Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Jul-08-1964
Reported in : AIR1965AP60; 16STC205(AP)
narasimham, j.(1) this is an appeal against the judgment of venkatesam, j. in s. a. no. 421 of 1957 by which he dismissed the suit filed by the respondent therein for the recovery of rs. 1919-7-0 as interest at 6 per cent per annum on the sales tax collected from it on 26-2-1954. (2) the only point involved is whether the state of andhra, which levied the said tax, is liable to pay interest from the date of collection to the date of decree, having refunded the tax collected with interest from the date of decree. (3) the learned district munsif dismissed the claim. on appeal the additional district judge decreed the claim. our learned brother set aside the order on appeal and restored that of the district munsif. (4) the relevant facts, about which there is no controversy, are these : the appellant-plaintiff is an assessee. it is a registered firm carrying on business on commission agency and independently in certain commodities. it was assessed to a tax of rs. 7248-6-2 on its business for the year 1945-46. in a suit levy filed by the firm, o. s. no. 111 of 1952, the said levy was held to be illegal. after the said declaration by the court, the amount, which was collected, was refunded together with interest from the date of such pronouncement. the present suit was laid claiming interest on the amount collected at 6 per cent per annum from the date of collection, to wit, 26-9-49 to 25-2-1954 when the levy was declared illegal. (5) in plain para 8, it is alleged thus :'the .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Jan-21-1964
Reported in : AIR1966AP252
chandra reddy, c.j. 1. the proper interpretation of exs a. 1 and b. 1 is the subject matter of this appeal. the question that poses for consideration is whether the transaction evidenced by these two documents is a mortgage by conditional sale or an outright purchase. 2. the property in dispute is a house site and terraced rooms situate therein. the agreement to sell this property appears to have been entered into on 16-7-1923 for a sum of rupees 8,400 and the whole of the consideration paid at about the time; but the document of sale was not executed fill 2-8-1925, on the same day, the transferees executed an instrument agreeing to reconvey the property if the sum of rupees 8,400 paid to the transferor was repaid to him with interest at 1 per cent per mensem. under this document the option to repurchase was to be exercised between 2-2-1926 and 30-7-1927. the transferor did not avail himself of this right within the stipulated period. nothing was done by him in this behalf till 7-2-1950 when he called upon the transferees to retransfer the property to him on receipt of such amounts as might be found due on taking of accounts. the transferees refused to comply with this demand and sold the property in their turn on 12-7-1950 for a sum of rs. 20,000 to a firm of which chebrolu audinarayana, chebrolu chenchu subbiah, vura venkateswarlu and kurapati raghavulu, were the partners. notwithstanding this, no action was taken by him till 29-1-1953 when the present action was initiated .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Chennai
Decided on : Dec-16-1964
Reported in : AIR1966Mad297
(1) the defendant in the suit o.s. 259 of 1956, on the file of the city civil court, madras, is the appellant before us. the said suit was filed by the respondent to recover a sum of rs. 6600 as assignee of two hundies, exts. a-1 and a-2, (which are now admitted to be promissory notes), executed by the appellant for rs. 4000 and rs. 1000 on 6-2-1952 in favour of one rukmaniammal. of the several pleas raised by the defendant the two pleas that were pressed before us are: (1) the amounts mentioned in the hundies are payable at a specified place, madras and as there was no presentment of the promissory notes to the defendant for payment, the plaintiff has no right to maintain the suit: (2) the promissory notes were not supported by consideration, and that the defendant signed two blank, hundi forms and left the same with one t. s. shanmugham, the husband of rukmaniammal aforesaid, with a view to enable shanmugham to raise money thereon, that the defendant's signature was obtained only by way of additional security and that the defendant did not have the benefit of the borrowing.(2) the learned city civil judge held that the assignment of the promissory notes in favour of the plaintiff was only for purposes of collection, and that the plaintiff was not a bona fide holder in due course. on the merits he held that the plea of the defendant that he signed blank hundies was a false one, that the promissory notes were fully supported by consideration, and that sum of rs. 5000 was .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Chennai
Decided on : Mar-31-1964
Reported in : AIR1965Mad318
s. ramachandra iyer, c.j. (1) the appellant secured from the government a considerable extent of vacant land measuring about 420 acres in madukkarai village in coimbatore district under a lease for mining purposes. in that area there were several survey numbers, of which we are concerned for the present only with s. no. 950/1 measuring an extent of 60 acres. just south of it, is s. no. 961/5. in the first instance the term of the lease was 30 years from the year 1934 but this period has not been extended by a further period of 20 years. the respondent purchased one acre from out of s. no. 961/5 from its owner sometime during the year 1950. the respondent had to store chinese crackers in which he had business and for that purpose he built on the land in the year 1950 a magazine, watchman's quarters, etc. the work was commenced that year and was completed in the following year, the respondent having spent nearly rs. 17000. it is stated that the building put up would not be worth twice the amount spent. it is found that by putting up the buildings he had occupied an extent of 79 cents of land in s. no. 950/1 which is government's property and in respect of which a mining lease in favour of the appellant subsists. the respondent did not perhaps know at that time that he was trespassing upon government property. there was every reason for it.the land covered by s. no. 950/1 was fenced and there were boundary stones planted. both the fence and the boundary stones were outside the .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Chennai
Decided on : Feb-01-1964
Reported in : AIR1965Mad346; (1965)1MLJ131
(1) this appeal from the judgment of anantnarayanan j. relates to a claim to the estate left by one balakrishna pillai, a successful lawyer who was practising at ariyalur in tiruchirapalli dt. he died on 6-4-1893, leaving behind him his two windows, meenakshi achi and sornathachi. by the latter, he had a daughter visalakshi achi who was a child aged 3 years at the time of his death. visalakshi came of age and was married but no issue resulted from that marriage. meenakshi, of the windows, died about the year 1917. visalakshi, the first respondent became insane and in o. p. 69 of 1944, on the file of the district court, tiruchirapalli, the second respondent to this appeal was appointed as her guardian. the appellant claims that he had been adopted by swarnathachi on 14-9-42, in pursuance of an authority given to her by her husband. the adoption is evidenced by a document, ex a. l, which bears the same date as the adoption. within a period of four months thereform, on 29-12-1942, swarnathachi executed a deed, ex. b. 1, cancelling the adoption. an adoption once lawfully made effects a change of status and it will not thereafter be open to adoptive parent to cancel it. but the deed of cancellation, ex b. 1, is valuable in the instant case, to show the circumstances under which the adoption was made and is also a pointer to the subsequent conduct of the parties. while the adoption deed states that balakrishna pillai had given each one of his two windows permission to adopt a son .....Tag this Judgment!