Chennai Court September 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.
Lakshmanan Chettiar Vs. Kannammal and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-28-1900
Reported in: (1901)ILR24Mad185
1. The execution was not complete as long as the purchaser had not secured possession, His application therefore may fairly be called an application to take a step-in-aid of execution Sariatoola Molla v. Raj Kumar Roy I.L.R. 27 Calc. 709. We must reverse the order and remand the case for disposal. The costs of this appeal will abide and follow the result....
In Re: Body Naika and Best and Co.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-27-1900
Reported in: (1900)10MLJ378
1. The principal question referred to us for decision is whether the instrument presented to the Collector comprises or relates to several distinct matters so as to be chargeable accordingly under Section 5 of the Indian Stamp Act, The instrument is not complete, inasmuch as only one land-holder is named, whereas the case shows, and it is admitted by counsel on behalf of Messrs, Best & Co., that the intention is to have it executed by several land-holders, each generally interested in the piece of land mentioned against his name in the schedule.2. This mere statement of the facts is almost sufficient to show that the instrument is chargeable with the aggregate amount of the duties with which separate instruments, relating to the same matters would be chargeable, for it is plain that agreements with two or more ryots not jointly interested in the same land for the purchase or lease of their lands, are distinct agreements which may give rise to different rights of action by or against th...
Krishna Reddi and ors. Vs. Subbamma
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-27-1900
Reported in: (1901)ILR24Mad136
1. The order of the Magistrate was in substance an order discharging the accused in respect of an alleged offence under Section 477, Indian Penal Code.2. If Section 209 of the Criminal Procedure Coda is to be construed as meaning that there can be no 'discharge' under that section in respect of an offence exclusively triable by a Court of Session in cages where it appears to the Magistrate that the accused should be tried before himself or some other Magistrate in respect of offences not so exclusively triable, there would be & deadlock, since there is no provision in the Code, other than that contained in Section 209, for dealing with a case where the Magistrate is of opinion that there is no evidence of an alleged offence which is triable exclusively by a Court of Session, but considers that the accused should be tried before himself, or some other Magistrate in respect of alleged offences which are not so exclusively triable. From the terms of the Magistrate's order it is clear that...
In Re: Reference Under Stamp Act, Section 57
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-27-1900
Reported in: (1901)ILR24Mad176
1. The principal question referred to U8 for. decision is whether the instrument presented to the Collector comprises or relates to several distinct matters so as to be chargeable accordingly under Section 5 of the Indian Stamp Act. The instrument; is not complete, inasmuch as only one landholder is named, whereas the case shows, and it is admitted by counsel on behalf of Messrs. Best & Co., that the intention is to have it executed by several landholders, each severally interested in the piece of land mentioned against his name in the schedule.2. This mere statement of the facts is almost sufficient to show that the instrument is chargeable with the aggregate amount of the duties with which separate instruments relating to the same matters would be chargeable, for it is plain that agreements which two or more raiyats not jointly interested in the same land for the purchase or lease of their lands are distinct agreements which may give rise to different rights of action by or against t...
Garu and ors. Vs. Pinna Patruni Chinna Somayya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-25-1900
Reported in: (1906)16MLJ557
ORDER1. The presumption that a Zemindary tenant has permanent occupancy right is in this case rebutted by the several muchilikas executed by the 1st defendant and his father from time to time for a period extending over ten years. In these muchilikas the tenant states he is bound to surrender the laud at the end of the year at the landlord's pleasure. The genuineness of these documents is, however, disputed. We must direct the Judge to find if they are genuine or not, and if they are genuine, whether there is any ground for holding that the tenant is not bound by the admission. The finding should be submitted on the evidence on record within one month from the date of the receipt of this order. Seven days will be allowed for filing objections after the finding has been posted up in this Court. If the muchilikas are found to be binding the question of notice will not arise as the agreement is to dispense with notices.2. The District Judge submitted the followingFinding : - My finding is...
Mahomed Karim Rowthan Vs. Abdulla and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-24-1900
Reported in: (1900)10MLJ347
Shephard, J.1. The appellant has become possessed by purchase of certain land comprised in the certificate granted to his vendor, who himself being plaintiff in a suit on a mortgage of 1884, bought that and other pieces of land at the sale in the execution of the decree. At the date of that suit there was a second mortgage, 'but the holder of that mortgage was not made a party.2. He accordingly brought a suit in 1895 making the appellant a party, and he obtained a decree authorizing among other things the sale of his land subject to the right of the appellant. In making the decree the District Judge practically refused to decide the questions arising between the appellant and the plaintiff in the suit. It was to the interest of both parties to have those questions decided, Yet there was no appeal. Now the property having been put up for sale and bought by the plaintiff, the question arises as between his heirs and the appellant, whether they are entitled to take possession, and I think...
Muhammad Usan Rowthan Vs. Abdulla and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-24-1900
Reported in: (1901)ILR24Mad171
Shephard, J.1. The appellant has become possessed by purchase of certain land comprised in the certificate granted to his -vendor who, himself being plaintiff in a suit on a mortgage of 1884, bought that and other pieces of land at the sale in execution of the decree. At the date of that suit there was a second mortgage, but the holder of that mortgage was not made a party.2. He accordingly brought a suit in 1895 making the appellant a party and he obtained a decree authorising among other things, the sale of this land subject to the right of the appellant. In making the decree, the Districts Judge practically refused to decide the questions arising between the appellant and the plaintiff in the suit, It was to the interest of both parties to have those questions decided, yet there was no appeal. Now, the property having been put up for sale and bought by the plaintiff, the question arises as between his heirs and the appellant whether they are entitled to take possession, and I think ...
Ebrahim Currim Vs. Essa Abba Sait
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-18-1900
Reported in: (1901)ILR24Mad163
Shephard, J.1. The question I have to determine is whether the allegation made by the defendant that the stag trade-mark used on umbrellas is the trade-mark of Mcintosh Ferguson & Co., who carry on business in Glasgow, is relevant by way of defence to this suit. For the purpose of the argument it must be taken that the stag mark was used by the Glasgow firm before it was used by the plaintiff in India and that it was never used by that firm in this country before the plaintiff had begun to use it in his trade, and on this assumption it is contended that since the trade-mark originally belonged to Mcintosh and Ferguson it cannot be lawfully used or claimed by the plaintiff notwithstanding that the Scotch firm have never used the mark in India, or imported umbrellas bearing it into this country. In my opinion this contention is not sound and the prior use in Scotland would not justify the Scotch firm and the defendant in saying that the plaintiff's user of the trade mark is illegal or ot...
Queen-empress Vs. Peelimuthu Tevan and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-14-1900
Reported in: (1901)ILR24Mad124
Moore, J.1. This is an appeal preferred by Government against the judgment of the Sessions Judge of Tinnevelly in Criminal Appeal No. 66 of 1899, setting aside the conviction of two men who had been sentenced by the Special Magistrate to rigorous imprisonment for eighteen months such for an offence under Section 144 of the Indian Penal Code. The reasons for the decision arrived at by the Sessions Judge are given by him briefly in the judgment above mentioned and at greater length in his judgments in Criminal Appeals Nos. 54 and 59 of 1899 which have been printed with the record in this case and referred to by the Government Pleader2. What the Magistrate has found as to the facts of this case is that the two persons convicted by him together with others, to the number in all of 100 or 150, assembled together armed with billhooks and sticks, and that they dispersed at once on seeing the police. From these facts he assumes that the intention of the members of the crowd was to use criminal...
Queen-empress Vs. Munda Shetti and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-13-1900
Reported in: (1901)ILR24Mad121
1. We agree with the Sessions Judge that the Tahsildar, when holding an enquiry as to whether transfer of the names in a land register should be made or not, was a Revenue Court. He was authorized under Act III of 1869 (Madras), to receive evidence and to decide whether transfer should be made or not. He was. therefore, in our opinion, a tribunal empowered to deal with a particular matter and authorised to receive evidence bearing on that matter in order to enable him to arrive at a determination; Raghoobuns Sahoy v. Kokil Singh I.L.R. 17 Calc. 872. It appears, however, that the second accused person alone was a party to the proceeding in the Tahsildar's Court in which the documents alleged to be forgeries were produced. The accused persona Nos. 1, 4 and 5 were not parties, and such being the case sanction in their case was not required under Section 195, Clause (c), of the Code of the Criminal Procedure. We accordingly sot aside the committal to the Court of Sessions in the case of th...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »