Chennai Court December 1890 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Govinda and ors. Vs. Mana Vikraman
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-05-1890
Reported in: (1891)ILR14Mad284
1. This was a suit to recover a debt together with arrears of rent due by the defendants upon a mortgage deed and a lease, dated the 31st August 1881. The documents in question were executed by two persons, named Raman Menon and Kannan Menon, on behalf of the defendants tarward and as its representatives. The instrument of mortgage (Exhibit A) purports to mortgage 29 items of land for a debt of Rs. 5,000, and to transfer, in lieu of interest due upon it, possession of items 1 to 16 yielding an annual rent of 750 paras of paddy. The lease purports to be a lease of those 16 items by the mortgagee to the mortgagor for the above rent payable at the end of each year. Out of the mortgage debt a sum of Rs. 300 was left with the mortgagee to be applied in discharge of an encumbrance on items 1 to 13, and it was admitted by the plaintiff in the Court below that he did not so apply the amount. No rent having been paid according to the terms of the lease, the plaintiff obtained a decree against R...
Queen-empress Vs. Saminatha Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-04-1890
Reported in: (1896)6MLJ171
ORDER1. We consider that the accused was properly acquit-ted. It is not denied that Kolandavelu Pillai was acquitted of the offences of house-breaking and theft, and that he was not liable to legal punishment. But it is contended, that it is not necessary that an offence should be actually committed, or that the person charged should be really, liable to be punished for such offence. We dp not however think, that it was the intention of the legislature to punish the giving of gratifications, under a delusion that an offence had been committed or that a person was guilty of such offence. The words 'concealing an offence,' and 'screening any person from legal punishment for any offence,' appear to us to presuppose the actual commission of an offence, and the guilt of the person screened from legal punishment.2. The cases cited by Mr. Mayne under Section 213 and 214, Indian Penal Code, B. v. Best 2 Moody C.C. 124 6 C.L.P. 368 R. v. Golby Russ R 184 were decided under 18 Eliz.Ch. V.S. 4, i...
Queen-empress Vs. Saminatha
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-04-1890
Reported in: (1891)ILR14Mad400
1. We consider that the accused was properly acquitted. It is not denied that Kolundavelu Pillai was acquitted of the offences of house-breaking and theft, and that he was not liable to legal punishment. But it is contended that it is not necessary that an offence should be actually committed, or that the person charged should be really liable to be punished for such offence. We do not, however, think that it was the intention of the legislature to punish the giving of gratifications, under a delusion that an offence had been committed or that a person was guilty of such offence. The words 'concealing an offence' and 'screening any person from legal punishment for any offence' appear to us to presuppose the actual commission of an offence or the guilt of the person screened from punishment.2. The cases cited by Mr. Mayne under Sections 213 and 214, Indian Penal Code [Regina v. Best 2 M.C.C. 124], Rex v. Richard Gotley (Russ. & R., 84), were decided under 18, Elizabeth, chapter V, Secti...
Siddeswara Mudaliar Vs. Kalmangi Krista Charlu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-03-1890
Reported in: (1896)6MLJ337
Muthusami Aiyar, J.1. This was a suit to remove an obstruction in a public street at Bellary. There is a main street in that town called. Kamsala street and a lane runs from at. north to south. Both the appellant and the respondent reside in that lane and there is a well in it near the house of the former. The respondent and others living in the lane are found to have been using it and getting water from the well at all times, both day and night, for more than 25 years. In May 1888 the appellant obtained permission; from the Municipal Council at Bellary, the first defendant in this suit, to build a wall and a gate across a portion of the lane and accordingly erected a wall and a gate so as to obstruct the respondent and others. from freely using the lane and taking water from the well. The respondent then instituted the present suit to establish his right to use the lane and to pass to and from the well for the purpose of drawing water and to compel the appellant to remove the wall and...
Siddeswara Vs. Krishna
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-03-1890
Reported in: (1891)ILR14Mad177
Muttusami Ayyar, J.1. This was a suit to remove an obstruction in a public street at Bellary. There is a main street in that town called Kamsala street and a lane runs from it north to south. Both the appellant and the respondent reside in that lane and there is a well in it near the house of the former. The respondent and Ors. living in the lane are found to have been using it and getting water from the well at all times, both day and night, for more than 25 years. In May 1888, the appellant obtained permission from the Municipal Council at Bellary, the first defendant in this suit, to build a wall and a gate across a portion of the lane, and accordingly erected a wall and a gate so as to obstruct the respondent and Ors. from freely using the lane and taking water from the well. The respondent then instituted the present suit to establish his right to use the lane and to pass to and from the well for the purpose of drawing water and to compel the appellant to remove the wall and the g...
Chandrareka Vs. Secretary of State for India
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-01-1890
Reported in: (1891)ILR14Mad163
Best, J.1. The first respondent is dead, and the appellant has elected to proceed against the other respondent alone. This other respondent is the Secretary of State for India, on whose behalf no one has appeared.2. The main question is as to the propriety of the lower Court's order in so far as it directs the appellant (who was the first defendant in that Court) to pay the Court-fees due to Government in consequence of the plaintiff having been allowed to sue in formd pauperis. The plaintiff claimed a moiety of property valued at Rs. 34,662, and was given a decree for only Rs. 100. The Court-fees which the first defendant (now appellant) has been directed to pay on account of the plaintiff amount to Rs. 699.3. The plaintiff's case was that he was entitled to a moiety of property (of the above value) in the possession of his sister, the first defendant, as being 'ancestral property and property jointly acquired' in which he and the first defendant 'have equal rights, according to law a...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›