Court : Chennai
Decided on : Dec-05-1941
Reported in : AIR1942Mad556; (1942)2MLJ158
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. The assessee is the widow of the late Raja Ramanatha Reddiar, and is the administratrix of his estate. Chidambaram Reddiar, the father of Raja Ramanatha Reddiar, founded a business in Rangoon and this was carried on by his son after his death. The late Raja died in Rangoon in 1932, possessed of large assets some of which were in Burma and some in the Madras Presidency. The assets in the Madras Presidency included immovable property in the Trichinopoly District. Raja Ramanatha Reddiar had previously married One Parvathi Ammal, who in 1915, purchased a house in Srirangam. This house has been regarded as ancestral property and is reserved for the occupation of the assessee during her occasional visits to the Presidency. She stayed there in 1934, 1936 and again 1937, each time making a stay of more than three months. For the year of assessment 1939-40 the assessee made a return of the ' income of the estate to the Income-tax Officer, Salem, and in this she...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Oct-31-1941
Reported in : AIR1942Mad614; (1942)1MLJ137
Mockett, J.1. It is unnecessary to set out the complicated facts which are the basis of the suit, the subject of this civil revision petition. The following statement of the essential facts is sufficient. The plaintiff filed O.S. No. 55 of 1932 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Trichinopoly against the defendants, who both reside in Rangoon. The prayer in the plaint is as follows:(a) For a decree directing the defendants to deliver the properties' in Schedule 0, Parts I, II and III, together with profits from date of suit;' and declaring that the plaintiff is solely and absolutely entitled to the assets described in Schedule C, Part IV.(b) In case the plaintiff is held not entitled to that relief, for a decree directing the division, of the properties in Schedules A, B and C into one fourth, three-eighths and three-eighths shares allotting Schedules A and B to the plaintiff and charity and adding so much property from Schedule 0 as may be necessary to make them a just moiety of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Jan-31-1941
Reported in : AIR1941Mad713; (1941)2MLJ834
1. This is an appeal from the order of the' learned Subordinate Judge of Amalapuram dismissing an application by a transferee decree-holder under Order 21, Rule 16 to recognise the transfer of the decree in his favour and to execute it against the judgment-debtor's property. The decree that was transferred was a decree for costs in favour of an undischarged insolvent. He obtained the decree after the order of adjudication under the following circumstances. The order adjudging the transferor insolvent was passed in 1923. On a mortgage executed by him before the adjudication a suit was instituted in 1927 being O.S. No. 1 of 1927 on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Amalapuram. An ex parte decree was passed against him and he sought to set aside that decree. The learned Subordinate Judge who heard the application dismissed it on the ground that he had no right to present the application because he was an undischarged insolvent and the right to redeem vested in the Official Receiv...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : May-01-1941
Reported in : AIR1941Mad817; (1941)2MLJ125
Patanjali Sastri, J.1. These petitions relate to the petitioner's claim to recover his costs, etc., in Privy Council Appeals Nos. 99 and 100 of 1933 in which a preliminary mortgage decree for Rs. 26,302-3-6 passed in favour of the petitioner was upheld by His Majesty in Council on the 26th September, 1936.2. The petitioner applied in C.M.P. No. 949 of 1939 in the lower Court for a final decree for the balance of the amount due under the preliminary decree after giving credit for amounts paid from time to time by the respondent judgment-debtor, and the latter filed LA. No. 506 of 1938 to scale down the decree under the Madras Agriculturists' Relief Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Both these applications were dealt with together and the learned Subordinate Judge finding that sums already paid by the respondent amounted to more than twice the principal amount of the debt after adjusting such payments towards all costs decreed to the petitioner including the costs now claimed dir...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Sep-19-1941
Reported in : (1941)2MLJ883
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. The question which falls for decision in this appeal is whether a payment made after partition by a member of a Hindu family of interest due on a promissory, note which was executed by the managing member when the family was joint starts a fresh period of limitation against the other members of the family, the payment having been duly, acknowledged by the person who made it, There are conflicting decisions of this Court and it is for this reason that this appeal has been placed before a Full Bench for decision.2. The facts present no complication. On the 12th March, 1925, the appellant's father, one Thiruvenkatachariar, and his youngest son Srinivasachariar, executed a promissory note for Rs. 2,384 in favour of one Gnanatnbal Achi. Thiruvenkatachariar had three sons, and at the time of the execution of the promissory note the family was joint. It is common ground that the debt was incurred for a family necessity. On the 25th March, 1925, the father die...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Mar-17-1941
Reported in : AIR1941Mad533; (1941)2MLJ41
ORDERAlfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. These three petitions all raise the question whether Section 4(1)(a) of the Madras Prohibition Act, 1937 is ultra vires the Provincial Legislature in so far as it relates to dangerous drugs. Section 4(1)(a) states that whoever imports, exports, transports or possesses liquor or any intoxicating drug shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend to six months or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both. To the sub-section there is a proviso which says that nothing contained in the sub-section shall apply to any act done under, and in accordance with, the provisions of the Act or the terms of any rule, notification, order, licence or permit issued thereunder, but so far as dangerous drugs are concerned, the total prohibition imposed by the sub-section has been left unaffected.2. The petitioners reside in the North Arcot district of the Madras Presidency and have been convicted on charges framed under this sub-section of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Sep-15-1941
Reported in : AIR1942Mad191; (1942)1MLJ16
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. By four deeds, all dated the 5th April, 1983 and referred to in these proceedings as 'deeds of trust and settlement' the assessee settled immovable properties on each of his four daughters. The properties were to be held by the assessee as trustee during his lifetime. The deeds also provided that after his death his eldest son was to be the trustee. The assessee reserved to himself powers to revoke the settlements or to make fresh dispositions just as he deemed fit. In view of the provisions of Section 16 (1) (c) of the Indian Income-tax Act, a clause which was inserted by the Amendment Act of 1939, the Income-tax Officer held that the assessee was liable, to be taxed in respect of the income received by his daughters from the settled properties during the year of account, (1938-1939). The assessee objected. He contended that the Income-tax Officer was wrong in giving what he called retrospective effect to the latter part of Section 16 (1)(c). Accordin...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Mar-18-1941
Reported in : [1941]9ITR375(Mad)
LEACH, C.J. - The assessee in this case is the Muthavalli of a Wakf called Allajanathud Deeniya, which was created by one Jamal Mohideen Sahib by a deed dated December 21, 1923. The deed directs that half of the annual net income shall be utilized for the expenses of maintenance, education, marriage, funeral and other necessities of such members of the donors family in the male line as in the opinion of the Muthavalli are in poor and needy circumstances. The Muthavalli himself is allowed to benefit from this portion of the net annual income if he also happens to be in poor and needy circumstances. The other half of the annual net income is to be utilised for such charitable purposes as (a) helping new converts to Islam by giving them religious instruction, (b) giving help to Muslim orphans, (c) giving secular, especially industrial and technical, education to Muslims, (d) helping poor and needy Muslims of the Sunni sect, (e) spreading knowledge of the Islamic religion, (f) giving contr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Nov-24-1941
Reported in : AIR1942Mad268; (1942)1MLJ164
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. For the year 1939-40, the assessee returned an income of Rs. 1,604-0-6 which had been arrived at after taking into account an alleged loss of Rs. 176-10-6 in respect of his money-lending business. In arriving at the figure of Rs. 176-10-6. the assessee deducted two sums, Rs. 511-12-6 and Rs. 808-4-6, said to have been paid to his two wives, Srirangammal and Kaveri Ammal, respectively. The Income-tax Officer allowed a deduction in respect of the amount paid to Srirangammal, but refused to allow a deduction in respect of Rs. 808-4-6 paid to Kaveri Animal. the senior wife. The assessee married Kaveri Ammal some years before 1922, when an account in her name was opened in the assessee's books. From time to time moneys were paid into this account and interest was allowed on the balance in her favour. Section 16 (3) (a) (iii) provides that in computing the total income of an individual for the purpose of assessment there shall be included so much of the inco...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Mar-24-1941
Reported in : AIR1941Mad639; (1941)1MLJ721
Wadsworth, J.1. The question which we have to decide relates to the court fee payable on an appeal filed under Rule 9 of. the rules framed under the Madras Agriculturists' Relief Act (IV of 1938) and issued under G.O. No. 2634. These rules provide for an application either by the debtor or by the creditor for a declaration as to the amount of the debt due. It is expressly provided that the application shall not be maintainable under the rules if a suit for the recovery of the debt be pending and it is also provided that every such application shall bear a court-fee stamp of the value of twelve annas. Rule 9 states that the order of the Court declaring the amount of the debt under Rule 7 shall be 'subject to appeal and second appeal as if it were a decree in an original suit' and it was the view of the office that the effect of this provision is to make appeals preferred against orders declaring the amount of a debt taxable as appeals from declaratory decrees under Article 17-A of the C...
Tag this Judgment!