Skip to content

Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: contract of indemnity contract Court: chennai Year: 1950 Page 5 of about 48 results (0.036 seconds)

Sep 29 1950 (HC)

Narayana Ayyar Vs. G. Veerappa Pillai

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Sep-29-1950

Reported in : AIR1951Mad34; (1950)IIMLJ686

..... prosecution for certain classes of criminal conspiracy. section 197, criminal p. c.,deals with prosecution of judges and public servants; section 198, criminal p. c,, with prosecution for breach of contract, defamation andoffences against marriage. each of these sections deals with a separate class or classes ofcases and provides for different contingencies. whereas under section 195, criminal p. c., the complaint .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 02 1950 (HC)

Commissioner of Income- Tax Vs. K.E. Sundara Mudaliar and ors.

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Feb-02-1950

Reported in : AIR1950Mad566; [1950]18ITR259(Mad)

..... is included in definition of 'rent' and is not treated otherwise as part of rent. in the second place, section 6 (2) enacts that if land is held under a contract for pasturage of cattle the tenant so holding the land would not acquire permanent rights of occupancy in the land and by reason of such letting the land, it does .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 20 1950 (HC)

The Joint Secretary, Board of Revenue Vs. K.R. Venkatarama Ayyar

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Mar-20-1950

Reported in : AIR1950Mad738; (1950)IIMLJ213

horwill, j.1. we are here concerned with a reference made by the board of revenue under section 57, stamp act ii [2] of 1899 on a question of the stamp duty payable on a settlement deed.2. it is conceded that the document contains terms which make it a settlement deed and that for purposes of stamp duty it should be treated as such. under article 58, stamp act (schedule 1), the duty is to be the same as for a bond for a sum equal to the amount or 'value of the property settled as set forth in such settlement.' the real value of the property is admitted by the settlor to be rs. 2 lakhs; and since it is subject to a mortgage of one lakh of rupees, the value of the equity of redemption would be at least one lakh of rupees. the revenue authorities value it at rs. 1,59,300, the settlor did not in so many terms purport to give the real value of the property; because if he gave a false value, he would be liable to prosecution. so he tried to guard himself by saying, 'value for purposes of stamp and registration, rs. 3000'. he argued before the revenue authorities, as he did here, that he was entitled to put any notional value on the property. since however it was clear from the document itself that the property was worth agreat deal more than rs. 3000, the matter was referred by the registrar to the collector and by the collector to the board of revenue, which body, we are told, directed that the instrument should be registered and that proceedings should be taken against the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 14 1950 (HC)

Tulabandu Basavayya Alias Chinna Basavayya Vs. Sri Satyabhigna theerth ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Feb-14-1950

Reported in : (1950)IIMLJ607

orderviswanatha sastri, j.1. these three civil revision petitions arise out of three suits instituted in the court of the district munsif of tenali, by the head of the uttaradi mutt as trustee of a religious endowment, for the recovery of lands in the possession of the defendants in the respective suits. the averments in the pleadings, the issues raised and the evidence adduced ate common to the three suits which were tried together and decided by a common judgment, both original and appellate. the lands in suit are situate in devarapalle agraharam. the plaintiff's case was that the defendants in each of the three suits were his lessees whose term had expired but who, nevertheless, continued in possession of the lands under an untenable claim of permanent occupancy rights. the defendant contended that the lands in the suit were 'ryoti' lands situated in an 'estate' and that they had therefore acquired occupancy rights therein under section 6 (1), madras estates land act, hereinafter referred to as the act. they also pleaded that the civil court had no jurisdiction to try the suits. the learned district munsif upheld the plea of the defendants and returned the plaints in the three suits for presentation to the revenue court. on appeal the learned subordinate judge reversed that decision and directed the lower court to proceed with the trial of the three suits holding that the lands in question were not ryoti lands and that the suits for the ejectment of the tenants of those .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 06 1950 (HC)

Bendapudi Veera Venkata Subba Rao and anr. Vs. Rao Venkata Rao

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Sep-06-1950

Reported in : AIR1951Mad698; (1951)IMLJ73

order1. this civ. revn. petn. raises a question of court-fee. the facta necessary for appreciating the question raised may be briefly narrated. the plaintiffs filed o. s. no. 81 of 1949 on the file of the court of the subordinate judge, kakinada, for recovery of possession of the properties described in a & b schedules annexed to the plaint. we are not concerned with the a schedule property, as nothing turns upon it in the revision. in regard to b schedule property, it is alleged in the plaint that the plaintiffs' paternal grand-father, late benda-pudy venkataratnam, purchased the property described in the b schedule for a sum of rs. 14,000 from the defendants, under a registered sale deed dated 16 1-1945. in para. 17 of the plaint it is stated that: 'the plaint b schedule property in an undivided southern half of a big plot & so the plaintifia. & the defendants are cosharers of the big plot. the plaintiffs are entitled to have their southern half separated & to be put in separate possession of the same. as regards the said property, the plaintiffs pray for a decree for separation of the same & to put them in separate possession after evicting the defendants therefrom.'the schedules are not before us, and we presume that they are described by boundaries & also by extent. the b schedule property was valued under section 7, clause (v), court-fees act, for purposes of jurisdiction at a sum of rs. 20,000 & a court-fee of rs. 100 is paid under article 17-b of schedule ii, madras .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 11 1950 (HC)

Kamala Bai Ammal Vs. theethachari Alias Appu Rao and ors.

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Apr-11-1950

Reported in : AIR1951Mad345; (1950)2MLJ286

..... or otherwise, but does not include rent as defined in clause (iv), or 'kanartham' asdefined in section 3 (1) (i), malabar tenancy act, 1929; section 7: notwithstanding any law, custom, contract or decree of court to the contrary all debts payable by an agriculturist at the commencement of this act, shall be scaled down in accordance with the provisions of this .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 30 1950 (HC)

Sistla Yagnanarayana Sastri Vs. Chilukuri Lakshminarayana and ors.

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Nov-30-1950

Reported in : AIR1952Mad495; (1951)IMLJ502

..... terms so far as they related to the suit, its jurisdiction being limited to an enquiry into the lawfulness of the compromise. the basis of the compromise was only the contract between the parties. article 125 would apply to a suit by a reversioner to have such a compromise which resulted in an alienation declared invalid. see 'ranga rao v. ranganayaki .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 31 1950 (HC)

Synabhog Marthandu Rao (Died) Vs. Rao Bahadur Chenna Basappa Kuruba Go ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Mar-31-1950

Reported in : AIR1951Mad388; (1950)2MLJ653

1. the plaintiff in the suit out of which this second appeal arises lost before the trial count but succeeded on appeal. the relevant facts are these:2. the plaintiff obtained a decree against defendant 3 for over rs. 9000 in the dharwar sub-court in the state of bombay and obtained an attachment before judgment of lands belonging to defendant 3 in harvi of the harpanahalli taluk of the district of bellary. the attachment was ordered on 12-11-1936 and was actually effected on 2-12-1936. defendant 3 on 4-11-1936, sold these lands to defendant 1 by a registered sale deed, ex. p-2, for rs. 600. defendant 1, in his turn, sold them to defendant 2 under ex. d-1, a registered sale deed, for rs. 800 on 30-7-1942. then the plaintiff filed the present suit for a declaration that the sale deeds exs. p-2 and d-1 were void, nominal, fraudulent and not binding on him. the finding of both the courts below is that the two alienations were brought about fraudulently to defeat, in anticipation, the attachment the plaintiff contemplated and further that in spite of these sale deeds defendant 3 continued to remain in possession and collected the rent.3. the points taken before me for defendant 2 the appellant, are firstly that the suit was barred by limitation and secondly that the suit, not having been instituted by the plaintiff in a representative capacity as required by section 53, t. p. act, ought to have been dismissed and thatthe application for amendment filed before the learned district .....

Tag this Judgment!

Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //