Chennai Court April 1884 Judgments
Queen Empress Vs. Papadu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-30-1884
Reported in: (1883)ILR7Mad454
Kernan, J.1. The accused, six in number, were charged with rioting, Section 147, Indian Penal Code. This is a warrant case triable under Chapter XXI, Criminal Procedure Code.2. The Magistrate took the evidence of complainant and his witnesses, and by his order, dated 10th September 1883, recorded that the charge of rioting was not proved, and discharged the accused under Section 253.3. The Sessions Judge ordered (the date does not appear) under Section 437 further inquiry.4. The Magistrate took the case on his file again, and, on notice to the parties, the case was posted for the 17th of December 1883. The complainant then gave in a list of witnesses to be summoned. The accused appeared in Court, and the case was adjourned to the 21st of December, and summonses issued to the witnesses. The further inquiry appears to have been held on the 26th of December 1883. In his judgment of that date the Magistrate finds that there was no proof whatever against the accused, Nos. 2 to 5, and it was...
Tag this Judgment!Kopasan Vs. Shamu and Three ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-25-1884
Reported in: (1883)ILR7Mad440
Charles A. Turner, Kt., C.J. and Brandt, J.1. The alleged document, if it were in existence and produced, could not be received in evidence except on payment of a penalty, but it cannot be produced, and there is no provision for levying a penalty. Secondary evidence of the contents of the document cannot, therefore, be admitted--Marine Investment Company v. Hariside L.R. 5 H.L. 624.2. The appeal is dismissed with costs....
Tag this Judgment!Surfoji Vs. Kamakshiamba and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-21-1884
Reported in: (1883)ILR7Mad452
Charles A. Turner, Kt., C.J.1. Raja Sri Surfoji, the appellant, claimed a certificate under Act XXVII of 1860 to collect the debts due to the estate of her highness Mathu Sri Jayantiamha Boyi Sahiba, one of the junior widows of his highness the last raja of Tanjore.2. He claims to have been adopted by the senior widow with the consent of all or several of the junior widows of the raja and under an authority conferred on the senior Rani by the raja.3. That an adoption in some form was made at the time asserted by the appellant, July 1st, 1863, was not disputed by her highness the present princess, the only surviving child of the late raja, but the validity of the adoption is disputed. It is denied that the raja at any time authorized an adoption. The alleged authority is assorted in dubious terms, but the appellant rests his case mainly on the arguments that authority is not necessary for the validity of an adoption by a widow under the Mahratta law, and that the succession to the famil...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Reference from the Board of Revenue Under Section 46 of the Ind ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-16-1884
Reported in: (1883)ILR7Mad421
Charles A. Turner, Kt., C.J.1. We have reconsidered the question submitted to us, and. with the highest respect for the learned Chief Justice and Judges who were parties to the ruling in Sha Nagindas Jeychund v. Halalkore Nathua Gheesla I.L.R. 5 Bom. 470 we adhere to the ruling of this Court of 20th February I.L.R. 882 5 Mad. 18.2. The stamp on a certificate of sale is regulated by the amount of the purchase money; it is to bear the same stamp as a conveyance for a consideration equal to the amount of the purchase money.3. Section 24* applies to cases in which the purchaser undertakes a liability, and his undertaking in such cases no doubt farms part of the consideration. It is one thing to make the sale subject to, in the sense of accompanied by, a condition to discharge a mortgage; it is another to sell property subject to a mortgage, that is to say, to sell the interest remaining in the mortgagor without imposing on the purchaser any personal obligation.4. The Board of Revenue will ...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Petition of Pandya Nayak
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-02-1884
Reported in: (1883)ILR7Mad436
Brandt, J.1. The petitioner, Kannaya Raja Pandya Nayak, a zamindar, was convicted by the First-class Joint Magistrate, Madura District, of having intentionally omitted to furnish to a public servant, as such, certain information which he was legally bound to furnish, an offence punishable under Section 176, Indian Penal Code.2. The information that the zamindar was, as it is found, bound to furnish was the resort to a village, in which the zamindar owns land, of one Vellayan who has been found to have been 'a proclaimed offender,' this information being required by Section 45, Criminal Procedure Code, to be given by the owner or occupier of land, and the zamindar as such owner being under a legal obligation to furnish such information to the police.3. It is contended for the petitioner that it was not proved that Vellayan was a proclaimed offender within the meaning of the words used in the section of the Criminal Procedure Code above quoted.4. Both the Magistrate in the first instance...
Tag this Judgment!Mammali Vs. Pakki
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-02-1884
Reported in: (1883)ILR7Mad428
Charles A. Turner, Kt., C.J. and Kernan, J.1. It is admitted that an arrangement has been made, assigning properties to the several tavarais for the maintenance of their members. The appellant asserts that it is insufficient, and he claims for himself an allowance of Rs. 10 from the karnavan. He cannot maintain suit unless he brings all the members of the tarwad before the Court, for they may be all affected by the decree; of coursesome may be impleaded as representatives of the whole body. But there was no reason why these persons should not have been made parties in the Appellate Court. We set aside the order of the Judge and direct him to proceed under paragraph 2 of Section 32 of the Civil Procedure Code.2. The costs of this appeal will abide and follow the result....
Tag this Judgment!Ramakristna Vs. Ranga and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-01-1884
Reported in: (1883)ILR7Mad424
Kernan and Hutchins, JJ.1. The plaint in this case, No. 207 of 1882, was filed in the Munsif's Court of Proddatur against the first and second defendants, to have plaintiff declared to be hereditarily entitled to be purohit or priest to the first and second defendants, and for damages against them for the loss of fees not paid to the plaintiff. The plaint also sought damages against the third and fourth defendants for fees received by them from the first and second defendants for performing services as purohit.2. The first and second defendants' case is that they were not bound to employ, and did not employ, the plaintiff to do any services for them as purohit, and that they employed the third and fourth defendants to do such services and paid them therefor.3. The plaint states that, since the town of Proddator has been in existence, plaintiff's ancestors were, by appointment from Government, the purohits of it, and were enjoying the mirasi with fees; that the right to such officer for...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›