Chennai Court February 1906 Judgments
Kikkara Appadu, Minor by His Mother and Guardian Papa Vs. Datti Kamayy ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-07-1906
Reported in: (1906)16MLJ474
1. Following the decision in Chintamallayya v. Thadi Ganjireddi I.L.R. 22(1896) M. 89, we must hold that the District Munsif had jurisdiction to determine as to the genuineness and validity of the award. We accordingly set aside the decree of the District Judge and direct him to retake the appeal on his file and dispose of it according to law. Costs in this Court will be provided for in his final decree....
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Chinnapayan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-07-1906
Reported in: (1906)ILR29Mad372
ORDERArnold White, C.J.1. There is no doubt that this case ought to have been tried as a warrant case and not as a summons case. If it had been tried as a warrant case, it would have been the duty of the Magistrate under Section 252 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to take such evidence as might be produced in support of the prosecution; and the accused could not have been called upon to plead until after a charge had been framed and read and explained to him (Section 255).2. The Magistrate appears to have convicted the accused under Section 243, on an admission made by the accused, without taking any evidence and without framing a formal charge. It seems to me this is something more than an irregularity, and that the accused may possibly have been prejudiced by the procedure adopted by the Magistrate.3. The conviction must be set aside. As the accused has served his term of sentence, there is no object in ordering a new trial....
Tag this Judgment!Patha Muthammal and ors. Vs. Esup Rowther and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-02-1906
Reported in: (1906)ILR29Mad365
1. The plaintiffs are the defendants Nos. 1 to 7 in Original Suit No. 43 of 1901, and this suit is based on a razinamah (exhibit A) presented to the District Munsif during the trial of that suit. The question that we have to decide is whether exhibit A required registration or not. The Subordinate Judge finds that registration was not necessary on the strength of the decision of the Privy Council in Pranal Anni v. Lakshmi Anni I.L.R. Mad. 508. As we, however, read that judgment it appears to us to lead to an opposite conclusion. The District Munsif, in Original Suit No. 43 of 1901, decided that certain items of laud were to be handed over to the plaintiff in that suit, and he states that he did this in accordance with the terms of the razinamah and inasmuch as his allotment to the plaintiff did not appear to be unfavourable to those of the parties to the suit who had not joined in the razinamah. As regards all other matters set out in the razinamah he gives no opinion, but simply recor...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›