Chennai Court July 1884 Judgments
Badi Vs. the Queen Empress
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-30-1884
Reported in: (1883)ILR7Mad579
Kernan and Hutchins, JJ.1. It remains to consider the case of the appellant Badi Sahib, We allow Mr. Wedderburn's contention that murder and abetment of murder are not the same specific offence so as to warrant the confessions of Mahomed Sahib, Abdul Kadar, and Yeravadan, who are charged with murder, being taken into consideration under Section 30 of the Evidence Act against Badi Sahib, who is charged with abetment only. We have, therefore, considered his case quite apart from those confessions.(Upon the evidence of the approver, corroborated by other evidence in the case, the appeal was dismissed and the sentence confirmed.)...
Tag this Judgment!Venkata Vs. Subhadra
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-28-1884
Reported in: (1883)ILR7Mad548
1. The appellant, Pisapati Venkatacharyulu, is a vaishnava brahman and he has an only daughter who has no male issue. The respondent, Subhadracahryulu, is his paternal uncle's son's son, and the respondent's maternal grandmother and the appellant's mother were daughters of two half-brothers. The respondent's mother died when he was very young, and in 1875 his father gave him to the appellant, who desired to adopt him. The appellant brought away the respondent from his father's house and kept him under his own protection. In 1876 the respondent's father died, but the respondent continued to live in the appellant's house and under his protection. In 1880 the appellant executed a will and mentioned in it his intention to adopt the respondent and to perform his upanayanam on an early-auspicious day. Shortly after the execution of the will the appellant performed the homam prescribed for adoption, adopted the respondent, and invested him with the sacrificial thread. Both lived together as f...
Tag this Judgment!Gopalu and anr. Vs. Venkatadoss and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-28-1884
Reported in: (1883)ILR7Mad552
Hutchins, J.1. The question asked is whether Section 17, Regulation V of 1816, is still in force. The section provides that an application to a Zila Court for execution of the decision of a village panchayat shall be written on a stamp of the prescribed value and presented by the parties in person, 'or by an authorized vakil of the Court' to whom a fee of 4 annas of a rupee shall be allowed and no more, and such application shall not be subjected to any other charge whatever.' Such special and emphatic language cannot be deemed to have been abrogated, unless it has been expressly repealed, or there is some later law or order having the force of law from which the intention to repeal it can be gathered by the clearest implication.2. Regulation XIV of 1816, passed only five months later, certainly did not repeal it. The District Judge is not quite correct in saying that Section 39 of that Regulation expressly saves it, because that section says no more than that the Regulation XIV is not...
Tag this Judgment!The Queen-empress Vs. Palani and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-25-1884
Reported in: (1883)ILR7Mad537
Charles A. Turner, Kt., C.J.1. In our judgment the law does not require intention to be proved as part of the offence, but, in order to prevent indiscriminate prosecutions, it confines the power of instituting prosecutions to the Collector, and instructs him to exercise it only when it appears to him the offence had been committed with an intention to evade payment of the proper duty.2. He is not required to make a formal inquiry or to record a proceeding when he gives a sanction in writing for a prosecution. It is to be presumed he has governed his decision by the rule prescribed. The order of the Appellate Court in the case of the maker of the note must be reversed, and a rehearing of the appeal ordered. The acquittal of the first accused is affirmed....
Tag this Judgment!Krishna Vs. Subbanna
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-24-1884
Reported in: (1883)ILR7Mad564
1. This is an appeal from the decree of K. R. Krishna Menon, the Subordinate Judge of South Canara, in original suit No. 1 of 1882, dated 23rd August 1882.2. The plaintiff, Subbanna, an infant aged 15 years, sued, by his mother as guardian, Krishna Sastri and Ramanna, for a partition of family property and for an account of the family property including an account of the past income of the property.3. The plaintiff and first defendant are the sons of Annaya Sastri and are half-brothers, the sons of different wives of Annaya. The second defendant is the son of the first defendant. Annaya Sastri died in 1869, 30th September, and thereupon the first defendant entered into possession of the joint property of the family, consisting principally of land. For about the space of one year after 1869 the plaintiff lived and was maintained in the family house by the first defendant. In the year 1871 the plaintiff's mother and guardian asked the first defendant to divide the property with the plain...
