Chennai Court October 1895 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.
Queen-empress Vs. Tirunarasimha Chari
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-11-1895
Reported in: (1896)ILR19Mad18
1. On April 27th, 1895, an order was issued by the Taluq Magistrate of Madurantakam, under Section 144 of the Criminal Procedure Code, forbidding the erection of a stone-cut Vadagalai namam over the entrance of an Odayavar shrine in a certain temple, on the ground that such erection would lead to a riot. The Magistrate took proceedings in the first place on the report of the Village Munsif, which was followed by a police report and a petition from various persons. Before passing the order, he took a deposition from the dharmakartha, Tirunarasimha Chari, and several others.2. There is no question as to the jurisdiction of the Magistrate to pass the order, and under Section 435, Criminal Procedure Code, his proceedings are not subject to revision by the High Court. But after the issue of the order, viz., on May 15th, 1895, the Magistrate, under Section 476, Criminal Procedure Code, directed the prosecution of the trustee Tirunarasimha Chari for giving false evidence (Sections 181 and 193...
Thayammal Vs. Annamalai Mudali and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-11-1895
Reported in: (1896)ILR19Mad35
Subramania Ayyar, J.1. On the application of the defendants the first issue, which is one of law, was argued under Section 146 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It raises the question whether the plaintiff is, as alleged in the plaint, heir to the stridhanam of the late Seshammal, a married woman.2. According to the rules of law applicable to the devolution of the stridhanam of a married woman, the property passes in the first place to the lineal descendants, if she left any, in an order to which it is unnecessary here to refer. The course of descent in default of descendants varies according to the form in which the deceased was married. If the marriage was in one of the four approved or superior forms, the husband, if he survives, takes the inheritance and in default those who would be his heirs. But if the marriage was in one of the four unapproved or inferior forms, the deceased's mother succeeds, and if there is no mother, the father. Failing the parents the heirs of the father and ...
Paya Matathil Appu Vs. Kovamel Amina
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-11-1895
Reported in: (1896)ILR19Mad151
1. We think it is competent to the Court to add parties who ware defendants in. the Court of First Instance though not joined as respondents in the Lower Appellate Court. In the case referred to Raman Nambiar v. Kapali S.A. 165 of 1894 unreported the party was not added by the Court, but by the appellant himself. Section 5591 occurs in the chapter of the Code relating to appeals from original decrees, and it is by Section 537 that this section is so far as may be made applicable to second appeals. We do not think it was intended to preclude the Court from adding in second appeal persons who had been originally joined in the suit. We are unable to follow the decision in Chunni v. Lala Ram I.L.R. 16 All. 5.2. The Judge considers that a verumpattom tenant claiming under a lease executed by the ottidar is not in a position to redeem the prior kanom. He observes that the lessee is not mentioned specifically in Section 91 of the Transfer of Property Act as belonging to the class of persons e...
Srinivasa Ayyangar Vs. Seetharamayyar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-09-1895
Reported in: (1896)ILR19Mad72
1. It seems to us clear that the debt due by the third party to the judgment-debtor, when paid into Court, was realized within the meaning of the 295th section Pallonji Shapurji Mistry v. Jordan I.L.R. 12 Bom. 400 and was therefore liable to rateable distribution among those who applied before the payment into Court.2. In Manikkam's case the application was not made till after the payment into Court, and he therefore is not entitled to distribution.3. The order must be altered accordingly.4. No costs....
W. H Wilson Vs. the Madras Municipality
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-08-1895
Reported in: (1895)5MLJ293
1. We are of opinion that a bicycle is a vehicle with springs within the meaning of the Madras Act I of 1884. The word ' vehicle ' is not defined in the Act: The term is used by itself and not qualified by a reference to any particular kinds of vehicle. Clearly, as appears from the language of Schedule B, the term is not confined to carriages drawn by horses or other beasts of burden. A perambulator used for children is within the operation, though it may be exempted under the proviso to Section 153.2. The case of Williams v. Ellis (1880) L.R. Q.B.D. 175 is distinguishable for the reason that, in thestatute there under consideration, various special kinds of carriages were mentioned and therefore the rule of ejusdem generis applied. As it cannot be doubted that a bicycle is a vehicle in the general acceptation of the word, so we think there is no doubt that this particular bicycle is a vehicle with springs.3. We must therefore answer the question in the affirmative....
Wilson Vs. the Madras Municipality
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-08-1895
Reported in: (1896)ILR19Mad83
1. We are of opinion that a bicycle is a vehicle with springs within the meaning of the Madras Act I of 1884. The word 'vehicle' is not defined in the Act. The term is used by itself and not qualified by reference to any particular kinds of vehicle. Clearly, as appears from the language of schedule B, the term is not confined to carriages drawn by horses or other beasts of burden. A perambulator used for children is within the operation, though it may be exempted under the proviso to Section 153 1.2. The case of Williams v. Ellis L.R. 5 Q.B.D. 175 is distinguishable for the reason that, in the statute there under consideration, various special kinds of carriages were mentioned, and therefore the rule of ejusdem generis applied. As it cannot be doubted that a bicycle is a vehicle in the general acceptation of the word, so we think there is no doubt that this particular bicycle is a vehicle with springs. We must, therefore, answer the question in the affirmative.1. Section 153: A tax at ...
Kandasami Pillai Vs. Murugammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-03-1895
Reported in: (1896)ILR19Mad6
Subramania Ayyar, J.1. The plaintiff in this case seeks to set aside the decree passed in Original Suit No. 129 of 1887 in favour of the defendant, his wife, awarding to her a maintenance of ten rupees per mensem. The suit is founded on the allegation that in 1893 the defendant committed adultery with one Velayuda Asari. The defence is a simple denial of the case set up in the plaint.2. The only issues to be determined are--has the plaintiff made out the case set up by him, and, if so, to what relief is he entitled?3. His Lordship recorded an admission that the parties had separated in 1886 and had never since resided together, and, after discussing the evidence, stated, as his finding thereon, that the defendant had in 1893 become pregnant by Velayuda Asari and had given birth to a child by him. The judgment continued as follows:4. I have no hesitation in finding that the plaintiff has made out his case.5. As to the relief prayed, it has been contended on behalf of the defendant, that...
Rangayya Chetti Vs. Thanikachalla Mudali and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-03-1895
Reported in: (1896)ILR19Mad74
Subramania Ayyar, J.1. The plaintiff, as purchaser under a sale deed dated 24th February 1894, executed by the Official Assignee, claims possession of the house in dispute, which admittedly was the family property of the defendants, of whom the second defendant is the younger brother and the other defendants sons of the first. He rests his claim on the grounds that the second defendant being a leper is not entitled to any share in the property and that even if he was entitled, the debts with reference to which the first defendant was declared insolvent were incurred by him for purposes binding upon all the defendants. As to the relief the plaintiff prays in the alternative, that should it be held that the plaintiff is not entitled by his purchase to the possession of the entire property, but that he became entitled to an interest less than the whole, the same be ascertained and that on due partition being made, such share be ordered to be delivered to him, or if that be found impractic...
Queen-empress Vs. Venkataratnam Pantulu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-02-1895
Reported in: (1896)ILR19Mad14
1. We are not prepared to hold that the Chief Presidency Magistrate was wrong in refusing a copy of the charge-sheet to the prisoner's attorney at the present stage of the proceedings.2. The petition is dismissed.3. Gordon, Attorney for Petitioner....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›