Skip to content
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.

In Re: Chockalingam Pillay

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Nov 30, 1911
~1 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/812799

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

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

Citation
Court
Chennai
Judge
Decided On
Subject
Land Acquisition

Case Summary

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

Penal Code (Act XLV of (sic)), Sections 378, 379 - (sic) of (sic) water--(sic)--Intention--'Taking', meaning of--Essence of theft. -

Key legal issue
Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

In Re: Chockalingam Pillay

Legal References

Reported In
13Ind.Cas.819

Excerpt

penal code (act xlv of (sic)), sections 378, 379 - (sic) of (sic) water--(sic)--intention--'taking', meaning of--essence of theft. - ordersundara aiyar, j.1. both the learned judges who heard the revision petition were of opinion that the water was in the possession of the government. with that opinion i agree, and need, therefore, only consider the further question upon which their opinions differ.2. now, when once it is decided that the water was capable of being stolen, it seems to me impossible to resist the conclusion that it has been stolen in this case. the petitioner certainly intended to take it to petitioner certainly intended to take it to his own field, and he took steps which he must have considered were calculated to bring it there. he did not have it in his custody during the transit, but that, as bensor, j., points out, is not necessary. if the petitioner's intention had been merely to let the water run to waste, possibly the case might have been different, though with regard to illustration (c) to section 425, indian penal code, it is to be observed that the illustration does not show that a too the ring from z's possession to throw it a way.3. the petition is dismissed.

Full Judgment

ORDER

Sundara Aiyar, J.

1. Both the learned Judges who heard the revision petition were of opinion that the water was in the possession of the Government. With that opinion I agree, and need, therefore, only consider the further question upon which their opinions differ.

2. Now, when once it is decided that the water was capable of being stolen, it seems to me impossible to resist the conclusion that it has been stolen in this case. The petitioner certainly intended to take it to petitioner certainly intended to take it to his own field, and he took steps which he must have considered were calculated to bring it there. He did not have it in his custody during the transit, but that, as Bensor, J., points out, is not necessary. If the petitioner's intention had been merely to let the water run to waste, possibly the case might have been different, though with regard to illustration (c) to Section 425, Indian Penal Code, it is to be observed that the illustration does not show that A too the ring from Z's possession to throw it a way.

3. The petition is dismissed.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial