Chennai Court August 1896 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.
Chinna Settayya Vs. Krishnavanamma
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-07-1896
Reported in: (1896)ILR19Mad435
1. We agree with the principle laid down in Mahadaji Karan-dikar v. Hari D. Chikne l.L.R. 7 Bom. 332 that 'the Court that-bas made a decree or judicial order which has then been transmitted for execution to a Collector is not deprived of the judicial powers with respect to it, which may still, at any particular time, be competent to such Court, and which it would have had had the order been placed in the hands of its own ordinary officer, the Nazir.'2. This general power has been curtailed by special legislation so far as regards Section 320 of the Code of Civil Procedure (see Section 30 of Act VII of 1888). The amendments effected thereby are, however, not made applicable to Section 265 of the Code, as they should have been if it had been intended by the Legislature to limit the natural jurisdiction of the Court in respect to this section.3. We are, therefore, of opinion that the District Judge had power to hear objections to the divisions made by the Collector. His order declining to...
Kaliyanaramayyar Vs. Mustak Shah Saheb
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-04-1896
Reported in: (1896)ILR19Mad395
1. The case relied on Panduranga v. Nagappa I.L.R. 12 Mad. 366 is not in point. The order of the learned Judge is right. We reject the appeal....
Queen-empress Vs. Virasami
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-03-1896
Reported in: (1896)ILR19Mad375
10. The further evidence now recorded makes it certain that the finding of the Sessions Judge that Appi Reddi was never taken to Prattipadu is correct. It follows that the three statements specified in the charge are false and that the appellant was rightly convicted. We agree with the Sessions Judge that a police officer who gives false evidence in a dacoity case deserves exemplary punishment. We confirm the conviction and sentence and dismiss the appeal.11. Ordered accordingly.[1] [Section 33: Evidence given by a witness in a judicial proceeding, or before any person authorised by law to take it, is relevant for the purpose of proving,Evidence in a former in a subsequent judicial proceeding, or in a later stage of the samejudicial proceeding when judicial proceeding, the truth of the facts which it states, whenrelevant. the witness is dead or cannot be found, or is incapable of giving evidence, or is kept out of the way by the adverse party, or ifhis presence cannot be obtained witho...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›