Chennai Court April 1897 Judgments
Arumugam and ors. Vs. Karuppayi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-30-1897
Reported in: (1897)7MLJ167
Arthur Collins, Kt., C.J.1. In answering this reference to the Full Bench I intend to follow the exact words of the reference., The question is whether the accused had, from the moment of his accusation, a right .to inspect and obtain copies of the douments in question for the purpose of his defence. These documents are certain police reports including a charge sheet. The reference assumes that the documents are records of the acts of public officers submitted by them as required by law--see Sections 157, 168 and 173, Code of Criminal Procedure--and that they are public documents within the meaning of Section 74 of the Indian Evidence Act, and that any person interested in the subject matter of apublic document has a right to inspect it and under Section 76, Evidence Act, has also the right to have a copy of such document supplied to him; but that is really the point the Full Bench has to decide. There appears no doubt that a person accused is a person interested in the documents refer...
Tag this Judgment!Queen-empress Vs. Arumugam and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-30-1897
Reported in: (1897)ILR20Mad189
Collins, C.J.1. In answering this reference to the Full Bench, I intoned to follow the exact words of the reference. The question is whether the accused had, from the moment of his accusation, a right to inspect and obtain copies of the documents in question for the purpose of his defence. These documents are certain police reports including a charge sheet. The reference assumes that the documents are records of the acts of public officers submitted by them as required by law--see Sections 157, 168 and 173, Code of Criminal Procedure--and that they are public documents within the meaning of Section 74 of the Indian Evidence Act, and that any person interested in the subject-matter of a public document has a right to inspect it and under Section 76, Evidence Act, has also the right to have a copy of such document supplied to him; but that is really the point the Full Bench has to decide There appears no doubt that a person accused is a person interested in the documents referred to in S...
Tag this Judgment!Achuta Menon Vs. Achutan Nayar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-30-1897
Reported in: (1898)ILR21Mad35
1. Prior to the institution of the present suit, the plaintiff had instituted another, viz., Original Suit No. 189 of 1893, against these same defendants who are contesting this suit. In that suit he sought to compel these defendants to surrender certain plots of land on receiving from him the value of improvements, if any, made by them. He then alleged that the said defendants held the lands as tenants under the lease of the 10th October 1880, which was to enure for twelve years and which was granted to the first defendant by the late Zamorin, to whose ' stanom ' or dignity the lands are attached. As to the right to claim the surrender of the lands, the plaintiff relied on a demise by the same Zamorin, dated 28th July 1892. The present Zamorin, who was also one of the defendants in the case, contended that the demise of the 28th July 1892 was not granted under circumstances which, in law, rendered it binding on him as the present holder of the stanom. The present contesting defendants...
Tag this Judgment!Krishna Menon Vs. Kesavan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-29-1897
Reported in: (1897)ILR20Mad305
ORDER1. The plaintiff, as the purchaser of the jenm right in a number of plots of land including those in suit under Exhibit B, dated 14th May, and Exhibit C, dated 10th June 1877, sues to redeem from the defendants those held by them on mortgage under Exhibits I and II, dated 6th August 1873 and 26th January 1876, respectively. In the Court below the parties were at issue, as to whether the mortgages were such as, according to the usage of Malabar, carried with them the right of pre-emption. But that is no longer disputed.2. The principal question for determination is whether the defendants are precluded from asserting their right of pre-emption for all or any of the reasons urged on behalf of the plaintiff.3. First, Exhibits A and III, executed on the 10th June 1877 by the plaintiff and the first defendant, are relied on on behalf of the plaintiff as disentitling the defendants from insisting upon the right in question. Exhibit III is only a counterpart of Exhibit A. After reciting t...
Tag this Judgment!Kamalammal Vs. Peeru Meera Levvai Rowthan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-28-1897
Reported in: (1897)7MLJ263
Subrahmania Aiyar, J.1. The question in this case is whether the plaintiff, to whom a sum of money was payable under an oral contract, is entitled to interest prior to the date of the suit?2. No agreement or usage, giving a right to the interest, was alleged. And it was admitted that no written demand, giving notice that interest would be claimed, was sent under Act XXXII of 1839.3. In these circumstances, it must be held that the interest cannot be decreed.4. It will be seen from the judgments delivered in the Court of Appeal and in the House of Lords in London Chatham and Dover Railway Company v. South Eastern Railway Company (1892) 1 Ch. 120 and 1893, App. C. 429, that in England at Common Law interest was not recoverable as damages in cases similar to the present. That the law of this country must be taken to be substantially the same was established by the decision of, the Judicial Committee in Jagga Mohun v. Kaisen Chand 9 M.I.A., 256, and in Kissara Rukhumana Row v. Sripathi Yin...
Tag this Judgment!Queen-empress Vs. Sinnai Goundan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-23-1897
Reported in: (1897)ILR20Mad388
1. Inasmuch as the case was not disposed of under Section 203, Criminal Procedure Code, but summonses were issued to the complainant's witnesses, the Magistrate was not at liberty, as he assumes, to 'stop the case whenever he liked.' He was bound to examine the witnesses tendered by the complainant before acquitting the accused. This the Magistrate admits he did not do.2. We must, therefore, set aside the acquittal and order a retrial.3. We observe that the Magistrate, though he issued summonses to the complainant's witnesses, did not examine them, but acquitted the accused on a consideration of the complainant's statement alone. It is not clear why this unusual and illegal procedure was followed. Having regard to it and to the fact that the Magistrate has formed a decided opinion in the case before hearing the evidence for the prosecution, we direct that the District Magistrate do transfer the case for trial to some other Magistrate....
Tag this Judgment!Krishnan Nambudri Vs. Raman Menon and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-23-1897
Reported in: (1897)ILR20Mad484
1. We are unable to agree with the appellant's contention that Exhibit II is not admissible in evidence for want of registration. We do not think that it contains an acknowledgment of money paid for the creation of an interest within the meaning of Section 17 (c) of the Registration Act. It evidences an agreement to renew and to credit as renewal fees a sum of money which had become due by the plaintiff to the defendant at the time the document was executed. The promise so to credit the money was not in our opinion, an acknowledgment such as is contemplated by the Section.2. Even if it were such an acknowledgment, the document would still be admissible as evidence of the agreement to renew, a part of the document which in our opinion is severable from the part which is alleged to amount to an acknowledgment.3. It is further argued that even if there was an agreement to renew it was not valid, because the amount of the renewal fees was not fixed.4. As to this, we observe that, though th...
Tag this Judgment!Mana Vikrama Vs. Rama Patter
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-14-1897
Reported in: (1897)ILR20Mad275
1. The appellant, the Zamorin of Calicut, sued for Rs. 541-2-6, said to be the amount of renewal fees due by the respondent, in respect of certain lands held by him under a permanent grant known as anubhavom, made long ago by a predecessor of the appellant to a predecessor in title of the respondent who is an assignee for value. The original grant was made many years ago, but it was renewed or confirmed by Exhibit I in 1873. Exhibit I stipulates for the yearly rent and the amount of a certain fee which the grantee was to pay, but contains no reference to any renewal fee payable to the grantor.2. The appellant's claim was based on an express agreemont by the respondent as well as upon custom. The lower Courts held that the agreement was not proved, and that no binding custom was made out.3. It was contended by the learned Advocate-General on behalf of the appellant that the District Judge was in error in applying to the case the rule that a party setting up a custom, having the force of...
Tag this Judgment!Sankara Subbayyar Vs. Ramasami Ayyangar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-13-1897
Reported in: (1897)ILR20Mad454
1. The land itself (not its assessment) was the inam of the office, set apart by Government as its emolument. For a long time prior to 1873 there were two nattamgars, belonging to different families those of the plaintiff and of the second defendant, respectively. Second defendant's brother was removed from the office in 1873. The plaintiff then discharged the whole duty of the office, being regarded as a mere temporary occupant in so far as concerned the duties and emoluments attaching to the second defendant's family. Subsequently the second defendant sued under Regulation 6 of 1831 and eventually established his right to the office vacant by his brother's removal and to its emoluments. In pursuance of this decision he was actually put in possession of the office and received a share of the emoluments. This was in the beginning of 1890. In the same year the Government resolved to enfranchise the lands attached to both the offices and to appoint a single person to do the duty of both ...
Tag this Judgment!Bojjamma Vs. Venkataramayya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-09-1897
Reported in: (1898)ILR21Mad30
1. It is not quite clear that this really was a benami transaction; but, assuming that it is we do not think that the payee and holder of a promissory note is debarred from suing on it by reason of the fact that a third person is really interested in it. No doubt it has been often held in suits relating to land that a benamidar is not competent to sue in his own name. But there is a great distinction between cases of that sort and the case of negotiable instruments. The distinction between suits relating to immoveable property and suits on contracts appears to be recognized by the Privy Council Gopeerkrist Gosain v. Gungapersaud Gosain 6 M.I.A. 72 and Hari Gobind Adhikari v. Akhoy Kumar Mozumdar I.L.R. 16 Cal. 364. In the case of negotiable instruments especially it would be most mischievous in our opinion to hold that the holder and payee of an instrument may be put to proof as to whether the money advanced was his own. We can find no reported authority in favour of the plea now sugge...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »