Supreme Court of IndiaMunicipal Council, Tirupathi vs Tirumalai Tirupathi Devasthanam on 6 February, 1974Equivalent citations: 1974 AIR 521, 1974 SCR (3) 924, AIR 1974 SUPREME COURT 521Author:P.K. GoswamiBench:P.K. Goswami,P.N. BhagwatiPETITIONER:
MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, TIRUPATHI

	Vs.

RESPONDENT:
TIRUMALAI TIRUPATHI DEVASTHANAM

DATE OF JUDGMENT06/02/1974

BENCH:
GOSWAMI, P.K.
BENCH:
GOSWAMI, P.K.
BHAGWATI, P.N.

CITATION:
 1974 AIR  521		  1974 SCR  (3) 924
 1974 SCC  (1) 683


ACT:
Madras	   District	Municipalities	   Act,	    1920--S.
83(1)(b)--Whether   Tirumalai  Tirupathi   Devasthanam	 New
Choultry is exempt from property tax.



HEADNOTE:
The  plaintiff/respondent  filed  a suit  in  the  court  of
Subordinate  Judge,  for a declaration	that  the  building,
known  as "Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanam New  Choultry"  is
exempt	from  property	tax  u/s.  83(1)(b)  of	 the  Madras
District  Municipalities  Act, 1920 and	 for  directing	 the
defendant,  the Municipal Council, Tirupathi, to refund	 the
sum of Rs. 22,306.40 paid under protest.
According  to  the plaintiff, the said building	 is  a	free
Devasthanam Choultry intended purely for the convenience  of
the  visiting pilgrims and therefore, exempt  from  property
tax.   The  defendants'	 case is  that	while  pilgrims	 are
accommodated  in the ground floor free of charge, the  rooms
in  the first floor are rented out to pilgrims	and  others.
Further, the plaintiff was deriving a very large income from
the various stalls and shops situated inside the premises of
the choultry and therefore not exempt from tax.
The learned Sub-Judge dismissed the suit but on appeal,	 the
High  Court reversed the judgment and decree of	 the  trial-
court  and  decreed the plaintiff's suit  holding  that	 the
plaintiff is entitled to exemption under s. 83 of the Act.
S. 83(1) of the Act provides as follows
"The following building and lands shall be: exempt from	 the
property tax:-
(a)
(b)  choultries	 for  the  occupation of which	no  rent  is
charged	 and choultries the rent charged for the  occupation
of which is used exclusively for charitable purposes;"
Dismissing the appeal,
HELD:(i) The word "choultry" is not defined in the Act.	 The
word   however,	 means	a  shelter  or	resting	 place	 for
travellers.
(Law  Lexicon  of  British  India  compiled  and  edited  by
Ramnatha Aiyar, 1940 Ed.)
(ii)Choultry  is  indeed  an  ancient  institution  and	  is
principally meant for lodging of pilgrims and travellers. it
is  conceivable	 that  in 1884,	 when  the  first  Municipal
Legislation  was  passed in Madras, such  institutions	were
some humble sheds; but in course of time, such	institutions
grew in size and more and more demands were made of them for
comfort	 and  convenience of the  pilgrims.   Therefore,  it
would be necessary to look at the institution from the point
of  view  of  the predominant  intention  which	 guides	 the
building up of the complex as a whole.
(iii)In	 the present case, the choultry cannot	be  divorced
from the other offices, shops and concerns which are  mainly
located within its precincts in order to render	 much-needed
services  to  the  pilgrims.  It is clear  that	 the  entire
income	is used exclusively for the purpose of the  choultry
which  is indeed a charitable purpose.	Therefore, the	case
falls squarely under sec. 81(1)(b) and therefore exempt from
property tax.
 295
Kesarpalli  Amaneyelu and another V. Eluru Municipality,  by
its  Executive Officer The commissioner and another,  [1964]
I.L.R.	Andhra Pradesh (Part IV) 379, Sri  Kayakaparameswari
Anna  Satram  represented  by  the  Secretary,	Sri   Batchu
Venkateswarlu  v.  The Vijayawada Municipality,	 represented
by its Executive Officer, The Municipal Commissioner  [1959]
2  Andhra  Weekly Reporter, 325; Kandandaram Pillai  v.	 The
Municipal  Council, Trichinopoly, [1933] 65 M.L.J.  678	 and
Pandarasannadhi,  Tiruvannamalai Adhinam v. The	 Corporation
of Madras[1941] 2 M.L.I. 544, referred to and distinguished.



JUDGMENT:CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 568 of 1969.
From  the judgment and decree dated the 27th February,	1968
of' the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Appeal No. 117 of 1963.
M.   Natesan,  K. Jayaram and Y.  Chandrasekheran,  for	 the
appellant  Krishnarao, E. Kalvanaram and G. N. Rao, for	 the
respondent.The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
GOSWAMI,  J.-This  appeal by the dependent in  the  original
suit  is by certificate granted by the High Court of  Andhra
Pradesh	 to  appeal against the judgment and decree  of	 the
said Court of 27th February, 1968.  The facts may briefly be
stated.The   respondent  (hereinafter	to  be	described   as	 the
plaintiff)   is	  the;	 Tirumalai   Tirupathi	 Devasthanam
represented   by  its  executive  officer.   The   plaintiff
instituted  a  suit in the court of the	 Subordinate  Judge,
Chittoor,  on  10th March, 1961, praying for  a	 declaration
that  the building known as "Tirumala Tirupathi	 Devasthanam
New  Choultry"	situated within the area  of  the  Municipal
Council	 Tirupathi (hereinafter described as the  defendant)
bearing	 assessment  No. 5361 of Tirupati  Municipality,  is
exempted  from property tax under section 83 (1) (b) of	 the
Madras	District  Municipalities Act 1920 (Madras Act  V  of
1920), briefly the Act, and for directing the defendant	 to,
refund	the sum of Rs. 22,306.40, the amount of tax  so	 far
paid  under  protest.  It appears that	the  plaintiff	paid
property  tax in respect of this budding for  several  years
under  protest and without prejudice to its right to file  a
suit.	After the plaintiff failed to get redress  from	 the
authorities,  the suit was filed.  The plaintiff  states  in
the  plaint ,that the said building is a free  Devasthanamas
choultry intended purely for the convenience of the pilgrims
visiting the famous Holy Shrine of Sri Venkateswara Swami at
Tirumala  and other Devasthanams attached to  the  plaintiff
Devasthanams  and  is used solely and' exclusively  for	 the
said  purpose and no other".  The plaintiff  further   inter
alia, avers in para 7 of the plaint as follows :-"The  defendant  has failed to note  and	take
	      into  consideration, as it ought to  have	 the
	      fact  that the canteen, the  Firewood  stores,
	      the  Transport office Workshop,  Garages,	 the
	      galvanized  Iron Sheet sheds for	parking	 the
	      Transport	  vehicles,  the   Railway   Booking
	      Office,	the  Mysore   Government   Transport
	      Office, the Devastbanams Sanitary	 Inspector's
	      Office,  the Enquiry Office, Garages of  cars,
	      shed  for	 Water pump,  Laundry,	Hair-cutting
	      Saloon, the Post Office and296Free  Medical  Dispensary,  are  all   located
	      within  the schedule mentioned  premises	only
	      with  a view to providing	 conveniences  which
	      the plaintiff is under a statutory  obligation
	      to  provide to the visiting  pilgrims  without
	      deriving any rents, returns, profits or  other
	      receipts."The  defendant resisted the suit.  It denied in the  written
statement  that	 the  building	"is  an	 out  and  out	free
Choultry".  The defendant further avers that "while pilgrims
are  accommodated  in  the  ground  .floor  portion  of	 the
Choultry  free of charge, the rooms in the first  floor	 are
rented	out  to Pilgrims and others.  Further  in  the	main
building.  :as	well as in the other  buildings	 within	 the
compound  of the choultry, there are several  shops,  stalls
and offices.  There is the canteen, which ,admittedly caters
not only to the pilgrim visitors staying in the choultry but
also to the general public.  There is a brass vessel shop, a
fire wood depot, a Transport Office, a motor workshop with 9
garages,  a Railway Booking Room, a Mysore Transport  Office
Room, the Sanitary Inspector's Office Room, Enquiry  Office,
6  garages, (2) residential portions for  Superintendent,  a
water  pump  shed,  a laundry, a barber	 shop,	and  a	Post
Office.	 It will be seen that the business in several of the
above  shops and stalls and the amenities  provided  therein
are  not  solely connected with the purpose  of	 either	 the
choultry  or  the worship in the temple.  The  plaintiff  is
deriving  a  very  large income from  the  said	 stalls	 and
shops........  The annual rental value of the 'building	 was
calculated only after excluding the portions that are- being
used for the purposes of the free choultry".
By  consent  of parties, a large number	 of  documents	were
marked	as  exhibits, and the plaintiff	 examined  only	 the
Superintendent of the New Choultry as the sole witness while
the  defendant	did  not  adduce  any  oral  evidence.	 The
Subordinate Judge dismissed the suit observing as follows :-"On  considering  all  these aspects I am  of  opinion	that
neither	 the several offices and shops situated	 within	 the
premises  of  the choultry, nor the furnished rooms  in	 the
main  choultry are entitled to exemption from  property	 tax
under section 83 of the Madras District Municipalities Act".The   Trial   Court  relied  upon  the	decisions   in	 Sri
Kanyakaparameswari   Anna   Satram,   represented   by	 the
Secretary,   Sri  Batchu  Venkatesswar	v.  The	  Vijayawada
Municipality,  represented  by its  Executive  Officer,	 the
Municipal  Commissioner(1)  and	 Madura	 Municipal   Council
through	 its  Commissioner, Rajiah D. Paul v.  Madura  etc.,
Devasthanams  represented  by its Executive Officer,  R.  S.
Nayudu (2) and rejected the plaintiff's claim.	On appeal by
the  plaintiff	to  the High Court of  Andhra  Pradesh,	 the
Division  Bench	 reversed the judgment ,and  decree  of	 the
Trial  Court and decreed the plaintiff's suit  holding	that
the  plaintiff is entitled to exemption under section 83  or
the Act.(1)  1959 (2) Andhra Weekly Reporter 325.(2)  A. I. R. 1942 Madras 658.297The  evidence in the case is absolutely one sided and  there
is no controversy about the facts.  The High Court has found
that  "there is only one institution, one building and	that
building  provides  for rest of the pilgrims who  visit	 the
place and the pilgrims are numerous to common knowledge.  It
is  not enough to have merely accommodation in building	 but
the people would like to 'have other amenities and it is the
other	amenities  that	 are  provided	as   stated   above.
Therefore we have to treat all these including the rooms  as
one  single  unit  which  is intended  for  resting  of	 the
pilgrims  who  visit the place and should not as  the  lower
court	did,   separate	 these	amenities  from	  the	main
institution.   No rent is charged except in one	 case  where
there  is one brass co-operative store which pays  Rs.	30/-
per month towards rent.	 In this case the test laid down for
deciding  whether  the institution is a choultry or  not  is
fully satisfied as there is much accommodation in the ground
and first floor for resting place.  What is objected to	 and
contended is that it ceases to be, a choultry with all these
amenities.   provided	there.	 In  our  opinion   if	 the
institution  is	 essentially  one  for	providing  rest	 and
shelter for pilgrims, the mere fact that there are amenities
attached  to  the institution should not  detract  from	 its
being,	a  choultry.   On the other hand  it  amplifies	 and
provides  more	comforts to the	 pilgrims  without  charging
anything  for  them".  The High Court also found  that	"the
amount	collected  for services and other amenities  is	 far
less and it is not sufficient to meet the expenditure to run
the  choultry.......... What is derived by the	choultry  is
only  an  amount  of Rs. 15000/- and odd  which	 is  service
charges.   But	over  and above that a	large  amount  which
equals double the amount is spent.  The charges,  therefore,
must  necessarily,  have  been	spent  and'  are  spent,  as
accounts  show,	 for  purposes of charity  and	whatever  is
collected, whether from the cooperative society at the	rate
of  Rs.	 30/per mensem or service charges  levied  from	 the
pilgrims, it is only a small amount.  All this amount is not
sufficient   to	  meet	the  annual'  expenditure   of	 the
institution and the balance must come from the pocket of the
Devasthanam.   It is therefore difficult to accept the	con-
tention	 that  there is no proof that the  collections	were
applied	 exclusively for the choultry.	The  expenditure  is
one,  the  institution is one and the collections  are	also
exclusively for services connected with the institution	 and
not  by	 way of rent.  All these indicate and point  to	 the
conclusion  that  the  collections  are	 applied  only	 for
purposes  of  charity.	 It  is	 not  a	 business  and	 the
institution  is not making any profit and  profit-motive  is
not  behind the actions of the Devasthanam in levying  small
charges	 for the services rendered.  All these	charges	 are
meant mainly for the 30 rooms in the first floor."
The  High Court came to the above findings and also  noticed
"that  the  learned Subordinate Judge over-looked  the	fact
that there were rooms on the ground floor and they are	also
used for the pilgrims".Mr. Natesan, learned counsel for the appellant, submits that
the plaintiff cannot in law claim exemption under section 83
(1)  (b) of the Act.  We may, therefore, read  the  material
provisions in the section with which we are concerned :29883(1) "The following buildings and lands shall
	      be exempt from the: property tax :-x		  x(b)   choultries	for the occupation of  which
	      no  rent	is charged and choultries  the	rent
	      charged  for the occupation of which  is	used
	      exclusively for charitable purposes;"x		   x
	      The,  word  "choultry" is not defined  in	 the
	      Act.  The word is ,defined in the Law  Lexicon
	      of  British  India  compiled  and	 edited	  by
	      Ramanatha Aiyar, 1940 edition, as follows :-"Choultry	  :   Chatram,	A  choultry   is   a
	      corruption of chavadi.  It means a shelter  or
	      resting  place  for  travellers.	 A  chathram
	      (corruption  of  the Sanskrit  Sathram)  is  a
	      house where pilgrims and travellers are fed".In  the	 Shorter  Oxford  English  Dictionary,	choultry  is
described  as  an  Anglo-Indian word  "being  corruption  of
Telugu	 chawadi"   and	  its  meaning	is   given   as	  "A
caravanserai".	In Wilson's Glossary of Judicial and Revenue
Terms,	second	edition,  page 108, "he	 word  is  given  in
different  forms  such	as  Chawati  or	 Chauti,  corruptly,
Choltry	 or Choultry and the meaning is given as  "A  public
lodging place, a shelter for travellers".The  earliest  Act on the subject in Madras  is	 the  Madras
DiStrict  Municipalities  Act  of 1884.	  Even	there  under
section 63(1), amongst others, choultries were exempted from
payment	 of tax on buildings and lands.	 The  word  choultry
was  not defined even in that Act.  The present Act of	1920
has repealed the aforesaid old Act under section 2 read with
Schedule 1. In the absence of a statutory definition in	 the
Act,  recourse has to be taken to the meaning attributed  to
the word in the dictionaries and the law lexicons as well as
to  the popular concept of the term.  Choultry is indeed  an
ancient institution and is principally meant for lodging  of
pilgrims  and travellers.  It is conceivable that  in  1884,
when  the first municipal legislation was passed in  Madras.
such   institutions  were  some	 humble	 sheds	 and   other
structures to enable, the pilgrims to stay for a short while
when they came to visit temples and other religious  places.
This institution, like similar others elsewhere, has come to
stay as a symbol of religious and charitable disposition  of
human  mind  translated into physical manifestation  in	 the
shape of safe shelter for the pilgrims.	 As man advances and
ideas  grow and expand, with his ever increasing desire	 for
comfort	 and  convenience, the shape of	 the  choultry	must
needs also change. It is, therefore,only to be expected that
with the growing funds of the Devastbanams, such  choultries
will  be constructed in a modern way catering to  the  needs
and  requirements  of  the, pilgrims  and  visitors  of	 all
classes	 in a self-contained unit or complex.  It  would  be
necessary to look at the institution from the point of	view
of the predominant intention which guides the building up of
the complex as a. whole.299The  object  for which a choultry is built is  advanced	 and
facilitated  by	 making provisions for	so  many  incidental
conveniences which the visitors and pilgrims coming from far
and  wide may need in order to make their short stay in	 the
neighbourhood of the temple comfortable and convenient	from
all  points of view so that they are not required to  go  to
and  fro and face difficulties.	 The concept of	 a  choultry
to-day	may,  therefore, be completely different  from	that
with  which one may be familiar a hundred years ago.   There
must,  however,	 be no idea of profit motive in	 running  or
administering  a  choultry.   Besides  the  expenditure	 for
running a choultry with amenities should not be made with an
idea  to  realise it from the visitors using the  same.	  In
other words, the choultry must in truth and reality bear the
hall mark of a charitable institution and should not partake
of  the character of a hotel run for profit.  The  appellant
concedes that the first floor as well as the ground floor of
the building which are used for lodging of the pilgrims	 may
be exempted from tax and indeed tax has not been realised in
respect	 of the rooms on the ground floor of  the  choultry.
The appellant, however, submits that the offices, shops	 and
other concerns some of which are located in the choultry and
others	within the campus, cannot be considered as part	 and
parcel	of the choultry and, therefore, are not exempt	from
tax.  We have examined the entire evidence in. this case and
have given careful consideration to the findings of the High
Court  with  regard to the same and are clearly	 of  opinion
that the choultry cannot be divorced from the other offices,
shops  and  concerns  which are mainly	located	 within	 its
precincts in order to render much-needed and other necessary
services  to the pilgrims coming to pay homage to  the	Holy
Shrine	of  Sri Venkateswara Swami.  In the  'absence  of  a
precise	 definition  of	 the  word  "choultry"	in  the	 Act
excluding such offices, shops and concerns in the precincts,
we are unable to restrict the term "choultry" in the context
of the economic development and improved standard of  living
of our people, to only that portion of the building which is
directly used for lodging of visitors and pilgrims.  We arc,
therefore,  of	the  view that the High Court  is  right  in
holding that the appellant is not entitled to charge tax  on
the choultry as claimed.Under section 81 of the Act, property tax is leviable if the
Municipal Council by resolution determines that it shall  be
levied	on buildings and lands within the  municipal  limits
save  and except those exempted by or under the Act  or	 any
other  law.  Then section 83 provides for general  exemption
under  various heads and categories.  There  are  exceptions
within	exceptions in section 83 itself with a	proviso	 and
explanation with which we are not directly concerned in this
appeal.	  Some light is, however, thrown by  explanation  to
section 83 which it may be appropriate to quote
"Explanation-The exemption granted under this section  shall
not extended to residential quarters attached to schools and
colleges  not  being  hostels  or  to  residential  quarters
attached to hospitals, dispensaries and libraries".
Similarly  there is a proviso in the section with  reference
to  clauses  (a),  (c) and (e) to the  effect  that  nothing
contained in these clauses300shall be deemed to exempt from property tax any building  or
land  for  which rent is payable by the	 person	 or  persons
using  the  same for the purposes referred to  in  the	said
clauses".   Nothing  similar to this has  been	superimposed
upon the exemption allowed under the Act to choultries under
section	 8 3 (1) (b) and the matter is kept unabridged	even
without	 attempting  to	 define the word  and  there  is  no
carving out of any exception within the exception as in	 the
case of schools, hospitals, etc.
Even  then  a  line will have to  be  drawn  to	 distinguish
between what is incidental or subservient to the main object
and  purpose  of  the choultry and  the	 oblique  motive  of
profit-making  to deprive the Municipality of  its  rightful
dues.It  is well recognised that there is no equity	or  morality
about  a  tax and a taxing statute or provision	 has  to  be
construed  strictly  on its plain  meaning  where  possible.
Similarly  who so ever claims exemption from tax  under	 the
law,  has  to establish his own case as falling	 within	 the
exemption  clause.   In case of any  ambiguity	the  benefit
will, however, go to the tax payer.Not  being unmindful to the above principles, we are  unable
to  hold  in  this  case that  the  New	 Choultry  with	 its
expending   beneficial	complex,  as  established   in	 the
evidence,   not	 viable	 by  itself  but  maintained  in   a
substantially  large  measure out of the  Devasthanam  funds
predominantly in the interest of numerous visiting  pilgrims
from  far and wide, is not exempt from tax under section  83
(1) (b).In  the view we have taken about the choultry in this  case,
we  hold that there is no evidence to show that any rent  as
such  is charged for the occupation of the choultry and	 the
minimal	 service  charges even for the rooms  in  the  first
floor cannot be treated as rent.  There is only evidence  of
realisation  of	 rent of Rs. 30/- per month from  the  brass
cooperative  store  within the campus, but that	 is  a	very
insignificant item when we consider that everything else  is
found  by the High Court to be rent-free.  The evidence	 has
established  that  the entire income from  whatever  sources
from  the choultry is not sufficient for the maintenance  of
the same.  It is, therefore, obvious that the entire income,
including  even the nominal rent charged from the brass	 co-
operative store, is used exclusively for the purpose of	 the
choultry  which is indeed a charitable purpose.	  The  case,
therefore,  falls squarely under section 83 (1) (b)  of	 the
exemption clause.The  appellant relied upon a decision of the Andhra  Pradesh
High  Court in Kesarapalli Anjaneyulu and Another  v.  Eluru
Municipality, by its Executive Officer, The Commissioner and
Another(1), where the question arose as to whether a portion
of choultry, which is used for shops, can be brought  within
the  purview  of section 83 (1) (b) of this very  Act.	 The
High  Court held that the clause is attracted only to  cases
where  rent  is charged in regard to a building	 used  as  a
choultry  i.e.	where  rent is collected  from	persons	 who
temporarily occupy
(1)  (1964) 1. L. R. Andhra Pradesh (Part IV) 379.301tile  rooms, such as pilgrims and travellers, and it has  no
application  to	 cases where the building is not used  as  a
choultry.   It is not possible to find from the	 very  short
judgment  in this case as to the entire	 circumstances	with
regard	to  the connection of the shops with  the  choultry.
The  decision is, therefore, not of much assistance  to	 the
appellant and We express no opinion on its correctness.
The  next decision cited by the appellant is in the case  of
Sri Kanyakaparameswari Anna Satram (supra). In this case ten
buildings  that	 were  involved in the	suit  were  situated
outside the choultry building.	It was alleged in the plaint
that these ten buildings were rented and the income realised
therefrom was used and applied for maintaining the choultry.
The  High Court held that "the exemption is only  to  choul-
tries and if a building does not satisfy the definition of a
choultry, it is not entitled to the exemption.	Any building
or  house  property  acquireed	by  the	 plaintiff-committee
cannot be called a choultry, and if the	 plaintiff-committee
should	acquire	 a cinema-house and appropriate	 the  income
therefrom  for	the charitable purpose", it cannot  be	said
that the cinema-house is a choultry.  The High Court  relied
upon  two decisions.If the Madras High Court in  Kodandaram
Pillai	v.  The	 Municipal Council,Trichinopoly,  (1)	 and
Pandarasannadhi, Tiruvannarnalai Adhinam v. The	 Corporation
of Madras(2).  The facts of this case are entirely different
from  those  of the present case where	shops,	offices	 and
other  concerns	 are  intended	to  provide  facilities	 and
amenities to pilgrims and travellers staying in the choultry
without	 there	being  any motive of profit-making  and	 are
therefore part of the choultry.The appellant also relied upon Municipal Council, Palni  v.
Sri  Dhandayuthapani  Devasthanam Palni(3), where  the	High
Court  was  dealing  with the words "places  set  apart	 for
public	worship	 and  either actually so used  or  used	 for
another	 purpose"  under section 83(1) (a) of the  Act	with
which we are not concerned.  The decision is, therefore,  of
no  assistance to the appellant.  The appellant also  relied
upon Rajahmundry Municipal Council v. Tripurari	 Malloya(4).
The High Court on the particular facts and circumstances  of
the case held :"If the property is a choultry when	 the
	      tax  accrues  due,  then	the  tax  cannot  be
	      levied.  If it is not a choultry on that date,
	      being used for other purposes, then the tax is
	      leviable even though in the Past the  property
	      had  been	 a choultry and	 might,	 become	 one
	      again in the future'.This  decision  is  also,	 therefore,  of	  no
	      assistance to the appellant.At any rate, we have looked at the matter from
	      an entirely different angle and have come	 to,
	      the  conclusion  that section 83	(1)  (b)  is
	      attracted	 in  this  case.   The	appeal	 is,
	      therefore, dismissed and the plaintiff's	suit
	      is  decreed  as held by the  High	 Court.	  We
	      will,  however, make no order as to  costs  in
	      this appeal.S.C.
Appeal dismissed.(1) A. I. R. 1933 Madras 782  (1933) 65 M. L. J. 678.
(2) A. I. R. 1941 Madras 908(1941) 2 M. L. J. 544.
(3) A. I. R. 1941 Madras 185. (4) A. I. R. 1938 Madras 923.7-1.954SupCI /74302