Chennai Court September 1905 Judgments
Emperor Vs. Chellan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-25-1905
Reported in: (1905)ILR29Mad91
S. Subrahmania Ayyar, Offg. C.J.1. The ordinary dictionary meaning of the word 'opinion,' in law is 'the formal decision of a Judge, an umpire, a councillor or other party officially called upon to consider and decide upon a difficulty or dispute.' The term, so far as we are aware, is not used to denote the reasons for the decisions themselves and we see nothing in the language of Clause 3 of Section 307 of the Criminal Procedure Code, to take the word 'opinions' in it to mean other than respective conclusions of, the jury and the Judge. The use of the word 'opinions' in the clause in preference to the term verdict was probably owing to the conclusions of the jury in the circumstances lacking the effect which would attach to it if there were no difference between the jury and. the Judge in the matter. The first paragraph of Section 307 itself is practically conclusive in favour of this view, as there, 'opinion' is used in contradistinction to the 'ground' for such opinion. Section 305 ...
Tag this Judgment!ismal Rowther and ors. Vs. Shunmugavelu Nadan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-25-1905
Reported in: (1906)ILR29Mad149
ORDER1. One of the offences for which the petitioners have been convicted is punishable under Section 188, Indian Penal Code.2. No sanction from the Police officers obstructed was produced in the course of the prosecution but no objection on this ground was taken on behalf of the petitioners at the trial. Mr. Norton has called our attention to Raj Chunder Mozumdar v. Gour Chunder Moumdar I.L.R. Calc. 176 in support of his contention that the want of sanation was fatal to the prosecution of the prisoners on the charge in respect of the offence referred to. We are unable to agree with the view there taken by the learned Judges as to the construction of Section 537, Criminal Procedure Code of 1832, which so far as the question of want of sanotion is concerned is identical with Section 537 of the present Code (Act V of 1893). Their construction virtually nullifies the provision that want of sanction is merely an irregularity which would not justify the reversal of the decision in a case pr...
Tag this Judgment!Kakarla Abbayya Vs. Raja Suraneni Venkata Papayya Rao Bahadur Zamindar ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-22-1905
Reported in: (1906)16MLJ8
1. The principles with reference to the rights of a tenant holding on a permanent tenure lands in Zemindaries have been elaborately considered in. Narayana Ayyangar v. R.G. Orr I.L.R(1902) .M. 252 which was decided after this case was disposed of in the lower Court. The previous decisions of this Court in Appa Rau v. Ratnam I.L.R(1889) M. 249 and in Appa Rau v. Narasanna I.L.R(1891) M. 49 relied on by the Acting District Judge are referred to and explained in the above recent decision. According to it a ryot holding land in a Zemindari on a permanent tenure would, as regards land on which money assessment is paid, be prima facie entitled to the trees therein exclusively. In regard to lands as to which the sharing of crops between the Zemindar and ryot prevails, the Zemindar and the ryot would be jointly interested in the trees standing thereon; but presumptions to the above effect are liable to be rebutted by proof of usage or contract to the contrary. In the present case, the Zemindar...
Tag this Judgment!Kameswaramma Vs. Sitaramanuja Charlu and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-14-1905
Reported in: (1906)ILR29Mad177
1. We are clear that the information given to Sitharamanuja Chari that the title-deeds were deposited with Kameswaramma 'as security towards the debt of the note for Rs. 350 executed and given on the 11th September 1897 in favour of Kameswaramma' was sufficient to put him on enquiry as to why the deeds were not with the mortgagor and he must be held to have had constructive notice of the agreement to give Kameswaramma a mortgage of the lands. In accordance with the principles embodied in Section 40 of the Transfer of Property Act and Section 91. of the Indian Trusts Act Sitharamanuja's mortgage interest must be postponed to that of Kameswaramma.2. We set aside the decrees of the Courts below in Original Suit No. 410 of 1901 and direct that Kameswaramma have the usual mortgage decree with costs throughout, and in Original Suit No. 31 of 1902 that the decree in favour of Sitharamanuja be subject to the mortgage amount due to Kameswaramma as found in Original Suit No. 410 of 1901. Kameswa...
Tag this Judgment!Arayalprath Kunhi Pocker and ors. Vs. Kanthilath Ahmad Kuti Haji and o ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-13-1905
Reported in: (1906)ILR29Mad62
1. In this case the appellants did not press the appeal in respect of the properties found by the lower Court to be separate properties of the second and third defendants, apart from exhibits A and FF. The question is thus limited to the share alleged to have passed to the second defendant under exhibit A, and to the share alleged to have passed to the third defendant under exhibit FF. If the effect of those documents was not to transfer validly to the respective transferees the share intended to be transferred to them, the appeal so far must succeed. Both the documents rotate to property hold by the parties thereto and others as joint property governed by Marumakkatayam Law. No doubt it is competent to the owners of such property to divide the same by mutual consent though no suit for compelling a partition will lie. On analogy therefore it would be competent to such joint owners to allow any one or more of themselves to take any portion of the joint property as his or their separate ...
Tag this Judgment!Kachayi Kuttiali Haji and ors. Vs. Udumpumthala Kunhi Putha and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-12-1905
Reported in: (1906)ILR29Mad58
1. The plaintiffs and the first defendant are Mahomedans following the Marumakkatayam system of law in South Canara. Many years ago when their tarwad was about to become extinct, the then surviving male member Kunhammad adopted two females Kunhamma and Beiyathumma. The former of these died, leaving only a son Kutti Ammad. The said Beiyathumma having no issue adopted into the family the first defendant the daughter of a natural sister of hers and the first plaintiff, younger than the first defendant, the daughter of the first defendant's sister the second and third plaintiffs are the minor children of the first defendant whose ages are stated to be 13 and 10 years respectively, represented by their next friend the natural brother of the first defendant. Kutti Ammad, who became the senior member of the tarwad after Beiyathumma, died in September 1891. Before his death he had executed throe bonds, one for Rs. 8,000 on the 28th January 1891 to one Vythan Kutti, another for Rs. 4,000 on the...
Tag this Judgment!Chowakaran Makki and ors. Vs. Vayyaprath Kunhi Kutti All and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-12-1905
Reported in: (1906)ILR29Mad173
1. The question here is with reference to the compensation which formed the subject of decision in a previous proceeding under the Land Acquisition Act held on a reference made by the Collector owing to disputes between the persons entitled to receive it. It was then held that the compensation was payable to the forward represented by the respondents. That decision is as held by the District Judge binding on the parties here as they were all parties thereto. That an adjudication as to the right of persons claiming the compensation in accordance with the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act (X of 1870) concluded the question between the same parties was decided by the judicial committee. There is nothing in the provisions of the present Land Acquisition Act (I of 1894) to warrant its being held differently in regard to similar adjudications made under the Act. The case Mahadevi v. Neelamani I.L.R Mad. 269 is perfectly consistent with this view inasmuch as the question there was not wi...
Tag this Judgment!The Collector of Chingleput for the Secretary of State for India Vs. S ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-12-1905
Reported in: (1906)ILR29Mad181
1. The District Judge is in error in saying that the plaintiff is entitled to compensation under Section 18 of Madras Act IV of 1889. That section has no application to a case like the present in which the license has been cancelled under Section 27 of the Act. In such case, the licensee is only entitled under Section 16(a) to the value of the proprietary right in the land, and in calculating such value the value of the land as a site for salt manufacture is not to be taken into account. The Commissioner is to value the proprietary right at his discretion, and, if the valuation is not accepted, the licensee may resort to the Court for the determination of the amount.2. In the present case the Commissioner fixed Rs. 2, as the value. The licensee does not accept it. The District Munsif is a Court of competent jurisdiction and has the matter before him in execution of the decree. He should therefore proceed to determine the proper value of the proprietary right on such evidence as may be ...
Tag this Judgment!C. Srinivasa Row Sahib and ors. Vs. Yemunabhai Ammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-08-1905
Reported in: (1906)16MLJ50
1. The 1st and 2nd respondents hereinafter referred to as respondents were prior mortgagees of the property ordered to be sold by the Lower Court.2. In the plaint in the case, the plaintiffs stated that they were subsequent mortgagees, that the respondents were impleaded as they held a prior mortgage and expressly prayed inter alia that in default of payment of the money due to them under their mortgage, the mortgaged property should be sold subject to the prior mortgage. The appellants who were the other defendants in the case being mortgagors or persons claiming through them also admitted in their written statement the prior mortgage in favour of the respondents. There was thus no matter in dispute 'either between the plaintiffs in the suit and the respondents or between the latter and their co-defendants. In this state of things the Court in giving the decree for sale in favour of the plaintiffs made no reservation therein in respect of the respondent's prior mortgage. It was argued...
Tag this Judgment!Tadepalli Subba Rao Vs. Nawab Sayed Mir Gulam Allikhan of Banganapalli
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-08-1905
Reported in: (1906)ILR29Mad69
1. The plaintiff, the endorsee of a promissory note executed by the defendant, sues for the money due thereon. The defendant is a foreigner whose place of domicile is Banganapalli, one of the protected native territories in this Presidency, and at the time of the suit the defendant resided there. The execution of the note was also in the same place. But the note in terms provides that the amount thereof was to be paid at Masulipatam. The Subordinate Judge of Masulipatam dismissed the suit on the ground that he had no jurisdiction to entertain it.2. The decree, it seems to me, cannot be sustained. In Annamalai Chetty v. Murugesa Chetty I.L.R. 26 Mad. 544 at. P. 552 it is laid down that the case of Girdhar Damodhar v. Kassiar Hiragar I.L.R. 17 Bom. 662 was correctly decided. The ground for that case being upheld by the Judicial Committee, was that the came of action had arisen in Bombay, as will be seen from the following passage in the judgment of Lord Lindley:Their Lordships see no rea...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »