Chennai Court January 1892 Judgments
Queen Empress Vs. P. Sommanna
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-28-1892
Reported in: (1892)2MLJ120
1. The petitioner was convicted by the 2nd class Magistrate of Pullampet under Section 183, Indian Penal Code, of resistance to the taking of property by the lawful authority of a public servant, and sentenced to two months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 200. On appeal the Sub-Divisional Magistrate confirmed the sentence, but altered the finding to one of an offence under Section 186, Indian Penal Code, and the only question now is, whether the ingredients of the offence have been made out. On behalf of the petitioner it is urged that there was nothing more on his part than non-compliance with an order which he was not bound to obey. On the part of the Crown it is argued that there was active obstruction, and a threatened breach of the peace. There is nothing in the judgment of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, to lead us to think that it was the petitioner who gathered the crowd, nor on referring to the evidence of the commissioner do we think that it can be hold that it was thr...
Tag this Judgment!Gopalaswami Aiyar Vs. Arunachella Moodelly
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-28-1892
Reported in: (1892)2MLJ122
1. The plaintiff obtained a usufructuary mortgage of certain lands and held possession of the same until he was ousted by a person who purchased the property in execution of a money-decree held by the latter against the 1st defendant the mortgagor. 2. The plaintiff now sues for the recovery of the mortgage-money.3. The mortgagor did not bind himself to repay the mortgage-amount. The clause in the instrument of mortgage, relied on by the plaintiff, merely provides that, if the mortgage-money be repaid at the end of any Fasli within the 27th May 1886, the mortgagor should be put back into possession of the lands. The Subordinate Judge was therefore in error in holding that there was a promise to pay.4. The circumstances under which the plaintiff was dispossessed were these. Before the lands in question were sold by the court the plaintiff preferred a claim based upon his mortgage; but it was disallowed on the ground that at the date of the mortgage the property was under attachment on ac...
Tag this Judgment!Gopalasami Vs. Arunachella
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-28-1892
Reported in: (1892)ILR15Mad304
1. The plaintiff obtained a usufructuary mortgage of certain lands and held possession of the same until he was ousted by a person who purchased the property in execution of a money decree held by the latter against the first defendant, the mortgagor.2. The plaintiff now sues for the recovery of the mortgage money.3. The mortgagor did not bind himself to repay the mortgage amount. The clause in the instrument of mortgage, relied on by the plaintiff, merely provides that if the mortgage money be repaid at the end of any fasli within the 27th May 1886, the mortgagor should be put back into possession of the lands. The Subordinate Judge was, therefore, in error in holding that there was a promise to pay.4. The circumstances under which the plaintiff was dispossessed were these. Before the lands in question were sold by the Court, the plaintiff preferred a claim based upon his mortgage; but it was disallowed on the ground that, at the date of the mortgage, the property was under attachment...
Tag this Judgment!Queen-empress Vs. Sommanna
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-28-1892
Reported in: (1892)ILR15Mad221
1. The petitioner was convicted by the Second Class Magistrate of Pullampet under Section 183, Indian Penal Code, of resistance to the taking of property by the lawful authority of a public servant and sentenced to two months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 200. On appeal the Sub Divisional Magistrate confirmed the sentence, but altered the finding to one of an offence under Section 186, Indian Penal Code, and the only question now is whether the ingredients of the offence have been made out. On behalf of the petitioner it is urged that there was nothing more on his part than noncompliance with an order which he was not bound to obey. On the part of the Crown it is argued that there was active obstruction and a threatened breach of the peace. There is nothing in the judgment of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate to lead us to think that it was the petitioner who gathered the crowd, nor on referring to the evidence of the Commissioner do we think that it can be held that it was thro...
Tag this Judgment!Augustine and ors. Vs. Medlycott and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-19-1892
Reported in: (1892)ILR15Mad241
1. The first point taken before us is that the suit is not one within the scope of Section 539 of the Civil Procedure Code, and hence will not lie in the District Court. The District Judge held that, though the suit was not one for any of the five kinds of relief specially described in that section, the relief sought for came under the words 'such further or other relief as the nature of the case may require.'2. It appears to us that the suit is not of the class contemplated in Section 539 at all. That section deals with suits brought by beneficiaries against trustees, or for any of the special purposes mentioned in Section 539; whereas this suit is brought by persons claiming to be the de jure, church-wardens entitled to possession of the building against their predecessors in office whose term has expired and who refused to surrender possession and have usurped possession of the church and become trespassers. Plaintiffs Nos. 1 and 2 on the one side and defendants Nos. 1 and 2 on the ...
Tag this Judgment!Jaganatha Vs. Gangi Reddi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-18-1892
Reported in: (1892)ILR15Mad303
1. We think the plaintiff is estopped from recovering on the mortgage when he has allowed the auction purchaser to buy without notice in a suit in which he himself brought the property to sale--see Agar-chand Gumanchand v. Rakhma Hanmant I.L.R. 12 Bom. 678.2. The second appeal is dismissed with costs....
Tag this Judgment!Queen-empress Vs. Yohan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-17-1892
Reported in: (1894)ILR17Mad391
1. We cannot agree with the view taken by the Sessions Judge. The preamble and Sections 4, 5 and 68 of the present Act XV of 1872 are almost identical with the preamble and Sections 4, 5 and 56 of Act V of 1865.2. Section 68, as amended by Section 6, Act II of 1891, makes punishable the solemnization of a marriage between persons of whom one is a Christian, unless the person solemnizing such marriage has been authorized for that purpose under Section 5. It is conceded that the third accused was not authorized under Section 5, and hence the case is exactly similar to that in Proceedings of the Madras High Court, dated 21st March, 1871 6 M.H.C.R App. 20 and the accused are, prima facie, liable to punishment.3. We are told that this application has been made by Government merely to obtain an au s not pressed for, having regard to the length of time which has elapsed.4. We, therefore, do not think it necessary to pass any further order....
Tag this Judgment!Mahomed Abdul Khadir and ors. Vs. Meera Sahib Markoyer and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-15-1892
Reported in: (1892)IIMLJ148
1. The District Munsif purports to be acting under Section 478 Criminal Procedure Code. The words 'any such offence' relate to offences referred to in Section 195, and such of those offences as fall under Sections 463 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code must have been committed by a party to any proceeding in any court in respect of a document given in evidence in such proceeding.2. In the present case a decree against defendants 2 to 3 and 5 has been passed upon the oath of the plaintiffs. The suit as against 4th defendant is still undisposed of, and the documents alleged to be forgeries have been put into court but are not yet given in evidence inasmuch as the suit has not been tried.3. It is not competent to the court to go beyond the record, (Zamindar of Sivagiri v.. The Queen I. L. R 6 M 29).4. We have no doubt as to the power of the High Court; to interfere on revision. See I.L.R 7 C 730*5. The proceedings of the District Munsif must be set aside and the present prosecution dropped....
Tag this Judgment!Abdul Khadar and ors. Vs. Meera Saheb
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-15-1892
Reported in: (1892)ILR15Mad224
1. The District Munsif purports to be acting under Section 478, Criminal Procedure Code. The words 'any such offence' relate to offences referred to in Section 195, and such of those offences as fall under Sections 403 and 471, Indian Penal Code, must have been committed by a party to any proceeding in any Court in respect of 'a document given in evidence in such proceeding.'2. In the present case a decree against defendants Nos. 2, 3 and 5 has been passed upon the oath of the plaintiffs. The suit as against fourth defendant is still undisposed of, and the documents, alleged to be forgeries have been put into Court, but are not yet given in evidence, inasmuch as the suit had not been tried.3. It is not competent to the Court to go beyond the record--Zamindar of Sivagiri v. The Queen I.L.R. 6 Mad. 294. We have no doubt as to the power of the High Court to interfere on revision.5. The proceedings of the District Munsif must be set aside and the presen t prosecution dropped....
Tag this Judgment!Madhavi Vs. Kelu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-11-1892
Reported in: (1892)ILR15Mad264
1. It is argued for appellant that the suit is not barred by res judicata because the plaintiff in the former suit was a tenant of present plaintiff, and present plaintiff was only a formal party (second defendant) in that suit, and Brujo Behari Mitter v. Kedar Nath Mozumdar I.L.R. 12 Cal. 580 is quoted in support of this eontention. That case certianly does seem to support the appellant's arguments, but the decision in Venkayya v. Narasamma I.L.R. 11 Mad. 204 not dissented from in Chandu v. Kunhamed I.L.R. 14 Mad. 324 is a direct authority for the proposition that a matter may be res judicata in a subsequent suit, although the parties in that suit, between whom the matter was decided, were arrayed as co-defendants in the former suit and not as plaintiff and defendant, if the matter in dispute in the second suit formed the subject of active controversy between the co- defendants in the former suit. There can be no question that in the former suit and the present case the question wheth...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »