Chennai Court March 1901 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. Gangayya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-13-1901
Reported in: (1901)ILR24Mad417
1. The Second-class Magistrate is entirely wrong in supposing that the 'wash' consisting of a liquid mixture of jaggery and babool bark is not 'materials' for the purpose of manufacturing liquor. The evidence of the Abkari officers on that point is clear and is not contradicted.2. The case to which the Second-class Magistrate refers (Weir's 'Criminal Rulings' page 417) in support of his view is totally irrelevant It was passed (as appears from the report itself) with reference to the language of Section 23A of Act III of 1864 as amended by Act V of 1879, which Acts were repealed by the present Act I of 1886, The former Acts were defective in not providing for the case of possession of 'materials' for distillation, but the defect was remedied by the present Act, and it was under the present Act that the charge was made.3. We set aside the acquittal and convict the accused (Gangireddi Gangayya) of an offence punishable under Section 55 (g) of Act I of 1886, and' sentence him to pay a fin...
Meenatchi Ammal and ors. Vs. Rajam Aiyar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-12-1901
Reported in: (1901)11MLJ335
1. It is argued that the 2nd item which was bought by 3rd defendant belonged to the widow as her stridhanam, and reliance is placed on the language used in Exhibit V. In our opinion the question as to the nature of the widow's estate cannot be decided with reference to the words used in the instrument of conveyance. It appears that she gave in exchange some property of her husband in which, whatever her impression may have been, she had only a widow's estate, receiving from her husband's brother, the plaintiff's father, the property now in question. The property taken by the plaintiff's father was taken by him absolutely. Assuming that the transaction was a proper one, binding the reversionary heirs, we think that as it is clear that they could not recover the property given up to the plaintiff's father, so the widow held the property taken by her as part of her widow's estate in which the reversioners had the rights which they would have had in the original property.2. It is then cont...
Muthusami Pillai Vs. Dorasami Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-12-1901
Reported in: (1901)11MLJ310
1. It was highly irregular on the part of the Subordinate Judge to allow Exhibit V to be used in evidence; no reasons are given for admitting it, and no evidence appears to have been taken.2. The document, however, is of no importance, because it does not contain the admission which it had been supposed to contain. It does not support the respondents' case. Apart from this document, we can find no evidence on which the finding of the Subordinate Judge on the 1st issue could be supported ; still less on which the finding in plaintiff's favour could be reversed.3. In the 4th and 5th paragraphs of his judgment various speculative observations are made by the Subordinate Judge, but no facts are referred to from which the inference in favour of self-acquisition could legally be drawn.4. There is no evidence that the sons consented to the gift. In the case reported in Raghunath Prasad v. Gobind Prasad I.L.R. 8 A. 76 the gift was for the benefit of the family idol, and so according to Hindu L...
Kannan and anr. Vs. Pazhaniandi and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-11-1901
Reported in: (1901)ILR24Mad438
1. We cannot agree with the Subordinate Judge that the word 'karnavans' in the plural in paragraph 3 of the razinamah, exhibit G, was intended to include the karnavans of the three branches. The heads of the three branches are nowhere in exhibit G referred to or recognised as karnavans. Throughout exhibit G only one karnavan is recognised, that is, the karnavan of the whole tarwad (the second defendant) and he is the only signatory who signs as karnavan. The word 'karnavans' in paragraph 3 evidently means the several karnavans of the tarwad in succession and this conclusion is supported by the fact that in their written statement the defendants did not contend that the heads of the branches had the right of appointment under paragraph 3.2. But we think that the Subordinate Judge is right in the second reason which he gives for dismissing the plaintiff's suit. The power of dismissal and appointment given to the karnavan in paragraph 3 of exhibit G is a special power given on the occurre...
Sellam Vs. Chinnammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-08-1901
Reported in: (1901)ILR24Mad441
1. It is clear that the burden lay on the defendants to prove that the plaintiff who was admittedly a tenant-in-common with them till March 1882, was excluded from enjoyment of the property. The only fact proved is that the plaintiff, living an immoral life with her paramour, refused to live with the defendants and thenceforward supported herself without recourse to the family property. It is impossible to hold that refusal or non-participation, on the part of the plaintiff, amounts to or is any proof of ouster or exclusion by the defendants. There is no other evidence to show that she abandoned her interest to the knowledge of the defendents.2. An attempt is made to support the decree of the Subordinate Judge by contending that a widow who has been guilty of adultery after her husband's death ought not to be allowed a partition of the property by metes and bound & inasmuch as presumably she would not use her share for the purposes for which property ought to be used by a widow. In our...
Muthayya Vs. Venkataratnam and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-05-1901
Reported in: (1902)ILR25Mad553
1. We think the decree of the District Judge is right. The document on which the plaintiff relies was really a petition for withdrawal and was stamped only as such.2. If it is to be relied upon as proof of his case by the plaintiff, it requires to be registered under Section 17 of the Registration Act. The second appeal is dismissed with costs....
Nagalingam Pillai Vs. Ramachandra Tevar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-04-1901
Reported in: (1901)11MLJ210
Shephard, J.1. Those are appeals against decrees made in several suits brought by the plaintiff to recover property alienated by or taken from his late father Kotasamy Tevar. One ground of the plaintiff's claim to recover property so alienated is that the property which is of various kinds was ancestral property in the hands of the plaintiff's father in which accordingly he acquired an interest on birth. The alienations complained of were made after the date of the plaintiff's birth. If the property, which was originally acquired by Kotasamy's father Ponnu-sami Tevar, devolved upon Kotasamy by inheritance, it was unquestionably ancestral property in the hands of the latter. In point of fact, Kotasamy being one of throe sons of Ponnusamy took his share of Ponnusamy's property under his father's wili, but it is argued that, notwithstanding this, the property was still ancestral property in Kotasarny's hands. Now, there can be no doubt that it was fully competent to Ponnusamy to deal as h...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›