Chennai Court October 1908 Judgments
D'Cruz and Ors. Vs. D'Silva and Ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-15-1908
Reported in: 1Ind.Cas.995
Arnold White, C.J.1. In this case the plaintiffs sue as subscribers to a society known as the Society of St. Vincent de'Paul St. Francis Conference, on behalf of themselves and all other persons interested in the subject-matter of the suit. They ask in their plaint (1) that the defendants may be removed from their respective offices in the St. Vincent de'Paul St. Francis Conference at Cochin, and (2) that they may be ordered to render an account of the affairs of the society for the time daring which they wore in office.2. In their written statement the defendants allege that the society is a voluntary society whose primary object is the spiritual well-being of its members, and that only, secondarily, it has a charitable object, as ministering to such spiritual welfare; that the society is governed by a written constitution and by the directions issued by the general council in Paris; that the first plaintiff has been a subscriber of the sum of two annas monthly from 1893 till December...
Tag this Judgment!Venkata Subba Reddi and anr. Vs. Ayyalu Reddi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-14-1908
Reported in: 3Ind.Cas.488
Munro, J.1. In this case certain persons were accused of theft and discharged by a Sub-Magistrate. The Sessions Judge on revision held that on the evidence the accused persons should not have been discharged. He, therefore, set aside the order of discharge and directed further inquiry. It is contended before us that the Sessions Judge had no jurisdiction to set aside the order of discharge on the ground of misappreciation of evidence, and that on the merits the order of discharge should not have been interfered with.2. The powers of a Sessions Judge in such a case are defined in Sections 435 and 437 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Under Section 435 a Sessions Judge may cull for and examine the record of any proceeding before any inferior Criminal Court situate within the local limits of his jurisdiction for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order. Section 437 provides that, on examining any record under Section 43...
Tag this Judgment!S.A. Subrahmanta Aiyar and ors. Vs. Savitri Ammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-13-1908
Reported in: 3Ind.Cas.321
Sankaran Nair, J.1. The original plaintiff in the suit, Aiyasami Iyer sued his brothers the 1st and 2nd defendants, the 3rd defendant, adopted son of the deceased brother and certain others for partition. He died in the course of the suit and his widow claiming to prosecute the suit as his representative has been made the 2nd plaintiff. The important question for decision is whether Aiyasami was divided from the other members of the family. If undivided his interest will lapse to the defendants by survivorship as he left no son.2. In an agreement between the plaintiff and his co-parceners dated the 5th September 1901 reciting that owing to disagreement they 'have become separated from this date Aiyasami Iyer one of us being alone the other three being together,' they made certain arrangements with the family property. To their mother and sister, the 4th and 5th defendants in the present suit, they allotted certain properties in schedules D and E attached to Exs. A and B. They set apart...
Tag this Judgment!Gutta Venkatasubbanna Vs. Raja Vengoti Govinda Krishna Yachandrulu Var ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-13-1908
Reported in: 3Ind.Cas.610
1. The first question is whether Clause 4 of the pattah Ex. A includes mango trees. The clause runs thus: You have no connection whatever with the palmyrads, dates, babul and other (Vagaira) trees standing on the said lands.' We think it may be reasonably doubted whether fruit trees, like mango trees, can be properly said to fall within this clause. The term vagaira 'should, we think, be understood to indicate other trees of the same class as those previously specified and those are not generally looked upon as fruit trees. Support is given to the view by Ex. I, a, pattah granted to the defendant-appellant in Fasli 1301. There Clause 4 runs thus: 'You have no connection whatever with the palmyrad, date, babul, vagaira trees standing on the said lands. You can enjoy only the mango trees which you have hitherto planted.' We find, therefore, that mango trees are not included in Clause 4 of the pattah and a clause will be inserted in the pattah to the effect that the defendant is entitled ...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Madappa Kone
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-13-1908
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.1127
1. We are of opinion that the conviction cannot be sustained. As point ed out by the Sessions Judge, the motive suggested for the crime is most inadequate. On the other hand there are reasons why Madappa Kone may have been falsely accused.2. The throat of the deceased was apparently cut as he lay asleep by a single sweep of the knife after which the murderer fled. We do not believe that the Prosecution 1st witness could have seen the murderer so as to identify him. The moon cannot have given much light as it only rose at 2 A.M. We think it is equally probable that the deceased was unaware who his assailant really was. We agree with the first assessor that the alleged statement of the deceased to the village Munsif Ex. B. is most suspicious. The Curnam who recorded it was not examined. Prosecution witnesses Nos. 2 and 3, though they signed it did not hear what the deceased said. Both are relations of the Prosecution 1st witness. Several persons assembled when the crime was first discove...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Raja Bommadavara Venkata Narasimha Nayudu Bahadur Zamindar Garu Vs ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-13-1908
Reported in: 2Ind.Cas.614
1. The question for decision in these second appeals is what rent is to be paid on lands cultivated with wet crops. The plaintiff-appellant in the pattahs tendered for fasli 1314) demanded asara or varam rates in respect of such lands. The defendants contended that they were only bound to pay the money rents fixed on the lands in fasli 1292.2. The admitted facts are these:Till fasli 1283 the asara system was in force. In fasli 1284 money rents were introduced and the rates of such rents were permanently fixed in fasli 1292. At the time all the lands were dry ; wet cultivation began in fasli 1314 and the pattahs now in dispute were then tendered, as the tenants refused to pay more than the fixed rates in 1292 which they had previously been paying for lands as dry. Nothing had been done by plaintiff to provide facilities for irrigation. In the muchilikas executed by the tenant for fasli prior to faslies 1314 there are clauses to the effect that the plaintiff may make an extra charge if w...
Tag this Judgment!Sekharan Nair and ors. Vs. Kongot Eacharan Nair and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-09-1908
Reported in: 3Ind.Cas.459
1. The suit is to redeem a kanorn. The District Nunsif dismissed the suit, but the Subordinate Judge on appeal gave the plaintiff a decree for redemption on payment of the kanowi amount and a certain sum for value of improvements. Against this decree certain of the defendants have filed the present second appeal, and in their appeal memorandum they question the plaintiff's right to redeem and also contend that if it is held that the plaintiff is entitled to redeem, he can only do so on payment of a larger sum for improvements than that fixed by the Subordinate Judge. The extra amount claimed for improvements is not given in the memorandum of appeal, and Court-fee has been paid on the kanom amount only. The preliminary objection is taken on behalf of the plaintiff-respondent, that the extra amount claimed for improvements should be stated and that Court-fee should be paid on that amount also.2. The Court-fee payable on a document of any of the kinds specified in the first or second sche...
Tag this Judgment!Sundara Sastrial Vs. Govinda Mandaroyan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-08-1908
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.619
1. The dispute relates to the possession of a boundary wall on which the rafters of both the adjoining houses rest. The District Munsif decreed for the plaintiff declaring his title to the wall and the strips of land in continuation thereof. The Subordinate Judge modified the decree by declaring the joint title of the plaintiff and the defendant to the suit property. We have no doubt that the decision of the Subordinate Judge is based on an erroneous view of the law.2. The two properties of the plaintiff and defendant, respectively, belonged formerly to a single owner who alienated the eastern portion in 1868 to the plaintiff's predecessor-in-title under Ex.--C and the western portion to the defendant's predecessor-in-title in 1871. Ex.--C shows that the plaint wall was expressly conveyed under it along with the eastern house. The mere fact that subsequent documents under which the eastern house was transferred do not expressly mention the suit wall cannot be taken as any indication of...
Tag this Judgment!Karri Venkatareddi Vs. Kollu Narasayya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-08-1908
Reported in: 1Ind.Cas.384
1. The parties to the suit out of which this appeal has arisen carried on business in partnership as contractors for the execution of earthworks and similar works for the Madras Railway Company under a registered deed of partnership dated the 1st December 1901. Under the partnership article the plaintiff Karri Venkatareddi, who is now the appellant, was to supply the funds for carrying out any work that might be undertaken, and it was the duty of the respondent Kollu Narasayya to supervise and manage all such undertakings. The latter, as the active partner, would, in the first instance, receive all moneys payable to the partnership and it is provided in paragraph. 4 of the deed that whatever cheques and cash were received by him were to be immediately made over to the plaintiff, and in the case of cheques after they had been duly endorsed by the defendant to the plaintiff. Under no circumstances were such cheques and sums of money to be withheld from the plaintiff, and the defendant wa...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: HussaIn Beg
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-02-1908
Reported in: 3Ind.Cas.612
ORDER1. We are of opinion that cases under Section 565 (4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure should be dealt with under the first part of Section 176 of the Indian Penal Code. We are fortified in this opinion by the ruling in Panatulla v. Queen-Empress 15 C. 386 in which it was held that the aggravated penalty constituted by the second Clause of Section 177 of Indian Penal Code can only be inflicted when the information required to be given relates to the commission of some particular offence and not of offences generally. The words for the purpose of preventing the commission of an offence' in Section 176 of the Indian Penal Code should, we think, be construed in the same way. The information required to be given under Section 565 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Code cannot be said to be required for the purpose of preventing the commission of any particular offence though it may be required for the purpose of preventing the commission of offences generally....
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »