Chennai Court February 1901 Judgments
Queen-empress Vs. Dorasami Ayyar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-15-1901
Reported in: (1901)ILR24Mad414
1. We are unable to accede to the contention that Section 288 of the Criminal Procedure Code permits the production of the evidence given before the committing Magistrate only for the purpose of contradicting the witness at the Sessions trial. If that were all, the provision would he quite unnecessary and superfluous inasmuch as such evidence could be adduced for the purpose stated under the Evidence Act. There can be no doubt the provision was intended to enable the Court to read the previous evidence as substantive evidence in the case at the trial where, for the purposes of justice, the adoption of such a course is found necessary by the Judge. Such evidence may be used as much in favour of the defence as in support of the prosecution. In this case we think the Judge was well advised in adopting the course he took. The evidence of the first prosecution witness, even as it was given at the trial, is, in our opinion, sufficient to warrant the conviction of both prisoners. There never ...
Tag this Judgment!Mallikarjuna Sastri Vs. Narasimha Rao
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-15-1901
Reported in: (1901)ILR24Mad412
1. Section 57 of the Transfer of Property Act does. not apply to this case, as it involves a question of the adjustment of a decree out of Court.2. The decree of this Court is not a decree for payment of money, but an ordinary mortgage decree for sale in case the money due is not paid.3. That being so, Section 258, Code of Civil Procedure, is not applicable compare Sankaran Nambiar v. Kanara Kurup I.L.R. 22 Mad. 182. The respondent was therefore not precluded by limitation under Article 173A of the second schedule of the Limitation Act from proving the agreement set up by him under Section 244, Clause (c) of the Code of Civil Procedure.4. There being no doubt as to the agreement, the appeal fails and is dismissed with costs....
Tag this Judgment!John MartIn Sequeira Vs. Luja Bai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-14-1901
Reported in: (1902)ILR25Mad671
1. As the petitioner was not 'a party to the proceeding in the Court' in the case in which the alleged forged will was produced, no sanction for his prosecution was required. Therefore the Judge was not competent to entertain the application for sanction. Even if he had been, he should have named the person against whom the prosecution was to be directed, as there was no doubt about who that person was. Clause (4) of Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure obviously applies only to cases where, at the time of granting sanction, the offender is uncertain or unknown.2. The sanction in this case must therefore be revoked....
Tag this Judgment!Krishnaswamy Pannikondar Vs. Muthukrishna Pannikondar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-12-1901
Reported in: (1901)11MLJ78
Arnold White, C.J.1. This is a petition under Section 622 of the Code of Civil Procedure, praying the High Court to revise the order of the District Judge of Tanjore made under Act XIX of 1841 appointing a curator of the properties of the Zemindari of Sillathur pending the determination of a summary enquiry into the right to possession of the properties.2. On 11th September 1900 one Muthukrishna Pannikondar presented a petition in the District Court under Act XIX of 1841 alleging that he was entitled to succeed as heir to the properties of the deceased Zemindar of Sillathur, that one Krishnasawmi Pannikondar had taken wrongful possession thereof, and asking the Court to inquire into the right of possession of the said Zemindari properties and deliver possession thereof to the petitioner, and in the meanwhile to appoint a curator to make an inventory of the said properties and take charge of the same.3. The Judge made no inquiry into the facts alleged in the petition.4. On September 21 ...
Tag this Judgment!Krishnasami Pannikondar Vs. Muthukrishna Pannikondar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-12-1901
Reported in: (1901)ILR24Mad364
Shephard, J.1. The matter of this petition having been referred to me under Section 575 of the Code of Civil Procedure, I have to decide whether or not in my judgment the prayer of the petition should be allowed. The question was argued before me on lines which do not seem wholly to accord with those on which it was discussed by the learned Judges who referred the matter. Before them, two contentions only appear to have been made. On the one hand it was argued that the Act of 1841 created a special jurisdiction and that, accordingly, the principle enunciated in Nusserwanjee Pestonjee v. Meer Mynoodeen Khan Wullud Meer Sudroodeen Khan Bahadoor 6 M.I.A. 134 should be applied, On the other hand it was argued that the procedure prescribed in Section 8 of the Act was intended by itself to be sufficient and that the report of the Collector was, in the cases to which the section applies, to be regarded as a substitute for the evidence directed to be taken in other cases.2. In regard to the fo...
Tag this Judgment!Kadala Reddi and anr. Vs. Narisi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-12-1901
Reported in: (1901)ILR24Mad504
1. The effect of the Judge's ruling is to deny justice to persona who may be entitled to sue the lunatic, but who, not being relatives, are unable to get the lunatic adjudged to be such under the Act XXXV of 1858. This difficulty does not appear to have been present to the mind of the Court in the case of Narayana v. Krishna I.L.R. 8 Mad. 214 where it was assumed that any suitor could obtain an adjudication in lunacy as a matter of course, although it had been pointed out in the case quoted by the Judge Subaya v. Buthaya I.L.R. 6 Mad. 380 that only certain specified persons could move in the matter. In the absence then of any provision in the Code of Civil Procedure for the case of persons of unsound mind who have not been adjudged to be so under the Act, we must adopt the rule which prevails in English Courts and provide for the protection of the lunatic defendant by the appointment of a proper guardian ad litem, the right of suit against the lunatic being unquestionable. A similar co...
Tag this Judgment!Kutti Umma Vs. Madhava Menon and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-08-1901
Reported in: (1901)11MLJ186
1. Under the mortgage itself the plaintiff is not entitled to any interest. There is no covenant to pay it. It is only the principal which he can claim on the footing of that instrument. Any other claim must rest on the Verumpattam chit. In terms that document implies nothing more than a lease for one year with the addition of a clause giving if he lessor a charge for the rent. It is rent only which the lessor cam recover tinder that document. The question then is whether on the 7th August 1899 the lessor was in a position to claim the arrears of rent accruing since the 20th November 1887 when the document was executed. Except as regards the three years preceding the former date, the suit must be barred by limitation unless it can be shown that there was a charge so as to make Article 132 of the schedule to the Indian Limitation Act apply or that there was a registered contract so as to make Article 116 apply. Plainly there was no contract in writing registered to pay more than one yea...
Tag this Judgment!Narasimha Chariar Vs. Muthukumarasamy Mudaliar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-07-1901
Reported in: (1901)11MLJ236
1. We are of opinion that the decree of the acting District Judge is right.2. The plaintiff by his conduct led the Committee to infer that he had misappropriated the temple jewels. The question is not whether or not he did, in fact, misappropriate the jewels, but whether the Committee were justified in dismissing him. He has no one to blame but himself. If he had acted, as he at first promised, and shown the jewels, the matter would have gone no further, but, instead of doing so, he first treats the Committee with contempt by not appearing in accordance with his promise. He next attempts to escape from his undertaking by pretending he it too ill to come and half an hour afterwards comes and then, instead of producing the jewels or pointing out where they are, declines to do so for reasons which are at the best childish. This amply justified the course taken by the Committee in dismissing him.3. The fact that the Committee believed other charges to be well-founded though the acting Dist...
Tag this Judgment!Charles Bentinck Barclay and anr. Vs. Robert Stanes and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-06-1901
Reported in: (1901)11MLJ188
1. We are of opinion that the order of the District Judge is not v decree within the meaning of Section 2 of the Civil Procedure Code, and is not executable as such. The order does not direct payment by anybody. It is hardly conceivable that the District Judge can have intended to make the new trustees personally liable. The defendants raise by their written statement in the suits, among others, the main questions between the parties (though they are not clearly raised in the issues), namely, whether the plaintiffs are entitled to anything until they have accounted for all sums that have come to their hands in the course of their trusteeship, and whether they have so accounted or whether at the date of the order of the District Judge (the 6th December 1897) the defendants in the suits or the beneficiaries were entitled to demand any further account from the plaintiffs and can demand such accounts. We must, therefore, allow the appeals, reverse the decrees of the District Judge, and rem...
Tag this Judgment!Butchanna Vs. Varahalu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-05-1901
Reported in: (1901)ILR24Mad408
1. The District Judge is in error in considering that it is not open to a mortgagor seeking redemption to assert that the mortgage has been paid off, but that if it be found by the Court that anything is due under the mortgage he is prepared to pay it, Such an alternative case is not opposed to any rule of pleading and there is really no inconsistency. As to Section 60 of the Transfer of Property Act we are unable to agree with the contention of the respondents' Vakil that the non-tender or non-payment of the amount due upon a mortgage previous to suit is a bar to a suit 'for redemption. It would be impracticable to make such a tender or payment in cases where there was a dispute as to the amount payable or where an account had to be taken, or where the parties seeking to redeem are other than the mortgagor. (Section 91 of the Transfer of Property Act), Consequently, in practice the objection has never been allowed. Other provisions of the Transfer of Property Act relating to redemptio...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »