Chennai Court April 1902 Judgments
Abboo Chetty and anr. Vs. Kuppusami Chetty
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-30-1902
Reported in: (1902)12MLJ392
ORDER1. We cannot uphold the sanction given by the Magistrate. The Magistrate is mistaken in supposing that a sanction given under Section 195, Clause 3 of the Criminal Procedure Code, is a mere formal sanction and that it is not necessary for him before granting sanction to consider the evidence and decide as to whether there is a prima facie case and any reasonable chance of a conviction being obtained. In the present case, it is impossible to hold ' that there is a pirma facie case. The only evidence of any importance which, as far as can be seen, would be available against the present appellants of having abetted Chinniah Naidu in bringing a false charge of theft would be the statements of .Chinniah Naidu himself who it is shown after application had been made for sanction to prosecute him turned round and pleaded in a letter that all he had done was at the instigation of the present appellants. Since he wrote this letter although it is now almost four months after the date of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Sugappa, Minor, by His Next Friend and Guardian Chengalappa Vs. Govind ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-25-1902
Reported in: (1902)12MLJ351
1. As it is clear that the Judge in fact admitted in evidence Exhibit C, the objection made under Section 35 of the Stamp Act is of no avail. Section 36 is clear as to this. It is argued that the Judge intended to reject the document as is shown by paragraph 15 of his judgment; but even if such were his intention when we find that he has admitted it and made the endorsement required by Section 140 of the Civil Procedure Code and written no endorsement of rejection as required by Section 142 of the Civil Procedure Code, it is impossible to admit this argument. There is no bar by limitation. 'We are satisfied upon the evidence that the printed portion of Exhibit E7 was signed by all the defendants, and that document shows that before the debt became barred an extension of time was granted up to the 23rd December 1895 inclusive. The Court was closed on the 23rdDecember 1898, and the plaint was presented on the 26th December, the 1st subsequent day on which the Court was open. It was, ther...
Tag this Judgment!Sappani Asari Vs. the Collector of Coimbatore for the Secretary of Sta ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-25-1902
Reported in: (1902)12MLJ417
Moore, J.1. When the first title deed granted to the first defendant for the land to which this suit relates was issued by the Tahsildar (Exhibit T dated 8th September 1893), the rules in force with respect to the grant of house-sites were those embodied in the Proceedings of the Board of Revenue, No. 470, of the 15th August 1898. Under paragraph 9 of the standing order then in force, it was directed that when applications were received for house-sites within Municipal limits, the Municipality concerned should invariably be consulted before the applications were considered. The land in the present case is situated within the Erode Municipal limits and the Municipality was not consulted. The grant by the Tahsildar was therefore, in my opinion, rightly set aside as having been granted in violation of the orders then in force.2. It is urged that although the rules no doubt directed the Tahsildar to consult the Municipal Council before making the. grant, yet that it was open to him either ...
Tag this Judgment!The Secretary of State for India in Council Represented by the Collect ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-25-1902
Reported in: (1902)12MLJ453
Bhashyam Aiyangar, J.1. This is an appeal preferred on behalf of the Secretary of State for India in Council and the admitted facts of the case so far as they are material, are as follows:The land in question (Survey No. 159) lying in the non-mirasi village of Santavelur, in the Chingleput District (measuring 166 30 acres,) and assessed at Rs. 43-10-0, has been classed as 'assessed waste' in the Settlement Register. The respondent and one Srinivasulu Reddi, both being resident ryots of the said village, were the competing applicants before the Deputy Tahsildar of Satyavedu, in whose territorial jurisdiction the said village is situate, for obtaining the land, on the ordinary ryotwari tenure subject to the ' payment of the said assessment. The Deputy Tahsildar passed an order assigningtthe land to Srinivasulu Reddi in preference to the respondent. Against this, the respondent preferred an appeal to the Deputy Collector in charge of the Trivellore Division in which the. said village is c...
Tag this Judgment!Subba Naidu and anr. Vs. Badsha Sahib and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-25-1902
Reported in: (1903)13MLJ13
Arnold White, C.J.1. This is an appeal from an order of Mr. Justice Boddam by way of an interlocutory or temporary injunction. On the 9th of June 1896, the plaintiffs and the defendants entered into an agreement, of which the provisions which are material for the purposes of the question now before the Court are as follows:Paragraph 1 says, ' For the purpose of carrying on the said mica mining work the said firm shall advance to the said Ansur Subba Naidu, Mahomed Khyruddin Sahib and Madhina Kondappa Naidu to enable them to carry on the same the sum of Rs. 10,000 only without interest,'Paragraph 2 says, ' that for these considerations the defendants agree to deliver at the godowns of the plaintiffs at Madras all mica produced by the mines worked by them as aforesaid.'Paragraph 6 says, ' The defendants bind themselves to consign all mica produced by their mines worked by them to the plaintiffs upon the terms agreed to between the parties, and they bind themselves that they will not dire...
Tag this Judgment!Kadir Mohideen Marakkayar Vs. Muthukrishna Aiyar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-24-1902
Reported in: (1902)12MLJ368
1. Plaintiff, as the assignee of a mortgage executed, by 1st defendant's father Kadir Lavvai, brought O.S. No. 540 of 1894 against Kadir Lavvai to enforce the mortgage by-sale. During the pendency of the suit and before the passing of the decree Kadir Lavvai died and the name of his son, the 1st defendant, was on plaintiff's application entered on the record as legal representative in place of the deceased defendant under Section 368 of the Civil Procedure Code. Subsequently on the 20th December 1899, a decree was passed ex parte against the 1st defendant as legal representative of the deceased defendant directing the sale of the mortgaged property. Plaintiff purchased the property at the sale held on the 7th September 1897, in execution of the decree and the sale was confirmed on the 8th November 1897. After obtaining the usual certificate of sale which purported to convey to the plaintiff the whole of the mortgaged property, as it must be assumed, as that of the deceased defendant, t...
Tag this Judgment!Chakrapani Aiyangar Vs. the King Emperor
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-23-1902
Reported in: (1902)12MLJ408
ORDER1. We consider that this appeal lies under Section 15 of the Letters Patent, as it is impossible to hold that an order passed under Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with a view to a subsequent prosecution and trial for an offence is a sentence or order passed 'in a criminal trial.' We, therefore, proceed to hear the appeal.2. On the merits we consider that the sanction granted 'by the Sessions Judge ought to be revoked, as there is no evidence to prove the falsity of the appellant's statements except that of Srinivasaraghavachari, whose evidence was treated as untrustworthy by the Bench which heard the Referred Trial No. 72 of 1901, the members of which are also on this Bench. The Sessions Judge is in error in supposing that the evidence of the Village Magistrate contradicts that of the appellant. The appellant's statement is made with reference to a different occasion from that to which the Village Magistrate speaks, and, therefore; they are not contradictory of each...
Tag this Judgment!Jayanti Subbiah Vs. Mangamma
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-22-1902
Reported in: (1902)12MLJ270
Bhashyam Aiyangar, J.1. The appellant is the decree-holder in A.S. No. 16 of 1892, which he brought on a promissory note made by the deceased Naranappa against his widow and legal representative, the respondent. In execution of that decree he attached and became the purchaser of the house of the deceased Naranappa, in which the widow, the respondent, had been and was living at the time of the purchase. When he proceeded to obtain delivery of the house under Section 318 of the Civil Procedure Code, he was insisted under Section 334 by the respondent on the ground that she had a right of residence during her lifetime, and that she could not, therefore, be ejected from the residential portion of the house. The District Judge upheld her contention holding that Naranappa's liability under the pro-note was incurred by him only as a surety for certain debts owing by certain relations of his to the appellant, and that it was, therefore, not incurred for the benefit of the family consisting onl...
Tag this Judgment!Venkata Narasimha Naidu and anr. Vs. Bhashyakarlu Naidu and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-18-1902
Reported in: (1902)ILR25Mad367
1. This is an appeal against a judgment of the High Court at Madras which affirmed with some modifications a decree of the District Court of Kistna in that Presidency. The suit was brought to obtain a partition of the zamindari of Vallur and the moveable and immoveable property held therewith. The principal plaintiff is the younger brother of the principal defendant, the other parties being minor sons of the plaintiff and defendant, respectively, who were made parties for conformity.2. The property in question is of considerable amount, and the suit was hotly contested, many issues being raised to which it is unnecessary now to refer. The main contention in the District Court was that, whereas the principal plaintiff alleged that the parties were members of an undivided Hindu family, the principal defendant asserted that the zamindari was impartible by family custom, and that the junior members were only entitled to maintenance out of the family estate. But, after a certain amount of e...
Tag this Judgment!Mallikarjanudu Setti Vs. Lingamurti Pantulu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-17-1902
Reported in: (1902)12MLJ279
1. Following the opinion of the Full Bench vide Mallikarjanudu Setti v. Lingamurti Pantulu &c.; I.L.R. 25 M. 244 we hold that the provisions of Section 310A of the Civil Procedure Code are applicable to a sale of mortgaged property sold under a mortgage decree; but in the present case the applicant under Section 310-A. is a second mortgagee who was not made a party to the suit. This interest, therefore, could not have passed under the sale which he seeks to set aside under Section 310A, for his right to redeem the prior mortgage will continue notwithstanding the decree and the sale thereunder.2. We hold, therefore, that he is not a person whose immoveable property has been sold within the meaning of Section 310-A. He has, therefore, no locus standi to apply under that section.3. We set aside the order of the lower appellate Court and restore that of the District Munsif, but on the ground stated above. Bach party will bear his own costs throughout....
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »