Chennai Court November 1908 Judgments
Emperor Vs. Madiga Nallavadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-18-1908
Reported in: 1Ind.Cas.207a
ORDER1. It the sanction of the High Court is desired under Section 339(3), there should be a motion on behalf of the Crown--vide Queen-Empress v. Manick Chandra Sarkar 24 C. 492. We, therefore, decline to do anything on the Sessions Judge's letter. The records will be returned....
Tag this Judgment!Valasubramania Pillai Vs. Ramanathan Chettiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-18-1908
Reported in: 2Ind.Cas.309
1. We are unable to adopt the view expressed by the learned Judge in paragraph 4 of his judgment that, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary a part-payment by one partner of a debt due by the line must be an act necessary for, or usually done in carrying on the business of the firm and is, therefore, binding on the other partners.2. As we read Section 21 of the Limitation Act i hero must be evidence of some fact over and above the fact, that the payment is made by a partner to show that the partner making the payment had authority to do so on behalf of other partner's before another partner can be held chargeable by reason of the payment. It seems to us that the observation of Scott, J. in Premji Ludha v. Dossa Doongersey Lowji Nanji 10 B.k 358 that in a going mercantitle concern, such agency is to be presumed as an ordinary rule, is merely a dictum and in our view it is necessary in order to take the case out of Section 21 of the Limitation Act to show something more than the...
Tag this Judgment!Jammalamadaku Subbalakshmamma and anr. Vs. Jammala Venkatarayadu and o ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-18-1908
Reported in: 2Ind.Cas.525a
1. The facts' which gave rise to this appeal are these: The plaintiffs brought a suit for specific performance of a contract of sale of land and for possession of the land. The District Munsif gave him a decree for specific performance but dismissed his claim for possession. This decree was affirmed by Subordinate Judge. The plaintiff then brought a fresh suit for possession. The Munsif held his claim was res judicata. The District Judge (Mr. Venugopala Chetty) held it was not and remanded the case for disposal on the merits. The defendant did not appeal against this order. The Munsif then gave a decree for possession. The defendant appealed against the decree. Mr. Venugopala Chetty had been succeeded as District Judge by Mr. Rice. Mr. Rice took the view that the plaintiff's claim for possession was res judicata. He held that the order of remand was wrong, allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit.2. We are unable to agree with the District Judge that it was open to him to review the o...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Abdul Kadir Saheb
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-17-1908
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.1107a
1. We have no doubt that the appellant has been rightly convicted under Section 19(c) and Section 20 of the Arms Act. As to the offence under Section 19(f), Section 29 of the Arms Act lays down that no proceeding shall he instituted against any person in respect of such an offence without the previous sanction of the District Magistrate. No such sanction was obtained till after commitment. Neither Section 532 nor Section 537, Criminal Procedure Code, can cure the omission. The conviction under Section 19(f) is, therefore, set aside. We reduce the sentence to six weeks' rigorous imprisonment....
Tag this Judgment!Arundava Ammal Vs. Gopala Krishna Pillai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-17-1908
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.1107
1. Muruga Pillai the 3rd defendant and the plaintiff's husband were members of one family--the plaintiff's husband being divided from the others. When the plaintiff's husband died, land which formed his separate property was in possession and enjoyment of Muruga Pillai and the 3rd defendant; his widow left it with them in consideration of their paying her periodically an allowance for maintenance. Subsequently Muruga Pillai and Saminadha Pillai divided all their property including that which had formerly belonged to the plaintiff's husband and Muruga Pillai undertook to satisfy the plaintiff's claim for maintenance while Saminadha Pillai the 3rd defendant was to pay another widow. The plaintiff consented to this arrangement. Muruga Pillai subsequently transferred his property to one Rajagopala Pillai a relative who is found by the Court of the first instance to have had notice of the plaintiff's claim for maintenance. No case of a collusive or fraudulent transfer was Set up in the plai...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Kither Khan and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-17-1908
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.1116
1. We have no doubt that the deceased died owing to injuries caused by the appellants. We think, however, that the offence amounts only to culpable homicide not amounting to murder. It seems clear that there was a fight between the deceased and the appellants, and that as the prosecution evidence itself shows, the deceased Struck the first blow. What the cause of the fight was we can only conjecture but there is no sufficient evidence to prove any motive sufficient to induce the appellants to deliberately murder the deceased. We think the appellants may properly be given the benefit of the fourth exception to Section 300, Indian Penal Code. We, therefore, acquit the appellants of murder and find them guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder. We sentence each of the appellants to seven years' rigorous imprisonment....
Tag this Judgment!Kullan Vs. Emperor
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-17-1908
Reported in: 2Ind.Cas.343
1. In this case a pardon was tendered to the appellant by the Committing Magistrate under the orders of the District Magistrate. The appellant was then examined as a witness before the Committing Magistrate and at the trial before the Sessions Judge when he retracted the evidence previously given by him in such a manner as to lead to the acquittal of some of the accused. Thereupon the District Magistrate under whose authority the pardon had been granted, acting apparently on the authority of Queen-Empress v. Ramasami 24 M.n 321 purported to withdraw the pardon and the appellant was subsequently tried and convicted of dacoity, the offence of which a pardon had been tendered. In the Sessions Court he appears to have pleaded his pardon, and to have relied mainly on the contention that the District Magistrate was not the person authorised to withdraw it. The learned Public Prosecutor has, however, on appeal, very rightly directed our attention to the Bombay decisions in King-Emperor v. Bal...
Tag this Judgment!Nana Tawker Vs. Ramachandra Tawker and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-17-1908
Reported in: 2Ind.Cas.519
1. The suit was for a declaration that the plaintiff alone was entitled to execute the decree in Original Suit No. 21 of 1901 on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court of Tanjore and that the plaintiff was entitled to succeed to items Nos. 2 to 5 of the plaint Schedule. The plaintiff also prayed for possession of item No. 2. The plaintiff and the 1st defendant are the sons of one Jagannatha Tawker, deceased and the 2nd defendant is their mother. The decree in Original Suit No. 20 of 1901 was obtained by Jagannatha Tawker against one Venketesa Bhat and in respect of it, Venketasa Bhat paid Rs. 8,000 into Court. The Subordinate Judge found that the plaintiff and his father Jagannatha Tawker were living together as an undivided family and that the 1st defendant was a divided member, that the sum of Rs. 3,000 deposited in Court was the self-acquisition of Jagannatha Tawker and that, therefere, the plaintiff and 1st defendant were jointly entitled to execute the decree in Original Suit N...
Tag this Judgment!R. Vaidyanath Aiyar and anr. Vs. G. Aiyasamy Aiyar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-16-1908
Reported in: 1Ind.Cas.408
1. The suit is one for partition. There were five brothers who were members of an undivided family. Defendants Nos. 3 to 14 are the descendants of the eldest brother, Sitarama Aiyar. Defendants Nos. 15 to 21 are the descendants of another brother, Srinivasa Aiyar. The third brother's name is Ramasami Aiyar. The plaintiff is the adopted son of the fourth brother, Gopala Aiyar. The 1st defendant was the youngest of the brothers. In the year 1874 Ramasami Aiyar obtained his share and divided from the rest of the family (Exhibit VI). In 1892 there was a partition amongst the other brothers of properties yielding between Rs. 30,000 and Rs. 40,000 a year. Gopala Iyer, the adoptive father of the plaintiff, continued to be the managing member on behalf of the family of the properties left undivided till his death in April 1893. Then the 1st defendant became the manager. Disputes arose in the course of his management and there was a reference to arbitration (See Exhibit C) in October 1893 of al...
Tag this Judgment!Sreeraja Venkata Narasimha Appa Row Bahadur Vs. Sree Rajah Malraju Lak ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-16-1908
Reported in: 2Ind.Cas.316
Sankaran Nair, J.1. This is an appeal from the judgment of the District Judge of Godavari holding that the village of. Repudi was held by the late Papamma Row as trustee for the plaintiff subject to the condition that she was to retain possession of it till her death and that the plaintiff, therefore, was entitled to possession on her death. The appeal is confined to the appellant's alleged one-third share in the property. Papamma Row was a childless widow in possession of the zemindaris of Nidadavole and Medur, yielding an annual income amounting to lakhs of rupees. The defendants are the reversioners who have been held entitled to succeed her of her death.2. The plaintiff's maternal grandmother was the sister of Papamma Row's husband. Her paternal grandmother was Papamma Row's sister. Her father is the 1st defendant, the son of Papamma Row's sister. Her mother, the 1st wife of the 1st defendant, having died when she was only 4 years old, Papamma Row brought her up as her own daughter...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »