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
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Srinivasa Vs. Annasami and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-10-1891
Reported in: (1892)ILR15Mad41
1. The only question which is before us is whether the Sessions Judge was right in holding that there had been no such disposal of the minor as would bring the accused under Section 372, Indian Penal Code. The Acting Head Assistant Magistrate was of opinion that no offence had been committed, because there was no evidence of the tying of the bottu, which in his opinion forms the important ingredient of the offence. The Sessions Judge would appear, from paragraph 2 of his order, to have been of the same opinion. In our judgment there may be such disposal of a minor as is contemplated by Section 372 even though bottu is not tied. The facts of this case have not been set forth either by the Acting Head Assistant Magistrate or by the Sessions Judge. If they had been attentively considered, we hardly think the lower Courts would have come to the conclusion that there was no ground for proceeding against the accused. The facts to be gathered from the report of the Second-Class Magistrate of ...
Narayanan Vs. Narayanan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-08-1891
Reported in: (1892)ILR15Mad69
1. We think that we should follow the principle laid down in Krishnasami v. Kanakasabdi I.L.R. 14 Mad. 183 and other cases instead of that laid down in Vydinatha v. Subramanya I.L.R. 8 Mad. 235 on the ground that when the Varanasi illom became extinct, there were, according to plaintiff's' own case, only two illoms entitled to share in the property of the extinct illom. The value of the suit is, therefore, the value of the share claimed, and the appeal lies to the District Court. We return the appeal to be presented in the proper Court. Appellant must pay respondents' costs in this Court....
Queen-empress Vs. Krishtnayyan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-08-1891
Reported in: (1892)ILR15Mad156
1. To sustain a conviction under Section 21 (d) of the Forest Act there must be some evidence either that defendant pastured the cattle or permitted them to trespass in the reserved forest. In the present case all that the prosecution proved was that defendant's cattle were found in a reserve. Such cattle may be impounded, but the owner cannot be held liable unless some overt act of his be proved. We set aside the conviction and sentence and direct that fine be repaid....
Gray Vs. Fiddian
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-06-1891
Reported in: (1892)ILR15Mad73
1. In Civil Revision Petition No. 303 of 1890:-In this case the plaintiff, an hotel proprietor, sued to recover from defendant the value of a filter broken by defendant's servant while defendant was resident in the hotel. The Subordinate Judge found that defendant's servant was not acting under any express or implied authority from his master when he broke the filter, and hence that defendant was not liable for the act of his servant. Inasmuch, however, as defendant had offered Rs. 30 to plaintiff as compensation for the loss of the filter and to avoid litigation, the Subordinate Judge decreed that amount against defendant without costs. Both plaintiff and defendant have applied to the Court to revise this decree.2. The learned Counsel for the plaintiff has correctly stated the rule of law that a master is liable for the acts of his servant, provided they were within the scope of the employment, and also if they are intentionally done in the interest and for the benefit of the master. ...
In Re: Vittal Doss and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-06-1891
Reported in: (1892)ILR15Mad360
Shephard, J.1. I do not think that the language used in this will is such that Krisan Doss can be said to be constructively appointed executor. My attention was called to the decision In the goods of Badhika Mohan Sett 7 B.L.R., 563 in which the words of the will being somewhat similar the opinion was expressed that probate might be granted to the applicant as executor according to the tenor of the will. The case there mentioned does not bear out the proposition for which it is cited. In that case there was a direction that the person named should collect the testator's estate and pay all just debts, in other words, that he should discharge the function of executor. That therefore is a totally different case from the present. On the other hand, when the testator left all his property and effects to his wife without giving any further directions, the Court held In the goods of Thomas Henry Oliphant (1 Sw. & Tr., 525) in accordance with the practice, which had actually prevailed, that th...
V. Narayana Menon and Krishna Menon and anr. Vs. Shangunni Menon and o ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-05-1891
Reported in: (1892)2MLJ29
1. The only question which it is necessary for us to determine is whether the suit can in its present form be maintained under Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act. The plaint contains no prayer for possession of the properties mentioned in Schedule A, though the right which it is sought to establish is the right to set aside the karar and the amalgamation effected thereby of the plaintiff's branch and that of the defendants Nos. 3 to 17 into a single tarward, and so to establish the exclusive title of the plaintiff's branch to those properties.2. The effect of the declaration must practically be to restore the plaintiff's branch to the position which it occupied prior to the date of the karar and to restore its exclusive possession and title. The separate allotment and possession to which they claim to be entitled is clearly a consequential relief within the meaning of Section 42. There is also a distinct averment in the plaint that the 1st plaintiff is the lawful karnavan of his bra...
Kothandapani Vs. Somasundaram and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-05-1891
Reported in: (1892)ILR15Mad97
1. The learned Judges of the Small Cause Court have given no reasons for their decision.2. The right to sue to recover a debt is in the nature of a common law right, and unless it is taken away either expressly or by necessary implication, it must be treated as subsisting. We are not referred to any Section in the Indian Companies Act under which we can support the decision of the learned Judges. Section 177, which enumerates the consequences of the voluntary winding up of a company, only recognizes the liability of the liquidators to pay the debts of the company and limits the right of creditors to a payment pari passu. It does not absolve the debtors from liability to be sued. The fact that there are liquidators may be material if execution is sought of the decree. We set aside the order and direct that the suit be restored to the file and disposed of in accordance with law. The costs will be costs in the cause....
Narayana Vs. Shankunni and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-05-1891
Reported in: (1892)ILR15Mad255
1. The only question which it is necessary for us to determine is whether the suit can in its present form be maintained under Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act. The plaint contains no prayer for possession of the properties mentioned in schedule A, though the right which it is sought to establish is the right to set aside the karar and the amalgamation effected thereby of the plaintiffs' branch and that of the defendants Nos. 3--17 into a single tarwad, and so to establish the exclusive title of the plaintiffs' branch to those properties.2. The effect of the declaration must practically be to restore the plaintiffs' branch to the position which it occupied prior to the date of the karar, and to restore its exclusive possession and title. The separate allotment and possession to which they claim to be entitled is clearly a consequential relief within the meaning of Section 42. There is also a distinct averment in the plaint that plaintiff No. 1 is the lawful karnavan of his branch,...
Sridevi Vs. Krishnan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-01-1891
Reported in: (1898)ILR21Mad105
1. In the Court below, the plaintiff claimed the amount of the pension in dispute in his own right under the will left by the late Zamorin in his favour.2. He also claimed the money on behalf of the Tavazi to which he formerly belonged, and of which he was do. facto manager.3. In the appeal here, the Advocate-General put forward another ground, namely, Unit apart from the will the plaintiff wat entitled to the money as the nearest heir to the last Zamorin. This new ground, in order to be considered, would require further enquiry, and we cannot therefore permit it to be raised now.4. As to the second of the grounds on which the suit was based in the lower Court, it is clearly not maintainable, because the certificate granted TO the plaintiff under the Pensions Act permitted him to sue only in his own right and under the will. No leave was given to the Tavazi to sue. Even if it had been otherwise, we would have held that the plaintiff was not entitled to sue on behalf of the Tavazi as at...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›