Ramamani Vs. Kanakasabai

Ramamani vs Kanakasabai

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Nov 16, 1915

~1 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/819620

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/819620
Court: Chennai
Judge: Abdur Rahim and ;William Ayling, JJ.
Decided On: Nov 16, 1915
Subject: Criminal

Case Summary

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

Criminal Procedure Code (Act V of 1898), Section 520 - Powers of High Court as to disposal of property. -

Key legal issue: Criminal

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Ramamani

Respondent

Kanakasabai

Legal References

Reported In: AIR1916Mad840(2); 31Ind.Cas.829

Excerpt

criminal procedure code (act v of 1898), section 520 - powers of high court as to disposal of property. - order1. it is unnecessary for us to decide whether the deputy magistrate could have reviewed his order directing that the jewels should be given over on the joint receipt of the mother and the daughter, who are the disputants in this case. after that order was passed, a competent civil court has decided in a suit instituted by the mother that the jewels belonged to the daughter, who is the petitioner before us. that being so, there is no merit in support of the application made to the learned sessions judge asking him to set aside the deputy magistrate's order, who in conformity to the decision of the civil court had passed the second order directing that the jewels be returned to the petitioner. we have got ample powers under section 520 of the criminal procedure code to pass any order which may be just on the facts of the case. there can be no doubt that justice requires that the jewels should be returned to the petitioner. that being so, the order of the learned sessions judge will be set aside and. the jewels will be returned to the petitioner.

Full Judgment

ORDER

1. It is unnecessary for us to decide whether the Deputy Magistrate could have reviewed his order directing that the jewels should be given over on the joint receipt of the mother and the daughter, who are the disputants in this case. After that order was passed, a competent Civil Court has decided in a suit instituted by the mother that the jewels belonged to the daughter, who is the petitioner before us. That being so, there is no merit in support of the application made to the learned Sessions Judge asking him to set aside the Deputy Magistrate's order, who in conformity to the decision of the Civil Court had passed the second order directing that the jewels be returned to the petitioner. We have got ample powers under Section 520 of the Criminal Procedure Code to pass any order which may be just on the facts of the case. There can be no doubt that justice requires that the jewels should be returned to the petitioner. That being so, the order of the learned Sessions Judge will be set aside and. the jewels will be returned to the petitioner.

Same Parties Ramamani vs Kanakasabai Same Subject Criminal Same Judge Abdur Rahim and ;William Ayling, JJ.

Criminal