Chennai Court August 1882 Judgments
Sangili Vira Pandia Chinnatambiar, Zamindar of Sivagiri Vs. the Queen
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-30-1882
Reported in: (1883)ILR6Mad29
Innes, Officiating C.J. and Kernan, J.1. The question here is whether the Judge could legally accord sanction for the prosecution of the plaintiff in the suit on the various charges referred to.2. It appears to us that Section 468, Criminal Procedure Code, contemplates there being sufficient material before the Judge in the suit or criminal trial on which to found the charge.3. The suit had been disposed of without any of the evidence on record giving rise per se to the slightest suspicion of an offence of the nature of any of those charged having been committed before the Court. It was not competent to the Judge, on an application for sanction, to go beyond the record to determine whether sanction ought to be given when the record itself disclosed no foundation whatever for the charges.4. We have not overlooked the fact that authenticated copies of certain documents were filed, though not put in evidence, and that at the trial the plaintiff asked the Court to call upon the Collector a...
Tag this Judgment!Marakar Akath Kondarakayil Mamu Vs. Punjapatath Kuttu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-25-1882
Reported in: (1882)ILR6Mad61
Innes, Officiating C.J. and Muttusami Ayyar, J.1. Fifth defendant, the appellant in this second appeal, represents the original mortgagee from whom he obtained an assignment. He is also in possession of the entire mortgaged property which it is sought to redeem. Further, by his purchase of the rights of the husband of the deceased Parichi, the sister of plaintiff and mother of the minor sixth defendant, he has a share in the equity of redemption. To allow plaintiff to redeem the whole would enable him to get possession of the property to the exclusion of fifth defendant. Now, as fifth defendant is already in possession as assignee of the mortgagee and has also a share in the right to redeem, he cannot be required to surrender possession of the whole against his consent until plaintiff has, by a proper suit for partition, ascertained definitely to what shares in the property he and fifth defendant are respectively entitled.2. We cannot therefore allow a decree for redemption of the whol...
Tag this Judgment!Seshayyar Vs. Pappuvaradayyangar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-25-1882
Reported in: (1883)ILR6Mad182a
Innes, Officiating C.J. and Muttusami Ayyar, J.1. The second defendant disclaimed all title to the property and. only said he was in possession on behalf and on account of his divided brother, the first defendant. It was not stated that he was first defendant's agent. First defendant did not appear, and the District Munsif found in favour of the mortgage set up by plaintiff and decreed in his favour.2. The second defendant then appealed. It is observable that he was not authorized to conduct the defence to the suit on behalf of first defendant, nor did he assume to do so, nor did he appeal on behalf of first defendant. He appealed in his own name and on his own account.3. The Subordinate Judge found the mortgage set up by plaintiff not established, and, on what he considered to be the principle laid down in Sevaji Vijaya Raghunadha Valoji Kristnan Gopalar v. Chinna Nayana Chetti 10 M.I.A. 151 dismissed plaintiff's claim.4. The plaintiff now appeals to the High Court on the ground that ...
Tag this Judgment!Gangathara Pandithar Vs. Rathabai Ammal and Panchanathayyar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-24-1882
Reported in: (1883)ILR6Mad237
Kindersley and Muttusami Ayyar, J.1. In this case a Bale, which had taken place in execution of a decree, but which had not been confirmed, was objected to on behalf of the judgment-debtor on the ground that execution was barred by reason of the decree having been passed more than twelve years before, and of no date having been expressed as that on which the maintenance should be paid.2. We are of opinion that the exception of limitation should have been taken before the sale. The rights of the purchaser, who is not a party to these proceedings1 are involved in the sale, and would be affected by its cancelment.3. If the Court had omitted to serve the preliminary notice of execution after one year from the date of the decree, that might possibly have affected the jurisdiction, and might have vitiated all subsequent proceedings. But in this case the Court had jurisdiction unless the decree was barred; the exception was not taken, and it appears to have been overlooked by the Court. We th...
Tag this Judgment!Thanga Karuppa Nadan and anr. Vs. Arumuga Nadan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-23-1882
Reported in: (1882)ILR5Mad383
Innes, Officiating C.J.1. The construction lately put by the Legislature upon Section 539 of Act X of 1877 by the alteration of the corresponding section in Act XIV of 1882 so as to include suits for breaches of trusts connected with religious purposes is evidence that the Legislature in framing Act X of 1877 intended to restrict the operation of Section 539 to suits for breaches of trusts connected with public charitable purposes exclusive of purposes that were purely religious. We were referred to the objects and reasons of the alteration (as stated in the Legislative Council) in proof that the Legislature regarded the section as it stood as embracing suits for such wrongs connected with both charitable and religious purposes, and only made the alteration in consequence of doubts which might be entertained. It is not admissible, however, to consider what is said in the course of debates in the Legislative Council. We must apply the ordinary rules of construction, and we come to the c...
Tag this Judgment!Virasami Nayudu Vs. Subba Rau and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-21-1882
Reported in: (1883)ILR6Mad54
1. The respondents in this suit are the dharmakartas of the patlisuraswami temple of Tirupapuliyur, and the temple committee having the superintendence of such temple, and the suit was brought to recover from the appellant the temple and certain moveable and immoveable property appertaining thereto, together of the value of Rs. 11,611-12-7, of which the appellant was said to be in wrongful possession the appellant having in January 1877 been properly dismissed by the temple committee from the office of dharmakarta of the said temple, to which he was originally appointed by the Collector in 1849.2. Appellant filed a written statement to the effect that the suit was not within the jurisdiction of the Court of the Subordinate Judge; that respondents had no locus standi to maintain the suit; that the respondents professing to represent the temple committee under Act XX of 1863 did not really do so; that the temple came under Section 4 and not Section 3 of Act XX of 1863; that appellant had...
Tag this Judgment!The Queen Vs. Siddappa
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-21-1882
Reported in: (1882)ILR6Mad60
Innes, Officiating C.J., Muttusami Ayyar and Tarrant, JJ.1. The accused in this case has been tried under Section 19, Clause (f) of the Indian Arms Act XI of 1878, for possessions of a gun without a license. He was discharged under Section 215 of the Criminal Procedure Code on the ground that the gun was unserviceable, the trigger being lost.2. The District Magistrate submits that the fact of trigger being lost is immaterial, as a gun without a trigger comes within the provision of Section 4 of the Arms Act, which lays down that the word ' arms ' includes inter alia 'parts of arms,' and that the discharge was therefore not warranted.3. It appears from the evidence taken in the case that the gun was quite unserviceable and unfit for use; in fact the District Magistrate finds that it is. not a firearm at all.4. A firearm in such a state as this, even though it might be repaired and rendered serviceable, is not, we think, one for which a license need be taken out. In including parts of ar...
Tag this Judgment!Thomas Arthur Taylor Vs. Virasami Chetti and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-17-1882
Reported in: (1883)ILR6Mad108
Kernan, J.1. The plaint states that plaintiff had since some time in 187S: sold shirting impressed with. a trade-mark, and that a particular distinguishing portion of the mark was a collection of figures of talwars,. or swords, which, on one class of his goods, amounted to five in number; that his goods acquired in the Madras market the name of 'Talwar shirtings' from the figures of talwars printed on them; and that defendant recently procured shirting imported by him to be impressed with the mark of five talwars, which mark, plaintiff alleges, would cause defendants' goods to bear, the same name in the market as the plaintiff's, and that defendants' mark Was calculated to deceive. Defendant denies that plaintiff's goods were known in the market as 'Talwar shirtings,' and denies that plaintiff has acquired any exclusive right to the use of the talwar device.2. The issue was, whether defendants had infringed plaintiff's trade-mark.. The general principles on which the Court gives relief...
Tag this Judgment!The Queen Vs. Velayudam Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-15-1882
Reported in: (1883)ILR6Mad146
Muttusami Ayyar and Tarrant, JJ.1. The question in this case is, whether the sanction of a Taluk Magistrate to a prosecution under Section 182 of the Indian Penal Code for a statement made to the Police and included in their referred charge sheet forwarded by them to such Magistrate under Section 117 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is sufficient, or whether the sanction for the prosecution should not have been given by an official in the Police Department.2. It does not appear to us that the Taluk Magistrate is the official superior of the Station-house Officer within the meaning of Section 467 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and the order of acquittal is therefore right. We must decline to interfere....
Tag this Judgment!Arundadhi Ammyar and anr. Vs. Natesha Ayyar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-14-1882
Reported in: (1882)ILR5Mad391
1. A suit (183 of 1874) was instituted by first defendant against Lakshmi, her mother. The latter died pending the suit, and this plaintiff, who had been adopted by Lakshmi and her husband, was substituted as her representative.2. Lakshmi and her husband Samu Bhatta had five daughters, and Samu Bhatta had left a bequest of 8,000 rupees to be divided among them as their marriage portions. This sum had come, it was alleged, to the hands of Lakshmi, and she had neglected to pay the amount due to the first defendant in the present suit, who, as already stated, was the plaintiff in the Suit 183 of 1874. In special appeal in that suit it was decided that plaintiff, in his representative character, was liable to the extent of assets of Lakshmi that might have come to his hand.3. There was admittedly no property of Lakshmi in plaintiff's hands available for attachment, but the law provides in that case--Section 252, Civil Procedure Code--that execution may be issued against the judgment-debtor...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »