Chennai Court January 1904 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.
Annakumaru Pillai Vs. Muthupayal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-12-1904
Reported in: (1904)14MLJ248
1. The Officiating Chief Justice,--The petitioner preferred against the accused a complaint of theft in that the latter had removed a quantity of chanks from a portion of the bed of the sea on the Coromandel Coast, it being alleged by the petitioner that he was entitled to them as one claiming under the Raja of Ramnad and that the right to all chanks to be found in certain specified localities on the Ramnad coast inclusive of the portion in question was, from time immemorial, vested exclusively in the holders of the Ramnad Zamindari. The Head Assistant Magistrate of Ramnad, after examining some only of the witnesses cited by the petitioner, dismissed the complaint on the analogy of decisions passed with reference to charges of theft of fishes in open waters.2. The questions which arise for determination in the present case are.1. (a). Whether live chanks not actually seized but remaining free in their natural habitat in the bed of the sea are the subject of property?(b). Whether a taki...
Chintalapudi Neelachalam Adu anr. Vs. Chintalapudi Kamarazu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-08-1904
Reported in: (1904)14MLJ438
1. The District Judge has given no finding upon the 1st issue and we must ask him to return a finding thereon. The determination of this issue also necessarily has an important bearing upon the question of adverse possession--M. Seshaya v. Gauramma 4 M.H.C.R. 336.2. Within the meaning of the Proviso to Section 21 of Act III of 1895 under which section this suit is brought, the plaintiff will be entitled to a decree if the lands were never granted as the emoluments of the office or if at the date when Act II of 1894 was extended to the office of Karnam in the estate in question, the emoluments did not appertain to the office by reason of the plaintiff having acquired (under Article 144 of the 2nd schedule and Section 28 of the Limitation Act) title to the lands by adverse pos-session prior to such date up to which date suits in respect of the office of Karnam and the emoluments thereof were cognizable by Civil Courts and governed by the ordinary law of limitation by reason of the last s...
Anantha Goundan and anr. Vs. King-emperor
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-07-1904
Reported in: (1905)15MLJ224
ORDER1. Though there was an irregularity in the charge in so far as it states that the defamation was of the complainant, the husband, and not of the wives, this is an error or irregularity in the charge which did not prejudice the accused or occasion a failure of justice. Having regard to explanation I to Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code, we think that the husband is a person aggrieved within the meaning of Section 198 of the Criminal Procedure Code in a case in which the imputation of unchastity is made and published in respect of his wife. Following the decision of this Court in Chellam Naidu v. Ramasami I.L.R. 14 M. 379 and of the High Court of Bombay in Chhotalal Lallubhai v. Nathabhai Bechar and Anr. I.L.R.25 B. 151 we dismiss the petition....
Sabapathi Mudali Vs. Kuppusami Mudali and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-07-1904
Reported in: (1905)15MLJ225
ORDER1. Though a revision petition against an order of acquittal is not as a general rule entertained, we are of opinion that in this case the petition should be entertained as it is very clear that the accused acted most arbitrarily in a high-handed and haughty manner towards the petitioner. The offence under Section 426 will probably not stand. But upon the evidence in the case which is not contradicted and upon the facts admitted or not denied the accused were both guilty under Section 504 and the first accused also under Section 342, and neither of them is a summons case. The acquittal under Section 253 (sic) Criminal Procedure Code is clearly illegal and the Second Class Magistrate's procedure and conduct in dealing with the case is anything but creditable. The petitioner was grossly insulted by the first accused the Station-master and his brother the second accused who, it appears, is not a Railway servant. He was wrongfully restrained or confined by the first accused for several...
Vidyapurna Thirtha Swami, Minor, by Next Friend Vyasacharya Vs. Vidyan ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-06-1904
Reported in: (1904)1MLJ105
S. Subrahmania Aiyar, Officiating C.J.1. The plaint mentioned mutts, Bhandarkare in South Canara and Bhimasetu in Mysore Territory, are two ancient mutts presided over by Swamis or ascetic heads of the Madhwa persuasion. The case of the plaintiff--a minor--is that the two mutts are dwandva or interdependent mutts, the Swami of each being entitled to appoint to the other, in the event of the Swami of either dying without having appointed and leaving a successor, or a vacancy otherwise occurring; that; he was appointed as the head of Bhandarkare Mutt by the present Swami of Bhimasetu Mutt on the death of one Vidyasamudra, who had been ordained and appointed by the 1st defendant the deceased Swami of Bhandarkare Mutt as his junior before he (the 1st defendant) became and was, on inquisition under Act XXXV of 1858, found to be a lunatic.2. The argument on the plaintiff's behalf in the appeal was that the 1st defendant as Swami was in the position of a trustee, that on his becoming a lunati...
Maria Susai Mudaliar Vs. the Secretary of State for India in Council
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-05-1904
Reported in: (1904)12MLJ350
1. The suit is by the present owner of ChockamT patti Mitta, one of the mittas which constituted the Chockampatti ( Zemindari. The Collector of the District has imposed certain water-cess on lands cultivated with second crop in the initta. These lands are irrigated from tanks, the primary source of supply to which through 2 channels is the Karuppanadi river which we understand is a jungle stream running, at the place where the channels take off, in Government land. For the purpose of these appeals the tanks Nos. 14 to 21 on the plan may be considered apart from the other two, Nos. 22 and 23. Tanks Nos. 14 to 21 receive thetr supply through the channel called Perunkal. The tanks Nos. 22 and 23 receive their supply through the channel called Papankal. The Subordinate Judge has granted the prayer of the plaintiff (1) as regards remission of water-cess charged in respect of tanks Nos. 14 to 21 and (2) as regards the injunction asked for in connection with these tanks so long as the second ...
V.E.N.K.R.M.A. Venkatachalam Chettiar Vs. 1. Gaurivallaba thevar, Mino ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-05-1904
Reported in: (1904)14MLJ162
S. Subrahmania Aiyar, O.C.J.1. The plaintiff's Inam village and the first defendant's Zamindari village are irrigated by a common tank. As found by both the lower courts, the surplus water of the tank has from time immemorial been discharged through a weir and the water thus discharged passes over some of the lands of both the parties and eventually escapes through a channel separating the two villages. It is further found that if the plaintiff puts up the bund which he proposes to construct in order to save from inundation the portion of his property hitherto affected by the flow of the surplus water, such bund would throw back upon the defendant's land more water than has customarily flowed on to his property and increase the damage to which he has been hitherto subject.2. In these circumstances there can be no doubt that the lower courts were right in refusing to grant the injunction prayed for by the plaintiff, to restrain the defendants from interfering with the erection of the pr...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›