Chennai Court May 1901 Judgments
King Emperor Vs. Takasi Nukayya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-03-1901
Reported in: (1901)ILR24Mad660
1. In Criminal Appeal No. 22,--The offence created by the Workman's Breach of Contract Act (XIII of 1859) is not the neglect or refusal of the workman to perform his contract, but the failure by the workman to comply with an order made by the Magistrate that the workman repay the money advanced' or perform the contract. In the present case, the complainant withdrew the case before the Magistrate had made any order Consequently, there bad been no offence under the Act and there-was nothing to acquit him of, It is not necessary for us to consider whether the Code of Criminal Procedure applies to offences under the Act. Here there was no offence and the Magistrate-was quite wrong in proceeding upon the assumption that the Code of Criminal Procedure applies and that it was his duty to 'acquit' under Section 248 of the Code. The order of the Magistrate in so far as it allows the complainant to withdraw the case will stand. In so far as it purports to acquit the defendant it must be set asid...
Tag this Judgment!Syed Ahmed and ors. Vs. Mussa Koya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-02-1901
Reported in: (1901)11MLJ227
Shephard, J.1. Now that we have had the document of the 27th August 1897 translated, I think that the appellants being the tangals are clearly entitled to the money which represents the share assigned to the mosque by Mahomed. By that document he gave the tangals power to collect his share of the estate of Kunhayan Koya. They would, I apprehend, have been entitled to demand from the Collector the whole of Mahomed's share in the particular fund and having collected it to keep a third for the mosque, In my opinion this is not a case to which the doctrine of musha can be applied, assuming that the doctrine is in force in this Presidency. I would reverse the award and remand the case for disposal according to law. The costs will abide the result.Benson, J.2. In this case one Kunhayan is said to have held a kanom usufructuary mortgage over certain land for Rs. 100. On Ms death his rights as kanomdar are said to have passed to his widow his half sister and his father's brother's son's son, M...
Tag this Judgment!Alabi Koya and anr. Vs. Mussa Koya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-02-1901
Reported in: (1901)ILR24Mad513
Shephard, J.1. Now that we have had the document of 27th August 1897 translated, I think that the appellants being the tangals are clearly entitled to the money which represents the share assigned to the mosque by Mammad. By that document he gave the tangals power to collect his share of the estate of Kunhayan Koya. They would, I apprehend, have been entitled to demand from the Collector the whole of Mammad's share in the particular fund, and having collected it to keep a third for the mosque. In my opinion this is not a case to which the doctrine of must can be applied, assuming that the doctrine is in force in this Presidency. I would reverse the award and remand the case for disposal according to law. Goats will be abide the result.Benson, J.2. In this case one Kunhayan is said to have held a kanom (usufructuary mortgage) over certain land for Rs. 100. On his death his rights as kanomdar are said to have passed to hits widow, his half-sister and his father's brother's son's son, Mam...
Tag this Judgment!Kachi Yuva Rangappa Kalakka Thola Udayar Vs. Kachi Kalyana Rangappa Ka ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-02-1901
Reported in: (1901)ILR24Mad562
1. The principal question in the case is whether the estate now known as the zamindari of Udayarpalayarn is the partible property of the plaintiff's family or is held as an impartible estate, The District Judge has found that the original palayam as it stood until the expulsion of the first defendant's ancestor in 1765 was, like other palayams in the Karnatic, an impartible estate. Having read the evidence discussed by him and heard arguments upon it, we are of opinion that the conclusion at which he has arrived is right, and that there can be no doubt that the palayam was up to 1765 held by one member of the family only, not being subject to the ordinary rule of Hindu Law.2. The question regarding which there is the chief contest is whether, in view of the circumstances in which the sanad was granted in 1817, the estate comprised in that sanad came to be held by the family on terms different from those on which the original palayam was enjoyed. The plaintiff's case is that the estate ...
Tag this Judgment!Kamal Kutti Vs. Ibrayi and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-02-1901
Reported in: (1901)ILR24Mad658
Benson, J.1. The defendants were, in the absence of proof of 'fraud, bound by the decree obtained against their karnavan who was sued as senior member and manager for the tarwad as found by this Court in Kamalakutti v. Bipathumma Appeal against Order No. 107 of 1898 (unreported), Vasudevan v. Sankaran I.L.R. 20 Mad. 129. If they are bound by the decree it is difficult to see on what principle they can be treated as strangers to the decree for the purposes of execution. If the decree can be executed against them does not this imply that they are parties or representatives of parties? I can see no reason why their claim should not be considered to have been dealt with under Section 244 of the Code of Civil Procedure as held by this Court in Kamalakutti v. Ibrayi Civil Revision Petition No. 421 of 1898 (unreported). To allow them to make a claim as strangers under Section 278 of the Code of Civil Procedure seems to be inconsistent with their being bound by the decree and with the policy o...
Tag this Judgment!King Emperor Vs. Tirumal Reddi and ors. and Subbi Reddi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-01-1901
Reported in: (1901)11MLJ241
1. On the preliminary point in referred trial No. 61 and the connected criminal appeals.Bhashyam Aiyangar, J.2. These are appeals in Sessions Case No 53 of 1900 before the Sessions Judge of Kurnool Division. The trial of the said case commenced on 23rd August 1900 and closed on 15th October 1900 when judgment was reserved. The judgment was given on 24th October 1900, and the first eight accused in the case were convicted of murder and the ninth of abetment of murder. The trial before the Court of Session was with the aid of two assessors, viz., Gundu Rao and P. Seshiah Chetti, hereinafter referred to as the first and second assessor respectively. The first assessor was allowed by the Judge to go to Gooty to the death-bed of his mother at 2 P.M. on the afternoon of 5th September 1900, and he was also absent on the 6th and 7th September, but the trial proceeded during his absence. There was no trial of the case on Saturday the 8th and Sunday the 9th idem, and it was adjourned to Monday t...
Tag this Judgment!King-emperor Vs. Tirumal Reddi and ors. and Subbi Reddi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-01-1901
Reported in: (1901)ILR24Mad523
Bhashyam Ayyangar, J.1. The first count against the first and second accused in Sessions Case No. 53 of 1900, as finally amended, runs to the following effect: 'That you the accused Nos. 1 and 2 on or about the 19th March 1899 entered into conspiracy with the ninth accused in the same case and one Subbi Reddi the accused in Sessions Case No. 1 of 1901 to murder the deceased Ranga Reddi and that in pursuance of that conspiracy Ranga Reddi was murdered on 11th June 1900 and that you first and second accused have thereby committed an offence punishable under Sections 302 and 109 of the Indian Penal Code.' The first part of the third count against the ninth accused in Sessions Case No. 53 of 1900 runs to the following effect: 'That you the ninth accused on or about 19th March 1899 entered into a conspiracy with the first and second accused in the same case and one Subbi Reddi, the accused in Sessions Case No. 1 of 1901, to murder Ranga Reddi in consequence of which the said Ranga Reddi was...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›