Chennai Court March 1893 Judgments
Queen-empress Vs. Paranga
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-29-1893
Reported in: (1893)ILR16Mad463
ORDER1. We do not think the accused was bound to appear before the Magistrate at a place outside British territory. The Indian Penal Code applies only to criminal acts done in India under Section 2, except in the special cases mentioned in Section 3. If the Magistrate had ordinarily power to summon witnesses to attend at a place outside British India, the act of disobedience would then be done in foreign territory and amount to an offence over which he would have no jurisdiction. The proper construction of Section 174 is that the place where a witness is summoned to attend must be in British India.2. We direct that the conviction and sentence be set aside, and the fine levied be refunded....
Tag this Judgment!Queen-empress Vs. Nagappa
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-28-1893
Reported in: (1893)ILR16Mad461
Best, J.1. Section 476 says that the Court before which the offence is committed may send the case for inquiry or trial to the nearest Magistrate of the first class. The words 'having jurisdiction to try such offence' are not to be found in the Section. Such being the case, it is to be assumed that the order making the transfer is of itself sufficient to confer jurisdiction.2. The second clause of Section 476 authorizes the first-class Magistrate, to whom a case is thus sent, to 'transfer the inquiry or trial to some other competent Magistrate.' I fail to see anything illegal in these proceedings.Shephard, J.3. The substitution of the description 'nearest' 'for having power to try' is significant. I agree that the transfer was not illegal....
Tag this Judgment!Kamati KondammA. Vs. Medam Subbanna Chetti
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-24-1893
Reported in: (1893)3MLJ174
1. We are of opinion that the suit has been rightly dismissed. The will purports to give the property to the wife on the ground that 'there are no other principal heirs except you.' It also declares, that it is made 'with a view to persons entitled getting their respective rights after my lifetime.' It is admitted that subsequent to the execution of the will the testator and plaintiff adopted the latter's brother's son. It is also in evidence that when defendent instituted Original Suit No. 4 of 1891 against the adopted son (and another) the present plaintiff as his guardian ad litem admitted that the adopted son was Venkatachalam's heir, and did not set up the will or her interest in the property of her husband, though the property now in dispute had been attached in anticipation of a decree. It was not until the creditor obtained a decree against the adopted son that she came forward alleging, contrary to his previous statement, that this property belonged to herself under the will.2...
Tag this Judgment!Ramanayya Vs. Rangapayya and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-17-1893
Reported in: (1894)ILR17Mad144
1. It is argued before us that the debt contracted by the deceased first defendant was a family debt and is, therefore, binding on the respondents, and that the Subordinate Judge is in error in omitting to record a finding on this point.2. The suit was originally brought against first defendant alone upon a bond executed by him. He does not appear to have been sued as representing the family, and defendants Nos. 2 and 3 were only brought in after his death as his legal representatives. In the view that the debt was a family debt, the contention in the Courts below as to the effect of theattachmetn on survivorship was immaterial. This contention is at varieance with the case on which the parties proceeded to trial in the courts below.3. As to the effect of the attachment on survivorship, it is to be observed that the attachment in question was one before judgment, and intended to protect the property from alienation by the defendant pending the decision of the suit. Till decree was pass...
Tag this Judgment!Ramasami and ors. Vs. Papayya and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-17-1893
Reported in: (1893)ILR16Mad466
1. It is conceded that Gangammal obtained the land in dispute as a gift from her father some forty years ago, and that she was in possession from that time till her death three years ago. The plaintiffs are her son and grandson, and defendants are her brothers and brother's sons. Both the Courts below have held that the plaintiffs are entitled to the land and not the defendants. The contention, on appeal, is that under Hindu law it must be presumed that a gift to a female is only for her life, and reference is made to Mahomed Shumsool v. Shewukram L.R. 2 IndAp 7 and Bhujanga v. Ramayamma I.L.R. 7 Mad. 3872. It is no doubt remarked by the Lords of the Privy Council in Mahomed Shumsool v. Shewukram L.R. 2 IndAp 7 that it may be assumed that a Hindu knows that, as a general rule at all events, women do pot take absolute estates of inheritance which they are enabled to alienate, and that in construing the will of a Hindu it is not improper to take into consideration what are known to be th...
Tag this Judgment!Ramasami Vs. Basavappa
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-16-1893
Reported in: (1893)ILR16Mad325
1. In order to facilitate the realization by defendant of a judgment-debt and to procure the release of the judgment-debtor from jail, the plaintiff paid Rs. 1,000 and took a transfer of the decree from defendant. The decree was, however, in favour of a minor as well as of defendant, and the Court refused to recognize the transfer. The plaintiff could not have appealed from an order under Section 232, as no appeal lies, and he was clearly entitled to be replaced in the same position as before. He could notanticipate that the Court would refuse to recognize the transfer, or that the transfer of the minor's interest by defendant would be held to be void. The defendant could not enter into the agreement without the leave of the Court Section 462, Civil Procedure Code; the contract was, therefore, incomplete, and the defendant failed to make in plaintiff's favour a valid transfer. The case appears to be within the rule laid down by the Privy Council in Seth Jaidayal v. Ram Sahm I.L.R. 17 C...
Tag this Judgment!Queen Empress Vs. Sama Aiyar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-14-1893
Reported in: (1893)3MLJ227
1. It is not now contested that the Board of Revenue is the authority that has been empowered by the Local Government to grant the requisite sanction under Section 197, Criminal Procedure Code, and we agree with the Acting Sessions Judge that the Resolution of the Board dated 24th August 1892 is not a legal sanction.2. The sanction required under Section 197, Criminal Procedure Code, must be granted with reference to some specific offence with which the accused is charged in his capacity as a public servant and the intention of the legislature clearly was that the authority empowered to grant the sanction should take the responsibility of deciding there were reasonable grounds for prosecuting such public servant for 'such offence.'3. In the Resolution of 24th August 1892 the Board does not sanction the prosecution of the accused for any offence designated by itself, but merely delegates to the Collector the power of selecting, out of several, such charges as he thinks likely to stand i...
Tag this Judgment!Queen-empress Vs. Samavier
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-14-1893
Reported in: (1893)ILR16Mad468
1. It is not now contested that the Board of Revenue is the authority that has been empowered by the Local Government to grant the requisite sanction under Section 197, Criminal Procedure Code, and we agree with the Acting Sessions Judge that the Resolution of the Board, dated 24th August 1892, is not a legal sanction.2. The sanction required under Section 197, Criminal Procedure Code, must be granted with reference to some specific offence with which the accused is charged in his capacity as a public servant, and the intention of the legislature clearly was that the authority empowered to grant the sanction should take the responsibility of deciding there were reasonable grounds for prosecuting such public servant for such offence.3. In the Resolution of 24th August 1892 the Board does not sanction the prosecution of the accused for any offence designated by itself, but merely delegates to the Collector the power of selecting, out of several, such charges as he thinks likely to stand ...
Tag this Judgment!Syed Alli Saheb Vs. the Chairman of the Salem Municipality
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-09-1893
Reported in: (1893)3MLJ223
1. There is no second appeal since there is no decree against which a second appeal can be preferred, neither can the appeal be entertained as an appeal against an order under Section 32, Civil Procedure Code, since the District Judge does not hold that 2nd defendant has been improperly joined and direct that he be excluded from the suit. On the contrary while calling his judgment an ad interim order he says that he dismissed the suit as against 2nd defendant on the ground that the claim against him is for damages and is barred under the Municipal Act.2. We are constrained therefore to dismiss both the second appeal and the appeal against the order, but in so doing we are bound to point out that the judge was entirely wrong both in his procedure and in the law which he applied to the case.3. He should not have heard the appeal piecemeal, but have disposed of the whole case, and the result of this procedure has been that while the plaintiff's suit as against 2nd defendant has been dismi...
Tag this Judgment!Upendra Bhatta Vs. Ranganatha Bhatta
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-08-1893
Reported in: (1893)3MLJ229
1. The petitioner Upendra Bhatta obtained a money decree in Original Suit No. 206 of 1883 on the file of the District Munsif of Karakal against one Shridhara Bhatta; Shridhara Bhatta having died, execution was applied for against his sons, widow and undivided brothers as his heirs. In course of execution a certain piece of land called Madangabettu was attached and advertised for sale; counter-petitioner Ranganatha Bhatta, one of the brothers of the deceased Shridhara Bhatta objected to the sale on the ground that this land under the will of Shridhara Bhatta's father belonged to a certain temple. The District Munsif found that the land in question did not form portion of the land devised to the temple by the will and ordered execution to proceed. Present counter-petitioner appealed to the District Court; which after calling for a further finding from the District Munsif reversed his order and dismissed the execution-petition so far as it related to the Madangabettu land. The judgment-cr...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »