Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1950Mad626; [1950]18ITR85(Mad)
Viswanatha Sastri, J.1. The question of law that has been referred by the Appellate Tribunal is in these terms : 'Whether in the circumstances of this case as found by the Tribunal, the respondent (assessee) is entitled in law to the deduction of the two sums of Rs. 658 and Rs. 5049 in his assessment for 1943-44.'2. The assessee, a book-seller, seeks to deduct these two sums of Rs. 658 and Rs. 5049 in the computation of his profits for the assessment year 1943-44 in the following circumstances. During a period of about 37 days ranging from 13th July 1939 to 20th August 1939 the assessee and one Lakshmana Aiyar jointly borrowed from sundry money-lenders and a Co-operative Bank, a sum of Rs. 16,200 out of which a sum of Rs. 10,450 was taken and utilised by the assessee for hi business needs and the balance of Rs. 5750 was taken by Lakshmana Ayyar. The joint borrowing of the assessee and Lakshmana Aiyar was necessitated by the business needs of both the borrowers and by the instance of mo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1950Cal582,54CWN690
Sen, J.1. This is a second appeal by one of the decree-holders and it arises in the following circumstances. The appellant obtained a decree and in execution of it put certain property to sale. The sale was held on 31-10-1988. In the year 1945 the judgment-debtors made an application under O. 21, R. 90, Civil P. C. for setting aside the sale on the usual grounds. That application was imposed of upon compromise on 16-12-1945. By the terms of the compromise the judgment-debtors were to deposit either in Court or amicably with the knowledge of the Court the sum of Rs. 260 within the month of February 1946, the sum of Rs. 245 within the month of February 1947 and the sum of Rs. 245 within the month of February 1948 and also to deposit the sanja paddy and cash rent for the years 1353 and 1354 B. S. within the month of Chaitra of those years respectively. Upon this being done the sale would be set aside. The judgment-debtors were (to be ?) put in possession of the auction sold property as li...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1950Cal189
G.N. Das, J.1. This appeal is on behalf of the defendants and arises out of a suit for recovery of arrears of road cess for the years 1343 to 1350 B. S. and education cess for the last half year of 1317 B. S. together with the penalty provided for in Section 58 of the Cess Act.2. The defence of the defendants was that neither the road cess nor the education cess is recoverable because notice under Section 51 of the Cess Act was not served according to law.3. The trial Court dismissed the plaintiff's suit in so far as it concerned the claim for recovery of road cess inasmuch as the service of notice under Section 54 of the Cess Act was not proved. The claim for recovery of education cess was however decreed. The judgment does not give us any indication of the reasons which led the trial Court to decree this part of the claim. Against the decision of the trial Court, the plaintiff preferred an appeal in so far as the trial Court dismissed the claim for recovery of road cess. The defendan...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Privy Council
SIR LIONEL LEACH: The appellant is the idol of a Hindu temple at Kasba Tiruchendur in the Province of Madras. The appeal arises out of a suit brought in the name of the idol by the trustee of the temple in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Tuticorin for a decree for possession of properties which had formed the estate of one Minakshisundaram Pillai, who died on 21st May 1919. The appellant claimed to 6ft entitled to the estate under a will executed by the deceased. The Subordinate Judge construed the will against the appellant and his decision was upheld by the High Court of Madras. The appeal is from the decree of the High Court. 2. The will of the testator is dated 20th May 1919, and reads as follows : "I am now an in-patient in the hospital at Madura, having undergone an operation for carbuncle. As I have suspicions about my surviving, I have bequeathed to my son, Picha Pillai the right to all my properties and moneys, etc., and he shall solely enjoy them. If he or his son has n...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1950Bom254; (1950)52BOMLR327
Chagla, C.J.1. These appeals raise a very important question of Hindu law as to whether when applying the test of propinquity in determining who is the bandhu to succeed to a propositus, the females are to be excluded and the males are to be preferred even though the male may be lower in degree of relationship to the female.2. Before reviewing the authorities which have been cited at the bar, it would be perhaps better to lay down certain principles which are now well established. Mitakshara lays down three classes of bandhus, atma bandhus, pitru bandhus and matru bandhus, and the line of succession is laid down in order of preference of each class. Atma bandhus come first, then come the pitru bandhus, and finally come the matru bandhus. It is also well settled that in deciding who is to be preferred in each class, the test that must he applied is propinquity, the proximity of blood relationship. It is immaterial as to whether a particular bandhu is descended ex parte paterna or ex par...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1950All305
Bind Basni Prasad, J. 1. I agree with my learned colleague and desire to add a few words.2. The specific question for decision before us is whether a proprietor, who has obtained a permission under Section 24, U. P. Regulation of Agricultural Credit Act of 1940 for making the gift, can, instead of making the gift, make a sale, or, to put it in more general words, whether a proprietor who obtains permission for making one kind of permanent alienation can make another kind of such alienation. As already stated in the judgment of my learned brother, the permission obtained from the Assistant Collector, in charge of the sub-division, was for making a gift. Learned counsel for the appellants has urged that the object of the U. P. Regulation of Agricultural Credit Act was to protect agriculturists from themselves and to save for them sufficient land for their livelihood and that being so, if permission has been granted for gift, it should be interpreted to contain in itself a permission for ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1950All319
Harish Chandra, J. 1. This case purports to be a reference Under Section 57, Stamp Act, 1899 (II [2] of 1899) according to which the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority may, in certain circumstances, state a case and refer it to the High Court with its own opinion thereon. The Chief Controlling Revenue Authority in this Province is the Board of Revenue.2. The papers submitted to this Court, however, do not contain any order of reference by the Board or any opinion expressed by it on the case which has been referred to this Court. The reference is contained in a letter from the Personal Assistant to the Junior Secretary to the Board of Revenue, United Provinces, to the Registrar of this Court. This letter states that the writer has been directed to make a reference Under Section 57, Stamp Act for the orders of this Court. At one place it mentions that the Board of Revenue is inclined to hold the view that the case falls under Article 7, Stamp Act. But the actual statement of the case by...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1950All338
Agarwala, J.1. This is an application by plaintiffs against an order restoring an application made by the defendants respondents for setting aside an ex parte decree.2. In 1931, the plaintiffs' mother filed a suit for a declaration that a certain will executed by her father in favour of the defendants was null and void. Raghunath Prasad, defendant opposite party, was one of these defendants. He did not contest the suit. The suit was contested by the first five defendants. The suit was decreed in 1933 by the trial Court. An appeal by the contesting defendants was dismissed for default by this Court in December 1933. More than 11 years later, that is, on 31st January 1945, Raghunath Prasad filed an application for setting aside the ex parte decree. This application was fixed for hearing on 15th September 1945. On that date the opposite party was absent and the Court fixed 17th September 1945 for hearing. On 17th September the opposite party made an application for adjournment. This appli...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1950Ori234; 15(1949)CLT105
Panigrahi, J. 1. This revision is directed against the order of the Munsif, Second Court Cuttack, refusing to permit the petitioner to sue in forma pauperis. 2. The petitioners filed a suit for possession of their hereditary marfatdari in respect of a certain deity. The plaintiffs paid court-fees in the first instance when the suit was valued at Rs. 411. On objection being taken by the defendants the learned Munsif ordered the valuation of the suit, for the purpose of Court-fee, to be raised to Rs. 2786. At this stage the plaintiffs filed a petition praying for permission to sue in forma pauperis. On the side of the plaintiffs, plaintiff l was examined as P. W. l and her evidence was to the effect that she is not possessed of any properties, movable or immovable, out of which she could pay the court-fee. She however admitted that up to the stage of filing her petition her husband was financing the suit. Defendant 1 was examined as O. P. W. 1 and he deposed that the petitioner had some ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1951Mad551; [1950]18ITR333(Mad)
Satyanarayana Rao, J.(Case Referred No. 22/1945).1. At the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras, the Appellate Tribunal, Madras Bench, referred to us under Section 66 (1), Income-tax Act, the following two questions of law :'1. Whether in the circumstances of the case the Bench was correct in law in holding that the entire profits from sale of timber accrued or arose to the respondent company, and were received by the respondent company outside British India ? 2. If the answer to question (1) above is in the negative, whether the Bench was correct in law in holding that Section 42 (3) would apply to profits which were received in British India or profits which actually accrued or arose (and were not merely deemed to accrue or arise) in British India?' The reference arose on the following facts: The assessee is a company incorporated in Cochin State under the Companies Act as made applicable to that State. The company trades in timber and also has a saw mill at Chalakudi i...
Tag this Judgment!