Skip to content
Try for free
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.
See full guide →

In Re: the District Magistrate

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Jul 24, 1942
~1 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/807991

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
AI Brief & Ask Semantic Search Verdict Lens Devil's Bench DocMind
Start free trial See sample brief

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Chennai
Decided On
Subject
Property;Civil

Case Summary

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

-

Key legal issue
Property;Civil

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

In Re: the District Magistrate

Legal References

Reported In
AIR1943Mad398; (1943)1MLJ258

Excerpt

- orderhorwill, j.1. the accused in this case was charged under section 34 of the public health act of 1939 with allowing sewage water to run into a public street. the accused seems to have pleaded guilty, but at the same time given an explanation which the district magistrate considers to have amounted to a plea of' not guilty.'2. as i understand the accused's explanation, he has an easement right to allow his water to run into his neighbour's land, but apparently that water runs from there into the public street. even though he is allowed to run the water into his neighbour's land, he is nevertheless punishable under the section under which he is charged; for he caused the water to run into the public street through his neighbour's land.3. no interference in revision is called for.4. the reference is returned.

Full Judgment

ORDER

Horwill, J.

1. The accused in this case was charged under Section 34 of the Public Health Act of 1939 with allowing sewage water to run into a public street. The accused seems to have pleaded guilty, but at the same time given an explanation which the District Magistrate considers to have amounted to a plea of' Not guilty.'

2. As I understand the accused's explanation, he has an easement right to allow his water to run into his neighbour's land, but apparently that water runs from there into the public street. Even though he is allowed to run the water into his neighbour's land, he is nevertheless punishable under the section under which he is charged; for he caused the water to run into the public street through his neighbour's land.

3. No interference in revision is called for.

4. The reference is returned.

Continue Your Research

Same Parties In Re: the District Magistrate vs Same Subject Property;Civil
Property;Civil

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial
1M+ judgments indexed

Brief any judgment in 18 sections.

Search Supreme Court, High Courts, and tribunals - then open an AI Brief on any result. Core search is free; full AI desk free for 7 days.

Start 7-day free trial - no card Talk to Sales