Tag this Judgment!Achuta Vs. Kali
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-23-1884
Reported in: (1883)ILR7Mad545
Hutchins and Brandt, JJ.1. The appellant claims as the mortgagee of certain kanamdars not parties to this appeal. The respondent has obtained the usual decree for eviction of the kanamdars on payment of the kanam amount and compensation for improvements less three years ' rent due in arrears. It is admitted that a jenmi can set-off arrears of rent against the kanam amount, but it is contended that he has no right to set-off his rent against the improvements where such improvements have been hypothecated to a creditor of the kanamdar.2. It seems to us that the creditor can only go against the net amount found due by the jenmi. The appellant claims under kanamdars whose tenure is liable to periodical adjustments, and who could not create any right not subject to the same adjustments. At each adjustment the kanamdar has a right either to a renewal or to be paid his kanam amount and compensation for improvements less the rent, if any, which may be due by him in arrears. We see no differenc...
Tag this Judgment!Kunhimmu Vs. Viyyathamma
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-21-1884
Reported in: (1883)ILR7Mad535
1. On the 30th July 1881 the respondent, Viyyathamma (defendant), assigned to the appellant, Varatan Kunhimmu (plaintiff), in consideration of Rs. 300 the kanam right which she had in certain land and executed the deed of transfer A and the enuka B. The appellant presented these documents to the Sub-Registrar of Tirurangadi for registration on the 7th August 1881. On the same date the Sub-Registrar refused to register them on the ground that their execution was denied. He instituted also criminal proceedings in regard to them before the Sub-Magistrate who dismissed his complaint on the 10th October 1881. Thereupon, the appellant preferred an appeal on the 28th October to the Registrar from the Sub-Registrar's order of the 13th August, but the appeal was rejected on the 22nd March, because it was not presented as required by Section 73 of the Registration Act within thirty days after the order of refusal had been made. On the 18th April 1882 the appellant brought this suit to have the d...
Tag this Judgment!Narasayya Vs. Narasimma
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-18-1884
Reported in: (1883)ILR7Mad510
Hutchins, J.1. Execution was taken out against the moveable property of a debtor under a small cause decree passed by a District Munsif, and he applied to the Munsif to be declared an insolvent. The question is whether the Munsif had jurisdiction to entertain the application under Sections 344 and 360 of the Procedure Code.2. The former section enables a judgment-debtor to apply after either the arrest of his person or an order attaching his property, but every such application must be made to the District Court. Under the latter section the Local Government has invested all District Munsifs with the powers conferred on District Courts by Section 344 and the following sections, and 'the District Judge may transfer to any Court, in his district and so invested, any cause instituted under Section 344. Any Court so invested may entertain any application under Section 344 by any person arrested in execution of a decree of such Court.'3. The plain meaning is that when the debtor has been ar...
Tag this Judgment!Rayappan and anr. Vs. Virabhadra and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-17-1884
Reported in: (1883)ILR7Mad530
Charles A. Turner, Kt., C.J.1. The case to which we are referred by the pleader for the defendants, Ramessur Persad Narain Sing v. Koonj Behari Pattuk I.L.R. 4 Cal. 633 establishes that a right of easement may be acquired in the surplus water of a tank flowing through a channel whether natural or artificial; and, when that ruling is applied to the circumstances of the present suit, it supports the case of the plaintiffs. It is not clear that the Judge is right in saying that the channel C is an artificial channel, but however this may be, the lower Courts both find that the plaintiffs have enjoyed the water flowing through this channel, whether the surplus water of the tank or the drainage of the fields already watered by the tank, from time beyond memory. The defendants then are not at liberty to close the channel either within or without the limits of- their own village; they have no right to intercept the water which has once entered, the defined channel for the purpose of carrying ...
Tag this Judgment!Subba Nayak Vs. Trincal and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-14-1884
Reported in: (1883)ILR7Mad460
1. Arunachala Muppan occupied a house and site in the village of Sevalpatti and on 21st November 1883 sold them by a registered sale-deed to the Rev. J. B. Trincal who purchased them for the purpose of erecting a church on the site.2. Subba Nayak, zamindar of Sevalpatti thereupon filed a suit in the Court of the District Munsif of Sriviliputtur against the Rev. J. B. Trincal, claiming the recovery of the site on the ground that Arunachala Muppan held it from him on a service tenure and had no transferable interest. He also applied for the issue of an ad interim injunction restraining the purchaser from erecting a church pending the decision of the suit. The Munsif granted the injunction, but on the 15th March the District Judge, on appeal, finding that the priest was in possession, dissolved it. At the same time the judge intimated that, if in the result the claim was decreed, the priest would be bound to remove any erection he might place on the land and to restore the site to the con...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »