holders or owners who have taken by inheritance. it would defeat the whole scheme of the limitation act to hold that adverse possession against the predecessors of an owner taking by inheritance was of no avail against such owner unless it could be shown that the owner ..... powers in the other case can make no difference. in both cases it seems to me that for the purposes of the definition of plaintiff in the limitation act, which is intended to include predecessors-in-title of whom the successor is the representative, the heir must be considered to derive his title from and through the ..... the case of mahants a succeeding mahant is not bound by alienations created by a previous mahant and that the period of limitation is governed by article 144, limitation act. it is stated that one mahant does not succeed another and any alienation by a particular mahant cannot enure beyond his lifetime. the learned judges in rajah of .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Oct-19-1949
Reported in : AIR1950Mad266
..... there is lack of bona fides on the part of the government in resorting to the provisions of the act when the petitioner could have been, if the case for the government were true, prosecuted under section 5, explosive substances act, 1908 (act vi [6] of 1908). 10. after anxious consideration, i am of opinion that the view of ..... horwill j. on the two points is correct. i had occasion to consider the object of the provisions of the madras maintenance of the public order act, 1947, requiring the government ..... i also agree with horwill j. that the fact that the government had abandoned the intention of prosecuting the case initiated against the petitioner under the explosive substances act is undoubted proof that the government did not believe in the truth of the allegation now made. if the government were really serious in the charge .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Oct-26-1949
Reported in : AIR1950Mad320
..... succeeded in the court below.2. it is argued for the appellant that the mother does not satisfy the definition of 'guardian' in section 4, sub-section (2), guardians and wards act and that her petition under section 25 of the act is not therefore maintainable. the point made is that she is not a person in truth and in fact having the care of ..... argued next that a de jure guardian not proved at one time to have had the physical care or custody of the girl, is not entitled to apply under section 25 of the act complaining of removal and asking for return of the ward to the applicant's custody. there again the same ruling is in point and adverse to the appellant ..... deliver the child to its natural guardian when asked to do so by the latter amounts in effect to a removal from his custody and be can therefore apply under section 25 of the act.4. it is lastly argued that although the welfare of the child is the paramount factor for the consideration of the court as made clear by .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Oct-28-1949
Reported in : AIR1950Mad379
..... respondent in an appeal cannot reopen, by a cross-appeal, a decision which has been passed between him and another co-respondent. at first sight the terms of the law. section 348, act viii (8) of 1859, are wide enough to permit a respondent in an appeal to take any objection to the decision of the first court, as if he had ..... -appeal on the ground that no written memorandum had been filed.7. in 1877 the code of 1859 was replaced by another, act x [10] of 1877. the section corresponding to section 348 of the code of 1859 was section 561, which ran thus:'any respondent though he may not have appealed against any part of the decree may upon the hearing not ..... his pleader, and, if it had been allowed to stand, might possibly have formed a good ground for adopting the narrower construction of the section. but it was not allowed to stand. it was repelled by act xii (12) of 1879, which substituted the following clause 'provided he has filed a notice of such objection not less than seven days before .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Nov-01-1949
Reported in : AIR1950Mad621
..... . 1942 mad 183 should have been the other way. it cannot also be presumed that when the father gave an indemnity he was doing either a grossly unjust act or a flagrantly dishonest act. indeed he was trying to be honest and straight, forward in his dealings with the vendee. he was selling a property in the circumstances he thought it was ..... pain not only of losing their share of the free 'unspent' portion of the price but on paying damages to the vendee if they dared to question their father's act in selling their property. relying upon this finding he argued that a promise made by a father which was so much at variance with his duty and which, in any ..... of his father in regard to a covenant of indemnity given by him. defendants 1, 2 and 3 are the sons of one venkatarama iyer. venkatarama iyer for himself and acting as guardian of his minor sons, defendants 2 and 3, and defendant 1 as a major executed a sale-deed in favour of the plaintiff's father, ramaswami iyer on .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Nov-01-1949
Reported in : AIR1950Mad603
..... in proof of the contract to support the relief of specific performance in a suit for such relief--a difficulty which does not exist after the amendment of section 49, registration act, by the addition of the proviso thereto in 1929--such a document can be received in proof of the contract in a suit like the present for ..... contended for the appellant that the document falls within clause (d) or clause (b) or at any rate, within clause (c) of section 17(l), registration act, and that under section 49 of the act it cannot be received as evidence of any transaction affecting the immovable property comprised therein. it is urged that if it cannot be received as evidence ..... that raises the question, what is the meaning of the words 'any transaction affecting such property' in clause (c) of that section. the contract, in my opinion, is such a transaction, although as section 54, t. p. act, declares it does not of itself create an interest in the property. so much is clear from the ruling of a full .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Nov-03-1949
Reported in : AIR1950Mad324
..... in the nature of a curative measure and in my view, it is perfectly open to any legislature or legislative authority specially constituted, such as the governor acting under section 88, constitution act, to enact 'ex post facto' legislation. very often, it may be desirable and necessary that such 'ex post facto' legislation should be enacted by the ..... , as well as defects and vagueness of the same are such infirmities as would invalidate the detention because of not conforming to the provisions of the act and since sections 4-a and 19 of ordinance iv [4] of 1949 declare that orders of detention should not be questioned or deemed to be invalid or unlawful ..... for a further period or periods not exceeding three years in the aggregate', were substituted while matters were in this state, the governor of madras, acting under section 88(1), government of india act, 1935, promulgated ordinance i [1] of 1949 on 11th august 1949 with the object of the removal of doubts regarding the validity of the .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Nov-09-1949
Reported in : AIR1950Mad715; [1950]18ITR310(Mad)
..... sastri, j.10. i agree with my learned brother. the question whether a visit is a casual or an occasional visit within the meaning of section 4-a (a) (iii), income-tax act depends not on mere presence in british india but on the quality of the presence in relation to the objects and intentions of the person sought to ..... or a casual one and that, therefore, the second requirement was also satisfied and that the assessee was a resident in british india within the meaning of section 4-a (a) (iii) of the act.3. there is no decision which has considered the expression 'occasional' or 'casual' visit; and though the expressions are capable of easy application to given ..... was in british india in the previous year otherwise than on an occasional or casual visit.' the relevant clause of the section referred to in the question is as follows:'section 4a (a) (iii) for the purpose of this act any individual is resident in british india in any year if he having within 4 years preceding that year been in .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Nov-11-1949
Reported in : AIR1953Mad13; (1952)IIMLJ416
..... may be so.but this alteration in our opinion does not affect the result in the case. as anomalous mortgages are now included in section 58 of the act the application of sections 68 and 67 of the act is not excluded as under the old law. this is really the effect of the amendments introduced in 1929. even under the old ..... was instituted within the period of 35 years, the judicial committee held that as the plaintiff was deprived of part of his security, he was entitled under section 68 of the act to recover the mortgage money as it became payable under s, 68 in conseauence of the failure to deliver possession. they further held that as the money ..... held that the mortgage in question was an anomalous mortgage and not a combination of a simple mortgage and a usufructuary mortgage and therefore section 68 of the act was inapplicable, as it was excluded by section 98 and passed a decree for possession only in accordance with the terms of the mortgage deed in substitution of the decree for sale .....
Tag this Judgment!