Chennai Court October 1891 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

Try free for 7 days Semantic AI Search

Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.

Oct 23 1891

Subramanya Vs. Somasundara

Court: Chennai

Decided on: Oct-23-1891

Reported in: (1892)ILR15Mad127

1. This case has been so much complicated by the lower Courts having wandered into the consideration of many irrelevant matters that it is very difficult to understand what has been decided. From what we can make out of the confused judgments the karnam has been convicted for not producing certain accounts as he is required by Section 12 of Regulation XXIX of 1802 to do to the proprietor or farmer.2. We think the lower Courts have rightly held that the accused is a public servant and that he was bound by law to produce the accounts in question to the proprietor or farmer.3. But in our opinion the prosecution has failed to prove that the person complaining of the non-production of the accounts was the proprietor or farmer within the meaning of the Regulation. The complainant Subramanya Ayyar is said to be the peishcar of one Ramasami Ayyar, the agent of one Raman Chetti, the undivided brother of Alagappa Chetti, the lessee, who is said to be absent in Singapore. It is impossible in a cr...

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Oct 19 1891

Queen-empress Vs. Arlappa and ors.

Court: Chennai

Decided on: Oct-19-1891

Reported in: (1892)ILR15Mad137

Collins, C.J.1. I was at first inclined to think that a petition, under Section 419, Code of Criminal Procedure, sent through the post, should be received as fulfilling the requirements of the Section, but on further consideration, I am of opinion that the decision of Kernan and Muttusami Ayyar, JJ., reported in Weir's Criminal Rulings, page 1006, is correct. The words used in the Section are 'Every appeal shall be made in the form of a petition in writing presented by the appellant or his pleader.' The word presented evidently means that such petition shall be delivered to the proper officer of the Court either by the appellant or his pleader. Any other interpretation of the Section would give rise to numberless difficulties. I hold, therefore, that a petition sent by post is not presented to the Court within the meaning of Section 419, Code of Criminal Procedure.Shephard, J.2. I have had considerable doubts on this question, but am not prepared to differ....

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Oct 19 1891

Ramunni and ors. Vs. Kerala Varma Valia Raja and ors.

Court: Chennai

Decided on: Oct-19-1891

Reported in: (1892)ILR15Mad166

1. It is quite clear that the perpetual lease given by the plaintiff's predecessor in title in 1861 was a disposition of an improvident character which could not bind his successors.2. It is argued that by reason of the acceptance of this lease there was a surrender of the prior lease of 1846 and that therefore the suit was barred by limitation. In our judgment, however, any surrender by operation of law that might have ensued on the taking of the perpetual lease was nullified by the plaintiff's repudiation of the perpetual lease. The surrender must fall to the ground with the transaction on which it is supported. Doe Egremont v. Courtenay 11 Q.B. 702 It is contended by the Acting Advocate-General that this principle is not applicable, because the plaintiff's right to challenge the lease of 1861 was extinguished by the law of limitation more than 12 years having elapsed since the date when the defendants' possession under it began. The case is compared with Madhava v. Narayana I.L.R. 9...

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Oct 16 1891

Queen-empress Vs. Thimmachi

Court: Chennai

Decided on: Oct-16-1891

Reported in: (1892)ILR15Mad93

Wilkinson, J.1. I do not think the conviction can be maintained. Spreading a false report and thereby preventing people from bringing their children for vaccination does not appear to me to amount to voluntary obstruction of the vaccinator in the performance of his public duties The conviction and sentence should be quashed.Shephard, J.2. To prevent by physical means persons willing to be vaccinated from being vaccinated might be obstruction of the vaccinator within the meaning of the Section. But merely to dissuade a person from submitting to vaccination is another matter. That is not obstruction, for it is only with regard to willing patients that the vaccinator has any duty. The conviction should be set aside, and the line, if paid, refunded.3. Ordered accordingly....

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Oct 15 1891

Queen Empress Vs. D. Chinna Appayya Naidu

Court: Chennai

Decided on: Oct-15-1891

Reported in: (1896)6MLJ765

1. The appellant, a Deputy Tahsildar named Dwarapu Chinna Appayya Naidu, was convicted under &. 177 of the I.P.C. by the Acting Sessions Judge of Ganjam.2. The Acting Advocate-General appeared for the Appellant and the Government pleader in support of the conviction.3. The facts are admitted. On the 22nd November 1890, the appellant submitted to his official superior a false ' Nil' return of lands in his enjoyment, and also on the 5th December 1890 made a false statement to the same effect in a revenue enquiry before the Principal Assistant Collector. It was argued by the Counsel for the appellant that no criminal offence had been committed, that appellant was not legally bound to furnish the information required of him within the definition of ' legally bound' in Section 43 of the I.P.C. and further that no order of the Revenue Board directing officers of the status of appellant to furnish such returns has been legally proved to exist. It is also contended that the cases upon this sec...

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Oct 15 1891

Queen-empress Vs. Appayya

Court: Chennai

Decided on: Oct-15-1891

Reported in: (1891)ILR14Mad484

1. The appellant, a Deputy Tahsildar named Dwarapu Chinna Appayya Naidu, was convicted under Section 177 of the Indian Penal Code by the Acting Sessions Judge of Ganjam.2. The Acting Advocate-General appeared for the Appellant and the Government Pleader in support of the conviction.3. The facts are admitted. On the 22nd November 1890, the appellant submitted to his official superior a false 'nil' return of lands in his enjoyment, and also on the 5th Decembar 1890 made a false statement to the same effect in a revenue inquiry before the Principal Assistant Collector. It was argued by the Counsel for the appellant that no criminal offence had been committed, that appellant was not legally bound to furnish the information required of him within the definition of 'legally bound' in Section 43 of the Indian Penal Code, and further that no order of the Revenue Board directing officers of the status of appellant to furnish such returns has been legally proved to exist, It is also contended th...

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Oct 15 1891

Queen-empress Vs. Ranga Rau

Court: Chennai

Decided on: Oct-15-1891

Reported in: (1892)ILR15Mad36

1. This is a case referred to us by the District Magistrate of Ganjam under the instructions of Government.2. A charge of bribery, extortion and criminal intimidation was made against the Sub-Magistrate and Deputy Tahsildar of Narasannapet, and on the 18th September 1890 the District Magistrate of Ganjam reported the same to the Board of Revenue, and was directed by the Board to send the case for trial to some Magistrate (other than himself or the Principal Assistant Magistrate). The case was, therefore, sent for trial to the Senior Assistant Magistrate, Berhampore. The prisoner was convicted under Section 161, Indian Penal Code. The Sessions Judge on appeal reversed the conviction on the merits. It was argued before him by the vakil for the prisoner that the conviction was void on the ground that the Senior Assistant Magistrate had no jurisdiction. This defence, however, the Sessions Judge overruled on the ground that from the list of notifications and rules which have the force of la...

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Oct 13 1891

Kotta Atchayya and anr. Vs. Devarasetti Gangayya

Court: Chennai

Decided on: Oct-13-1891

Reported in: (1892)2MLJ64

ORDER:--The only parties to these proceedings are the 1st and 2nd defendants. So far as they are concerned the order of the Sessions Judge must be set aside inasmuch as the sanction of the Registrar is required by Section 195, Criminal Procedure Code, for their prosecution. The order of December 3rd, 1890, staying proceedings is discharged....

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Oct 13 1891