Chennai Court March 1882 Judgments
Viziaramarazu Virabahu Narendra Rau Bahadur Vs. the Right Hon'ble the ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-31-1882
Reported in: (1882)ILR5Mad91
Charles A. Turner, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiff, Viziaramarazu Virabahu Narendra Rau, son of Venkatapathi Razu, Zamindar of Palkonda, has instituted this suit to obtain an account of the rents and profits of the Zamindari from 29th September 1828, the date of his father's death, and for payment, with interest, of the balance which may be found due.2. To explain the grounds on which the claim is advanced and resisted and the action of Government which has given rise to it, it will be convenient to refer briefly to the history of the Zamindari.3. The plaintiff states that the Zamindari had its origin about three centuries ago in a grant made to his ancestor Sri Dhunnayanna Garu by a Maharaja of Jaipur.4. While the Northern Sirkars were held by the French, the Raja of Vizianagram established a feudal superiority over several neighbouring Zamin-daris, including that of Palkonda. The dependence of the estate on Vizianagram continued until 1793, when Viziaramarazu, the then Zamindar, took arms ...
Tag this Judgment!Korapulu Vs. Monappa and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-24-1882
Reported in: (1882)ILR5Mad160
Charles A. Turner, Kt., C.J. and Kernan, J.1. The provisions of Section 205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1872, are inapplicable as is pointed out by the referring officer. When the complainant is required to pay fees for summoning witnesses under Section 361, and fails to do so, the Magistrate must deal with the case on such evidence as he may have before him. We set aside the order under Section 205, and direct the Magistrate to fix a date and dispose of the case accordingly....
Tag this Judgment!The Queen Vs. Suppi and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-16-1882
Reported in: (1882)ILR5Mad159
Innes and Muttusami Ayyar, JJ.1. First defendant is a servant of a licensed vendor. Neither of the two defendants is liable under the Arms Act, as the manufacture or possession of fireworks without a license is not contrary to that Act. The manufacture or possession of fireworks, including rockets which are mere fireworks, does not come within the prohibition of Section 5 of the Arms Act.2. The rockets referred to under the definition 'ammunition' are war-rockets.3. The conviction must be set aside and the fine refunded....
Tag this Judgment!Badiya Vs. the Queen
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-15-1882
Reported in: (1882)ILR5Mad158
Innes, J.1. The conviction is right and the sentence not improper; but the High Court has only lately ruled, in accordance with Section 439* of the Criminal Procedure Code that when an accused person is liable to be punished under the Whipping Act, the charge must state the liability (Circular No. 2686, dated 20th December 1851).2. It has been repeatedly directed also that the judgment should set out the grounds of the liability to punishment under the Whipping Act when that punishment is imposed.3. The Sessions Judge should not have ignored the instructions of the High Court.*Charge to state offence.[Section 439 : The charge shall state the offence with which the accused person is charged.Specific name of offence, sufficient statement.If the law which creates the offence gives it any specific name, the offence may be described in the charge by that name only.How stated where offence has no specific name.If the law which creates the offence does not give it any specific name, so much o...
Tag this Judgment!Raja Venkata Ramalakshmi Kanakamma Appa Rao and ors. Vs. the Court of ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-15-1882
Reported in: (1882)ILR5Mad236
B. Peacock, J.1. It is not now disputed that the Zamindari of Nuzvid is not impartible, nor is it disputed that the plaintiffs appellants are entitled to recover one-half of that zamindari. The only question which is now raised is whether they are entitled to recover mesne profits of that moiety.2. Their Lordships are of opinion that they ought to make the same decree now which the First Court ought to have given when the first defendant, Raja Narayya Appa Rao, was living. The minors, the sons of Raja Narayya, appealed to the High Court. If the first Court had given the proper decree, it would have been that the plaintiffs should recover from the first defendant, Raja Narayya, one-half of the Zamindari of Nuzvid, together with the mesne profits of that one-half of the estate.3. Their Lordships, therefore, think that the decree of the High Court must be altered; and they will humbly advise Her Majesty that the decree of the High Court be reversed so far as it dismisses the claim of the ...
Tag this Judgment!The Queen Vs. Yellamandu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-14-1882
Reported in: (1882)ILR5Mad157
Innes and Muttusami Ayyar, JJ.1. The accused in this case was convicted under Section 290, Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to pay a fine, and in default of payment, to undergo a brief term of rigorous imprisonment.2. The fine was paid, but the District Magistrate submits that the sentence of rigorous imprisonment in default of payment of fine is of questionable legality, the offence of nuisance being punishable with fine only.3. The imprisonment allowed by law mentioned in Clause 3 of Section 309, Criminal Procedure Code, would, in the present case, be imprisonment under Section 290 of the Indian Penal Code, and the imprisonment awardable under that section of the Penal Code is not restricted to simple imprisonment. We think, therefore, that the award of rigorous imprisonment was not illegal....
Tag this Judgment!Kojiyadu and ors. Vs. Lakshmi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-14-1882
Reported in: (1882)ILR5Mad149
Innes, J.1. The question in this second appeal is--Whether the District Judge is right in holding that unchastity in a mother, prior to the death of her son, is not a bar to her inheritance ?2. The widow of one Pala Madanna, who inherited her husband's estate, married again and transferred her rights in the property to the next heir, the second defendant, the mother of Pala Madanna.3. The District Munsif held that second defendant's conduct was a bar to her succeeding. The District Judge held that it was no bar. He was of opinion that, under the law of the Mitakshara, by which this case would be governed, there is no rule which can preclude a mother from inheriting on account of previous unchastity. He also thought that, if any such rule existed, it would not apply to cases in which, although unchastity at a previous period were shown, there had been an after period, prior to the succession opening, during which no misconduct had been proved to have taken place.4. I am unable to concur...
Tag this Judgment!Valamaramayyan Vs. Virappa Kandian and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-14-1882
Reported in: (1882)ILR5Mad145
Kindersley and Muttusami Ayyar, JJ.1. The plaintiff is the purchaser at a sale in execution of a decree of the village of Virakudi which had been mortgaged to him by the Zamindar of Neduvasal. The plaintiff, who has not yet obtained the separate registration of the village in his own name by the Collector, has brought this suit against a raiyat of the village to compel the defendant to accept a patta from him.2. The defendant objected that the plaintiff was not a landholder within the meaning of the Rent Recovery Act, 1865 : and this is the only question which has been dealt within this suit. The Assistant Collector has very clearly shown in his judgment that the plaintiff is not a zamindar; for, although there was a private arrangement between the zamindar and the mortgagee that the latter should pay a proportion of the peskush to the treasury, and he had in fact done so, yet the Government were not a party to that arrangement, and the zamindar remained liable for the whole of the pes...
Tag this Judgment!Ramayya Vs. Chandra Sekara Rau
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-14-1882
Reported in: (1882)ILR5Mad256
Charles A. Turner, Kt., C.J.1. Section 265 of the Contract Act declares the right of a partner, on the determination of the partnership, to apply to a Court to wind up the Partnership and distribute the assets. It is optional with him to seek this relief or not : if he elects to do so, the explanation declares the Court to which he must have recourse. If the clause containing the explanation were taken from the place it occupies in the Contract Act and carried into the Procedure Code, there could be no doubt that its effect would be to confine the jurisdiction to grant the relief indicated in the section to Courts not inferior to Courts of a particular class. Nor can the effect of the clause be otherwise when it is read with the Procedure Code. Act VIII of 1859, in declaring the general jurisdiction of Civil Courts, recognised limitations in jurisdiction prescribed or thereafter to be prescribed by other laws. Act X of 1877, Sections 16 and 17, also recognizes such limitations.2. There...
Tag this Judgment!Dasaradhiravulo and anr. Vs. Joddumoni Ravulo and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-13-1882
Reported in: (1882)ILR5Mad193
Charles A. Turner, Kt., C.J. and Innes, J.1. The appellants cannot be bound by a sale made in virtue of a decree on a mortgage passed in a suit to which they were not parties. They cannot be foreclosed of their right to redeem, assuming they were liable for the mortgage debt. The decrees of the Lower Appellate Court and of the Court of First Instance on remand must be reversed and the original decree of the Munsif affirmed with costs in all Courts....
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »