Chennai Court March 1903 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.
Appayya Bhattar Vs. Vengu Bhatta and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-05-1903
Reported in: (1905)15MLJ211
1. Although the reasoning of the Court in Vayidinada v. Appu I.L.R.9 M. 44 and apparently the evidence (though this is not very clear) referred to the validity of the adoption of a daughter's or sister's son, yet the case actually before the Court was (as in the present case) that of a brother's daughter's son and the decision of the Court was that the adoption of such a person was valid by reason of the general custom prevalent in Southern India notwithstanding the texts of Hindu Law to the contrary.2. We must take it that the Court considered that if the adoption of a daughter's or a sister's son was valid, the adoption of a brother's daughter's son must be equally, or a fortiori, valid, as the relationship in the latter case was more remote than in the former.3. In the face of the direct decision of the Full Bench, as to the very question now in issue the decision in Minahshi v. Ramanada I.L.R. 11 M. 49 must be held to be inapplicable.4. We dismiss the second-appeal with costs....
Doraswami Pillai Vs. the King Emperor
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-03-1903
Reported in: (1903)13MLJ285
ORDER1. It is clear that the conviction of the accused in this case under Section 353, I.P.C. is illegal and cannot be upheld. It is impossible to regard the constable as engaged in the execution of his duty as a public servant when he entered upon the premises of the accused about midnight with another constable and stood knocking at the door of the accused's house to see if he was present. The fact that the accused is a person who is regarded by the police as a suspicious character (K. D.) and as one whose movements ought to be watched, does, not authorise the complainant to enter upon his premises or knock' at his door with a view to ascertaining whether he is present in his house or not. The police circular orders referred to by the Magistrate have not the force of law, but in justice to them; I may observe, that there is nothing whatever in any of them which warrants the course adopted by the complainant. It is perfectly lawful for officers of the Police to watch the movements of ...
Acting Sessions Judge Vs. Kalagara Bapiah
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-03-1903
Reported in: 7Ind.Cas.752
ORDERBhashyam Iyengar, J.1. The Acting Sessions Judge of Godavari makes this reference under Section 215 of the Criminal Procedure Code for quashing a commitment made to his Court by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Ellore under an order made by the High Court under Section 526, Clause (1)(iv), Criminal Procedure Code--the points of law urged by him for quashing the commitment being that the Local Government accorded the sanction under Section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code for the prosecution of the accused without giving him previous notice and that the sanction accorded does not specify with sufficient clearness the offence for which he is to be prosecuted.2. In my opinion, Section 215 of the Criminal Procedure Code, under which this reference has been made, is inapplicable to the case inasmuch as the commitment in question is not one made under any one of the four sections therein specified, but is one made under the direction of the High Court under Section 523(1)(iv). The cas...
Butchiraju and anr. Vs. Ramalingamurty and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-02-1903
Reported in: (1904)14MLJ337
1. We do not think that there was any mortgage of the land. By the contract'between the parties the property was to be enjoyed by the third defendant as absolute owner if the now deceased father of the 1st and 2nd defendants through whom the plaintiffs claim failed to pay the money by the 24th March 1887. Though the parties' agreed that no further sale-deed was necessary it may be that in order to comply with the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act a further sale deed should have been, executed after the 24th March 1887 in order to complet'eathe third defendant's title. It is not shown that at the date of the suit a right to obtain such an instrument has become bawed. However this may be, the suit being based, entirely On an alleged mortgage the suit must fail, as there is in fact no mortgage.2. We dismiss the second appeal with costs....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›