Chennai Court July 1901 Judgments
Nityananda Gantayat Vs. Gajapati Vasudeva Devu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-31-1901
Reported in: (1901)11MLJ313
1. The order of the District Munsif of the 31st March 1896 neither granted nor refused the application for the mesne profits which had been adjudged to the plaintiff in the decree. The order is silent on the point. It is urged that as the prayer for mesne profits was not granted while the other prayer regarding the delivery of the land was dealt with and granted, it must be taken that the application for mesne profits was refused and so the matter is res judicata. We cannot accept this contention as the decree granting the mesne profits is still in full force and effect, and the plaintiff is entitled to execute that decree so long as it is kept alive and the decree cannot be superseded by the mere omission of the Court executing the decree to pass orders on a claim made under it. If such orders are not passed, there is nothing to prevent the petitioner applying for them again in due course. The law of res judicata as laid down in Explanation iii of Section 13 of the Code of Civil Proce...
Tag this Judgment!King-emperor Vs. Ayyan and Vellayappa Udayan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-30-1901
Reported in: (1901)ILR24Mad675
1. Certain witnesses made statements in a preliminary enquiry into a murder case before a Magistrate and contradicted these statements at the trial before the Sessions Court of South Arcot. The Sessions Court then sanctioned their prosecution for offences punishable under Section 193, Indian Penal Code, in that they had made contradictory statements, both on oath, one or other of which must necessarily be false. They were accordingly convicted by the Deputy Magistrate of an offence punishable under that section for having given false evidence by making statements, one or other of which must have been false. The Deputy Magistrate took no evidence to show which of the two statements was false and recorded no finding on that point. The accused appealed to the Sessions Court of South Arcot, and their appeals were transferred to the Sessions Judge of Chingleput who on hearing the appeals, came to the conclusion that the statements made by the appellant at the preliminary enquiry were probab...
Tag this Judgment!Nityananda Gantayet Vs. Gajapati Vasudeva Devu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-29-1901
Reported in: (1901)ILR24Mad681
1. The order of the District Munsif of the 31st March 1896 neither granted nor refused the application for mesne profits which had been adjudged the plaintiff in the decree. The order is silent on the paint. If. is urged that, as the prayer for mesne profits was not granted, while the other prayer regarding the. delivery of the land was dealt with and granted, it must be taken that the application for mesne profits was refused and so the matter is res judicata. We cannot accept this contention as the decree granting the mesne profits is still in full force and effect, and the plaintiff is entitled to execute that decree so long as it is kept alive, and the decree cannot be superseded by the mere omission of the Court executing the decree to pass orders on a claim made under it. If such orders are not passed there is nothing to prevent the petitioner applying for them again in due course. The law of res judicata as laid down in explanation III of Section 13 of the Code of Civil Procedur...
Tag this Judgment!Lakshmanan Chetti Vs. Kuttayan Chetti
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-26-1901
Reported in: (1901)ILR24Mad669
1. We consider it is not open to the defendant now to raise the objection that the application No. 524 of the 2nd July 1897 was barred. Ha had notice of that application and did not raise any objection to it. The Munsif thereupon ordered execution by ordering a warrant for the arrest of the defendant which warrant was duly issued. That was an adjudication upon the application and it was, moreover, acted on, and no appeal has been made in regard to it. It must therefore be held that the question whether the application No. 524 was barred is res judicata. To put the case in the language of their Lordships of the Privy Council, the Subordinate Judge had jurisdiction upon the petition of the 8th October 1874 to determine whether the decree was barred on the 8th October 1871, and he made an order that an attachment should issue. He whether right or wrong, must be considered to have determined that it was not barred Mungal Pershad Dichit v. Girija Kant Lahiri Chowdhury L.R. 8. IndAp 123.2. W...
Tag this Judgment!Appu Rao Vs. Ramakr1shna Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-26-1901
Reported in: (1901)ILR24Mad672
1. The original decree directed the execution of a muchalka by defendant, but gave plaintiff no costs. The Appellate Court decreed plaintiff's costs as wall. That decree for costs was fully executed in 1883. All that was left for execution of the decree was the execution of the muchalka by the appellant. The last application for that was made on the 21st December 1894 and this application, made on the 4th September 1899, nearly five years afterwards, was clearly barred. The applications made in 1895 and 1897 were for incidental costs in execution and were not applications for execution of the decree, or any part of it. The appeal is allowed and the petition for execution is dismissed with appellant's costs throughout....
Tag this Judgment!King-emperor Vs. Antakke
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-18-1901
Reported in: (1901)ILR24Mad662
1. The accused, who is a beggar woman and a widow, deposited her illegitimate child about three months old close by a channel some 200 yards from the house of one Kartha and went away to another village without informing any one of her movements, and evidently without any intention of returning to the child. The child was found by Kartha and was taken care of by him, but it was a sickly child previously and died after a few days. The evidence does not show whether the exposure caused, or contributed to, the death of the child.2. The Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that the accused intended that the child should be found and cared for by Kartha, as she left it near the spot when his household draw their water from the channel. The Sessions Judge therefore acquitted the accused of the offence with which she was charged under Section 317, Indian Penal Code, observing that that section 'must be interpreted on the principle expressed in the English Statute, and that, in order to be cr...
Tag this Judgment!Rangayya Goundan and anr. Vs. Nanjappa Rao and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-13-1901
Reported in: (1901)ILR24Mad491
Hobhouse, J.1. The respondents in this appeal, who were defendants in the Original suit, are a Hindu family of which Nanjappa is the manager. On the 23rd March 1891 they made a written agreement with the appellants, the plaintiffs below, to sell to them a coffee plantation, of which the defendants were owners subject to mortgages.2. The agreement is somewhat peculiar. The price is fixed at Rs. 77,500, of which Rs. 7,500 was paid down. The vendors guarantee a yield of 30 tons of coffee up to March 1892, and as security for that the purchasers are to retain Rs. 10,000 in their hands. The purchasers are to pay Rs. 25,000 to the mortgagee, leaving Rs. 10,000 due to him. The balance, being Rs. 35,000, is to be paid in cash between the 1st April and the 31st July 1891. Penalties are stipulated for non-performance of the agreement on either side. The following provision was made for the cultivation of the land: 'As the said estate will be in our possession till the '31st of July 1891, we are ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›