Chennai Court September 1892 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.
Perumal Vs. Kaveri and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-01-1892
Reported in: (1893)ILR16Mad121
Best, J.1. The following are the facta of this case:First defendant mortgaged the plaint house to second defendant in 1884 under Exhibit II for a sum of Rs. 350. II was written on the 28th July 1884, but was not signed by first defendant till 5th December of that year after criminal proceedings had been instituted against first defendant by second defendant for cheating (see Exhibit W). On the 6th December 1884 first defendant's vakil put in a statement (Exhibit VI) admitting that first defendant had executed the document for Rs. 350, but pleading that she had only been paid Rs. 304-8-0. The complaint of second defendant was thereupon dismissed on the ground that the dispute between the parties was of a civil nature (Exhibit T). Second defendant then presented the document for registration; but first defendant denied its execution and the District Registrar, after inquiry, declined to register it. This was on the 23rd April 1885, On the following day first defendant executed to the fir...
Queen-empress Vs. V. Govinda Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-01-1892
Reported in: (1893)ILR16Mad235
1. We think that the Sessions Judge is right in holding that the principle of the decision in Manjaya v. Sesha Shetti I.L.R. 11 Mad. 477 is applicable to the case of persons making statements in the course of an investigation by a Police officer. Such persons are bound by Section 161, Criminal Procedure Code, to answer truly all questions put to them, except such as tend to criminate themselves, and are therefore entitled to the protection which the law gives to witnesses. Accused, in the present case, made the statement, on which the defamation is laid in answer to a question by the Police Constable, and we think, under the principles laid down in the above decision, his statement is a privileged communication.2. The conviction is set aside, and the fine, if paid, is to be refunded....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›