Ramanadhan Chetti Vs. Murugappa Chetti

Ramanadhan Chetti vs Murugappa Chetti

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Apr 10, 1900

~1 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/782085

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/782085
Court: Chennai
Judge: Arnold White, C.J. and ;Moore, JJ.
Decided On: Apr 10, 1900
Subject: Criminal

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Criminal Procedure Code - Act V of 1898, Section 144--Order to abstain from interfering with the management of a temple until the eviction of another person--Legality of order. -

Key legal issue: Criminal

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Ramanadhan Chetti

Respondent

Murugappa Chetti

Legal References

Cases Referred: Ananda Chandra Bhuttacharjee v. Carr Stephen I.L.R.
Reported In: (1901)ILR24Mad45

Excerpt

criminal procedure code - act v of 1898, section 144--order to abstain from interfering with the management of a temple until the eviction of another person--legality of order. - 1. in this case the petitioner was directed 'not to 'interfere with the management' of a certain 'kovil.' in our judgment this is a direction to 'abstain from a certain act' within the meaning of these words as used in section 144 of the code of criminal procedure. the order therefore, so far as this point is concerned, was not made without; jurisdiction. the case is distinguishable on the facts from the case of ananda chandra bhuttacharjee v. carr stephen i.l.r. 19 calc. 127.2. the order directed the petitioner to abstain from taking any part in the management until the counter-petitioner was duly evicted from the management by due course of law. this contravenes the provisions of sub-section (5) of section 144, and to this extent the order was made without jurisdiction. we accordingly set aside so much of the order as directs that the order shall remain in force until the counter-petitioner is evicted from management.

Full Judgment

1. In this case the petitioner was directed 'not to 'interfere with the management' of a certain 'kovil.' In our judgment this is a direction to 'abstain from a certain act' within the meaning of these words as used in Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The order therefore, so far as this point is concerned, was not made without; jurisdiction. The case is distinguishable on the facts from the case of Ananda Chandra Bhuttacharjee v. Carr Stephen I.L.R. 19 Calc. 127.

2. The order directed the petitioner to abstain from taking any part in the management until the counter-petitioner was duly evicted from the management by due course of law. This contravenes the provisions of Sub-section (5) of Section 144, and to this extent the order was made without jurisdiction. We accordingly set aside so much of the order as directs that the order shall remain in force until the counter-petitioner is evicted from management.

Same Parties Ramanadhan Chetti vs Murugappa Chetti Same Subject Criminal Same Judge Arnold White, C.J. and ;Moore, JJ.

Criminal