Chennai Court December 1900 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.
Narayanasamy and ors. Vs. Jambu Aiyan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-20-1900
Reported in: (1901)11MLJ130
1. The only question raised is whether the members of the chit fund in this case constitute an illegal association as not being registered, or whether the defendants arc alone the proprietors of the chit fund, as in Manchu Nayar v. Padmanabhan Nayar I.L.R. 20 M.k 68.2. In that case two persons started a kuri describing themselves in the programme which they drew up for that purpose as the proprietors. The programme contained the proposed arrangements of the proprietors and their proposed method of carrying it on and the subscribers signed it in token of their assent and as evidence that they thereby became subscribers. That case is totally different from the present case where the whole body of subscribers join in an agreement to start a chit fund and are all equally interested in it and retain power in themselves to control the acts of their appointed office-holders.3. We think the acting Subordinate Judge was wrong, and we allow the petitions and dismiss the plaintiff's suit with cos...
Valambal Ammal Vs. Vythilinga Mudaliar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-19-1900
Reported in: (1901)11MLJ119
ORDER1. This is a suit for the cancellation of a sale deed executed to the defendant by the plaintiff for Rs. 2,500. In this court, on second appeal, a stamp duty for Rs. 150 was paid. On behalf of the respondent, the objection was raised that this court could not entertain the appeal because in the Court of First Instance and in the lower appellate Court a stamp duty of Rs. 10 only had been paid.2. As regards the appeal to the lower appellate Court; the effect' of Section 582A of the Code of Civil Procedure is to enable a defective memorandum of appeal to be retrospectively validated, if the insufficiency of the stamp was caused by mistake on the part of the appellant. This section appears to have been introduced for the purpose of meeting a decision of the Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court--a decision which was dissented from by this court in two cases, Chennappa v. Raghunatha I.L.R. 15 M. 29, and Patcha Saheb v. Sub-Collector of North Arcot I.L.R. 15 M. 78to the effect that if ...
Queen-empress Vs. Kuniyil Ram and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-17-1900
Reported in: (1901)ILR24Mad337
1. Section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure refers to the procedure of a Magistrate who has taken cognizance of a case, Section 196 of the Code of Criminal Procedure debars a Magistrate from taking cognizance of certain offences unless sanction has been obtained. In form, no doubt, the Magistrate before whom, in the present case, the complaint was preferred, purported to dismiss the complaint; under Section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In substance what he did was to refuse to take cognizance of the offence on the ground that sanction to prosecute was necessary and sanction had not been obtained.2. In the Calcutta cases and in the Allahabad case to which our attention has been called Queen-Empress v. Adam Khan I.L.R. 22 All. 106, Nilratan Sen v. Jogesh Chundra Bhattacharjee I.L.R. 23 Calc. 983 and Komal Chandra Pal v. Gour Chand Audhikari I.L.R. 24 Calc. 286 the Magistrate before whom the first complaint was preferred took cognizance of the alleged offence and after adju...
Lakshmana Chetti and anr. Vs. Chinnathambi Chetti and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-17-1900
Reported in: (1901)ILR24Mad326
1. It was urged on behalf of the appellants that there was in truth no submission to arbitration, but only an understanding that the dispute was to be settled by certain persona acting as friendly mediators. Although the petitions to the Court may leave the matter in doubt, yet the clear language in exhibit A, in which the first appellant states that the division of the properties had been referred for the decision of the therein-mentioned arbitrators, supported by the evidence of one of the said arbitrators puts the question beyond dispute. We are therefore satisfied that there was a reference to arbitration by agreement of parties to the suit. This reference, however, not having been by submission through the Court, the question is whether the award which deals with the subject-matter of the suit can be given effect to in the suit, and if so how. In Ghellabhai v. Nandubai I.L.R. 21 Bom. 335 it was considered by Farran, C.J., that a submission and award under such circumstances can on...
Queen-empress Vs. Ramasami
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-11-1900
Reported in: (1901)ILR24Mad321
Benson, J.1. The facts of the case are stated by the Sessions Judge in paragraph 4 of his letter of reference as follows:The facts of the present case seem to be these--Ramasami, the present accused, was originally charged by the Police with being one of a band of dacoits whose crime was committed on the night of 3rd February 1900 at Egattoor. He is said to have made a confessional statement to the Stationary Sub-Magistrate of Trivellore on the 15th -February 1900 (exhibit A). Pardon was tendered to him by the Stationary Sub-Magistrate under the District Magistrate's order (not sent to this Court, but vide Sub-Magistrate's proceedings, dated 15th March). Subsequently, on 7th March 1900 he was examined by the same Sub-Magistrate as fifth prosecution witness at a preliminary enquiry into the dacoity held. under chapter XVIII, Criminal Procedure Code. He then (vide exhibit B) retracted his former statement, protested that he knew nothing about the crime, and asserted that he had made the ...
immudipatian Thirugnana Kondama Naik and anr. Vs. Periya Dorasami and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-08-1900
Reported in: (1901)ILR24Mad377
1. The subject of this litigation is the impartible zamindari of Ayakudi, In the year 1882 Ovala was its owner. Transactions then took place by virtue of which Thirugnana, his nephew, claims to be owner. He, along with his minor son, is the substantial defendant below and now appellant. Afterwards in the year 1883 Periya, the plaintiff below and now respondent, was born to Ovala by his wife Angammal. He also claims to be owner by inheritance from his father who died in the year 18902. There are, in fact, two suits, Nos. 53 and 54 of 1895. But the only difference between them is that the bulk of the property which is comprised in one suit is subject to a mortgage which the plaintiff asks to redeem; and that a small portion of it, consisting of the palace the temple, and some endowments, comprised in the other suit, is not so subject. The question in both suits is the same, viz., what was the effect of the transactions in the year 1882? Other issues have been raised, but have not been ur...
Queen-empress Vs. Virasami
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-07-1900
Reported in: (1901)ILR24Mad319
1. We do not agree with the Deputy Magistrate that, because a thief cannot give a legal title in regard to a stamp stolen by him, he is incapable of committing an offence under Section 69 of the General Stamp Act or Section 34 of the Court Fees Act. The words of those sections are,--whoever 'sells or offers for sale' any stamp shall be punished, &c.;, unless be is a person who has been appointed by Government to sell stamps. We think there can be no doubt but that these words include the case of a thief who exchanges a stolen stamp for a sum of money. We, therefore, set aside the acquittal. The judgment of the Deputy Magistrate treats the offence as one under Section 69 of the General Stamp Act, but the appeal petition states that it is one under Section 34 of the Court Fees Act. The stamps are not on the record and we are unable to say against which Act the offence was, in fact, committed. We therefore do not ourselves pass sentence but direct the Deputy Magistrate to restore the case...
Queen Empress Vs. Lakshmanna and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-07-1900
Reported in: (1901)ILR24Mad318
1. The conviction under Section 24 of the Cattle Trespass Act can only be supported if the cattle were 'liable to be seized under this Act.' If the cattle were not 'liable to be seized' their rescue was no offence, and the fact that the rescuers had a special remedy under Section 20 does not affect the matter.2. The cattle were not liable to be seized in this case by the officers of the Public Works Department unless they were trespassing on public property in charge of the officers of the Public Works Department (Vide section II of the Act). Neither of the Magistrates has decided that the land on which the cattle were seized was public property and in charge of the Public Works Department. The conviction must be set aside and the case remanded for disposal by the Second-class Sheristadar Magistrate of Nuzvid according to law....
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›