Chennai Court July 1893 Judgments
Queen-empress Vs. Rama Shenoy Hari Shenoy and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-24-1893
Reported in: (1893)3MLJ201
1. This case comes on before me under Sections 429 and 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The question on which the learned judges who first heard the case, differed is, whether the accused complied with the provisions of Section 3 of Act XXV of 1.867. That section provides that 'every book or paper printed within British India shall have printed legibly on it the name of the printer and the place of printing and (if the book or paper be published) of the publisher, and the place of publication.' The words with which the accused published the Newspaper called Kerala Nandini are, 'Printed and published at Cochin for the Malabar Economic Company at the said Company's Goshree Vilasam Press.' They only mention the place of publication and of the press in which the paper was printed and state that it was on account or for the benefit of an unregistered association called Economic Society. But they do not name the printer as required by the Act and to this extent there is a departure fro...
Tag this Judgment!Kotur Mulla Reddi and anr. Vs. Polepally Padmamma Alias Padmakshamma a ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-24-1893
Reported in: (1893)3MLJ239
ORDER1. The father of Lakshminarasa Reddi (grand-father of 1st plaintiff and 1st defendant) was taken into the family of 2nd defendant's father as Illatom son-in-law. Lakshminarasa Reddi died without male issue leaving two daughters, 1st plaintiff and 1st defendant. 1st plaintiff and her son claimed both by virtue of wills said to have been executed by Lakshminarasa Reddi and his wife and also by Hindu Law.2. As no evidence was adduced on either side, the claim - so far as it was based upon the alleged wills - failed, and the only question now is whether 1st plaintiff is entitled to one-fourth (i.e.) half of the half-share of her late father. Both courts have decreed in her favour and defendants have appealed.3. For the purposes of the present appeal it may be taken that the property was the property of 2nd defendant's father's family in which plaintiff's grand-father was an Illatom son-in-law. He was therefore entitled to equal rights therein with 2nd defendant's father, and the quest...
Tag this Judgment!Queen-empress Vs. Hari Shenoy and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-24-1893
Reported in: (1893)ILR16Mad443
Collins, C.J.1. The petitioners were convicted under Sections 3 and 15 of Act XXV of 1867, the 'Printing Presses and Newspapers Act.' They were charged with printing and publishing a newspaper without printing the name of the printer and publisher of such newspaper.2. The facts are as follows:--In April 1892 Joseph Nunes, the registered printer and publisher of the paper in question 'The Kerala Nandini,' who had made the prescribed declaration under Section 5 of the Act, had been convicted of defamation and was sentenced to imprisonment. The newspaper is owned by persons who call themselves 'The Malabar Economic Society,' and they have a printing press which they call the Goshree Vilasam Press, and the petitioners are the Manager of the Society and the Superintendent of the Press respectively, and are admitted to have published and printed the newspapers. The only question for the Court to decide is--have the petitioners complied with the provisions of Section 3? That Section is as fol...
Tag this Judgment!Ramalingam Pillai Vs. Vythilingam Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-15-1893
Reported in: (1893)ILR16Mad490
1. The question in this appeal is whether the appellant is the lawful dharmakarta or trustee of the ancient temple at Rameswaram in the district of Madura. The temple is one of the class of religious institutions described in Section 4 of Act XX of 1863, and, according to immemorial usage, the dharmakarta should be a 'Vellala pandaram' or ascetic of the Vellala caste. The last lawful dharmakarta was one Saminada Pillai alias Setu Ramanada Pandaram. In 1882 a suit was brought in the District Court of Madura against him and three other persons who were said to be agents and managers under him, alleging an embezzlement of Rs. 15,681 of money belonging to the temple by him and his agents. By the judgment given in that suit on the 2nd March 1883 it was found that he, Ramanada Pandaram, was responsible for the whole sura found to be embezzled, viz., Rs. 14,855-10-0, and a decree was given against him for that sum with interest under Section 14 of Act XX of 1863. He was also directed to be re...
Tag this Judgment!Srimat Prativadi Bhayenkaram Annam Govinda Charlu Ayyavarlu Garu Vs. S ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-14-1893
Reported in: (1894)4MLJ181
1. This was a suit for a declaratory decree under Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act of 1877. It was dismissed with costs which were calculated at Rs. 656-8-0. The plaintiff appeals against such taxation and claims that a reasonable fee under Clause 35 of the Rules framed, under the Legal Practitioners' Act should have been allowed, the suit being one in which the subject matter of the claim did not admit of valuation. The costs as taxed were evidently taxed under Clause 31 of the Rules alluded to. But that clause is clearly not applicable to this case because the character of this suit is not one of those mentioned in that clause. The only other clause which is applicable is the one quoted by the appellant's pleader, namely, Clause 35, and we consider the case falls within the temps of that rule as being one in which the subject matter of the claim did not admit of valuation. A declaratory suit can only be valued by the measure of the consequential relief sued for. When no conseque...
Tag this Judgment!Chockalinga Pillai Vs. Natesa Ayyar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-14-1893
Reported in: (1894)ILR17Mad147
1. The document, which is in the nature of a bond, is executed by the appellant in favour of Visvanadha, originally a plaintiff on the record, but now deceased, and Iyavier, who died before action brought.2. The question is whether the suit is maintainable, no letters of administration having been taken out to Visvanadha or Iyavier. The learned Judge has held that letters were not required because the action was not to recover a debt duo to a deceased person, but was an action by the surviving member of a firm. In saying this, however, he overlooked the fact that the surviving partner also was, at the time of trial himself, dead and that the actual plaintiff Natesa was seeking to recover a debt due to his deceased father Visvanadha. Assuming, therefore, that the latter could have sued alone as the surviving partner, we fail to see how, on death, the necessity of taking out letters of administration can be avoided. But it has been argued that the money was really owing to the family and...
Tag this Judgment!Venkatasubba and anr. Vs. Appusundram
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-12-1893
Reported in: (1894)ILR17Mad92
1. We think the learned Judge was right. The section does not require that the writing should be made before the expiration of the period. It only requires a writing as the mode of proving the fact of payment. The appeal must be dismissed with costs....
Tag this Judgment!Muhammed Alim Oollah Sahib Vs. the Secretary of State for India
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-10-1893
Reported in: (1894)ILR17Mad162
1. It is by no means clear what are the exact terms on which contentious business is done as between the Government Solicitor and Government. Assuming, however, that the arrangement is that he should receive a salary and, in addition, the costs recoverable from third parties in those cases in which costs are awarded to Government, we are unable to see how that arrangement can affect a third party who is condemned in costs. Raymond v. Lakeman 34 Reav. 5842. The arrangement does not appear to he contrary to public policy, and there is no Act under which it is made illegal.1 Jennings v. Johnson L.R. 8 C.P. 4253. The appeal is dismissed with costs....
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›