Chennai Court July 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.
Queen-empress Vs. South and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-25-1900
Reported in: (1901)ILR24Mad70
1. The Public Prosecutor withdraws the appeal as Benson against J. South and Solomon. The other two persons Mamilla Reddi and Rajendram were acquitted by the Stationary Sub-Magistrate of the offence alleged against them, viz., that they had disobeyed an order promulgated by Government under the Epidemic Diseases Act (III of 1897), The reason given by the Sub-Magistrate was that the prosecution required the previous sanction of the public servant concerned under Section 195, Criminal Procedure Code, which public servant he held to be the public servant who promulgated the order.2. The only sanction given for the prosecution was that of the Chairman of the Municipality in which the order was broken and the Sub-Magistrate held that the Chairman was not the public servant who promulgated the order and had not shown that he was specially empowered to give the sanction. The Joint Magistrate subsequently acquitted these persons on the ground that they had been already acquitted by the Sub-Mag...
Orr and ors. Vs. Mrithyunjaya Gurukkal and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-24-1900
Reported in: (1901)ILR24Mad65
1. The learned District Judge has rightly referred to Ramanadhan v. Zamindar of Ramnad I.L.R. 16 Mad. 407 as containing the law which governs this case, but we are unable to agree with him that the building of a number of tiled dwelling houses, admittedly not for agricultural purposes, on tope land, does not alter the character of the holding, It is clear from a reference to the pattas that, in both the oases before us, the rent or varam payable by the defendants to the plaintiffs is liable to vary according to the use made of the land whether for growing fruit-trees or crops of grain. If the land or part of it is covered with permanent houses it is clear that it so far ceases to be land fit for planting trees or growing other crops, and the plaintiffs' prospect of receiving enhanced rent or varam is destroyed. It is no answer to say that there are still as many trees as there ever were on the land. That is because the laud has not hitherto been fully utilized as a tope, but the defend...
Bangaru Aiyar and anr. Vs. Siva Subrahmania Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-20-1900
Reported in: (1900)10MLJ397
1. The temple committee is a legal entity appointed under a statute. No provision is made in that statute for a majority suing on behalf of the wnole, and we are not aware of any case in which it has been held they can do so The suit was therefore rightly dismissed. The second appeal is dismissed with costs....
Narasinga Bakshi and anr. Vs. Govinda Bakshi and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-18-1900
Reported in: (1900)10MLJ355
1. The question is whether an appeal lies against an order passed in regard to compensation under Section 491, Civil Procedure Code. At first sight it would appear that the order would be appealable as a decree, inasmuch as the award forms part of the decree under the express direction of the section, and the order is not one of those enumerated in Section 588, Civil Procedure Code. We observe, however, that the terms of the parallel Section 497, Civil Procedure Code, are precisely similar to those of Section 491, and Section 588, Clause 24 provides for an appeal against an order under that Section (497). The inference is that there would be no appeal but for this provision, and as there is no similar provision for Section 491, we must conclude that the Legislature did not intend to allow an appeals against an order passed under this section.2. Both these second appeals must, therefore, be dismissed with costs....
Narasinga Bhakshi and anr. Vs. Govinda Bhakshi and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-18-1900
Reported in: (1901)ILR24Mad62
1. The question is whether an appeal lies against an order passed in regard to compensation under Section 491, Civil Procedure Code. At first sight it would appear that the order would be appealable as a decree, inasmuch as the award forma part of the decree under the express direction of the section and the order is not one of those enumerated in Section 588, Civil Procedure Code. We observe, however, that the terms of the parallel Section 497, Civil Procedure Code, are precisely similar to those of Section 491, and Section 588 (Clause 24) provides for an appeal against an order under that Section (497). The inference is that there would be no appeal but for this provision and as there is no similar provision for Section 491, we must conclude that the Legislature did not intend to allow an appeal against an order passed under this section. The second appeal must therefore to dismissed with costs....
Raja Yarlagadda Mallikarjuna Prasada Nayadu Vs. Raja Yarlagadda Durga ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-11-1900
Reported in: (1901)ILR24Mad147
Henry Devilliers, J.1. These are appeals and cross-appeals against a decision of the High Court of Madras which modified a decision of the District Court of Kistna. Two separate suits for maintenance had been brought in the lower Court against the zamindar of Challapalli by his two younger brothers, respectively; but all the proceedings in the two cases were identical and the observations of their Lordships upon the one case will be equally applicable to the other.2. The appellant, the defendant in the lower Court, is the eldest son of Anakinidi, late zamindar of Challapalli, who died on the 6th of April 1875, leaving three sons, viz., the defendant and the two plaintiffs. Not long after their father's death quarrels arose between the brothers, and in April 1880 one of the younger brothers brought an action for partition against the present appellant in the District Court of Kistna, That Court decided that the zamindari estate was impartible, but awarded to the then plaintiff one-third...
Thiruthipalli Raman Menon and ors. Vs. Variangattil Palisseri Raman Me ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-07-1900
Reported in: (1901)ILR24Mad73
1. The question raised by this appeal is whether the elder of two brothers who were the two surviving members of their tarwad and the elder of whom was its karnavan was entitled to adopt four persons so as to make them members of the tarwad without the consent of the younger brother. The younger brother, after the death of the elder, sued to set aside the adoption. The adoption was declared valid by the Court of First Instance, but this decision was reversed by the High Court of Madras. The persons adopted have appealed from this decision to Her Majesty in Council.2. The younger brother has died since the action was commenced, and has left a will and the real controversy between the parties is to whom the property of the tarwad belongs. This controversy, however, is not now before their Lordships for adjudication. The only question before them is whether the High Court of Madras was right in deciding the adoption to be invalid.3. The litigation is between Nayars in South Malabar and ha...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›