Chennai Court November 1908 Judgments
Pedda Obi and anr. Vs. Chinna Reddi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-16-1908
Reported in: 2Ind.Cas.618
1. The District Judge finds that Exhibit A (the conveyance to the plaintiff's family) is a valid document although part of the consideration purports to have been paid was not in fact paid. We take this to be a finding that the conveyance to the plaintiff's family was a real and not a sham transaction.2. Mr. Krishnaswami Iyer sought to argue that the conveyance was in fraud of creditors and voidable under Section 53 of the Transfer of Property Act. This point was not taken in the Court of first instance and found against. It was not taken in the grounds of appeal to the lower appellate Court and there is nothing in the judgment of the District Judge--as we read it--to suggest that it was argued in the lower appellate Court. It is not open to the appellant to raise it before us in second appeal. The second appeal is dismissed with costs....
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Pattambi Moideen and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-13-1908
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.616
ORDER1. The petitioners have been convicted of an offence under Section 448, Indian Penal Code, which is not an offence of which breach of the peace is a necessary ingredient. The words of Section 106, Criminal Procedure Code, under which the order binding down the petitioners has been made are or other offences involving a breach of the peace' In Muthiah Chetty v. Emperor 29 M. 190; 3 Cr. L.J. 461 which is the decision of a Division Bench of this Court by which I am bound, these words have been construed to mean that the accused against whom an order like this is sought to be passed must have been convicted of an offence into which breach of the peace necessarily enters as a constituting element.2. This case has been followed by the learned Chief Justice in Cr. R.C. No. 168 of 1906. On the other hand, Stevens and Harrington JJ., in the case of Tarini Charan Mundle v. Gourikant Biswas 7 C.W.N. 25 seem to be of opinion that even if the conviction be under a section of which breach of th...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Venketaramiah and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-13-1908
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.1117
ORDERAbdur Rahim, J.1. There can be no doubt that the facts found, namely that the accused took away the boat licenses from the boatmen with the result that the authorities did not permit the boat to proceed further up the channel, do not constitute an offence of wrongful restraint or confinement. Here the act of the accused did not cause the restraint though it led to the boat being detained by other persons. What Section 339, Indian Penal Code, contemplates is that there must be obstruction attributable directly to the person charged, and the legislature apparently did not intend to include within the scope of the section an act which in its remote and indirect consequence might obstruct the free movement of a person.2. The conviction and sentence must be set aside and, the fine if paid be refunded....
Tag this Judgment!Adaikalammai Vs. Raman
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-13-1908
Reported in: 1Ind.Cas.751
Munro, J.1. I am of opinion that Exhibit A is not a false document within the meaning of Section 464 of the Indian Penal Code. The document must fall, if at all, within the first clause of the section. That clause lays down that a person makes a false document who dishonestly or fraudulently signs a document with the intention of causing it to be believed that the document was signed by a person by whom he knows it was not signed. In the present case the accused had no intention by describing himself in the document as the son of Veerana Kudumban to cause it to be believed that the document was executed by anybody other than himself. His intention was to assert or to support his claim to be the adopted son of Veerana.2. I would, therefore, dismiss the revision petition.3. As my learned brother has taken a different view, the case will have to be laid before another Judge under Sections 439 and 429 of the Criminal Procedure Code.Pinhey, J.4. The Sessions Judge of Tinnevelly acquitted Ra...
Tag this Judgment!Varadaya Shetti Vs. Tyampa Shetti and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-13-1908
Reported in: 2Ind.Cas.315
1. The finding is that the plaintiff has boon in. enjoyment of the right for at least forty years, which the Judge says may be called immemorial right. We think that he means to find that enjoyment must be referred to a legal origin. It is, therefore, unnecessary for the plaintiff to rely on Section 15 of the Indian Easements Act. The decree of the Subordinate Judge must be set aside and that of the District Munsif restored with costs here and in the lower appellate Court....
Tag this Judgment!T. Sami Aiyangar Vs. V. Srinivasa Aiyangar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-11-1908
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.618
1. In the deed of partnership itself there is no term expressly fixed for the duration of partnership, but the Subordinate Judge has held that as the deed contained a stipulation that after the plaintiff's death his nephew should act in his stead, the parties must be considered to have agreed to carry on the partnership during the life-time of the plaintiff, and that, therefore, the partnership was entered into for a fixed term under the Indian Contract Act. We are unable to agree with the lower Court. In Cox v. Willoughby (1880) 13 Ch. D. 863; 49 L.J. Ch. 237; 28 W.R. 503; 42 L.T. 125 it was held that a provision that on the decease of one of the partners the surviving partner should pay his executors a certain sum of money is inconsistent with a partnership at will. Similarly in Cuffe v. Murtagh 17 Ir. L.R. 411 it was decided that a provision that it should be competent to a partner to nominate and appoint any male person to take his share in the partnership at his decease and that e...
Tag this Judgment!M.N. Venkatasan Chetty Vs. K. Ethirajammah
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-11-1908
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.1117a
1. We agree with Wallis J., that the question of the claim of K. Ethirajamah, who is the mother of the father of the minor, to be appointed guardian of the person of the minor is not res judicata by reason of Boddam, J.'s order of February 18th 1908. We see no reason for not accepting the statement of. Mr. Balakrisna Chetty in his affidavit dated July 27th 1908, that, Boddam, J., referred Ethirajamah to a fresh petition for the guardian of the person of the minor.2. Mr. Rangachariar has contended that under the Hindu Law Varadarajulu Naidoo who is willing to be appointed guardian of the person and who is a paternal grand-uncle of the minor is entitled to be appointed in priority to Ethirajamah. Assuming that the paternal grand-uncle has a preference over the father's mother, this is not the only consideration by which the Court has to be guided in considering the question of the appointment of a guardian. The Court has a discretion to appoint a person other than the party, who, on the ...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Sadayan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-11-1908
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.1126
ORDER1. So far as we can see it would appear that in this case the application to withdraw the charge of murder not having been made by the Public Prosecutor, or if made, should not have been sanctioned by the Court, but the section says, that when the Public Prosecutor withdraws and the Court approves, of it the accused shall be acquitted and neither the Public Prosecutor nor the Judge is called on to give any reasons for his action, and this Court has no means of ascertaining what the reasons were. It appears to us that under the circumstances which here happened the accused has a statutory right to an acquittal with which we have no power to interfere. We have been referred to Crl. Rev. Case No. 274 of 1907, in which this Court on revision set aside a similar order but the order does not show the authority under which the Court acted and we are unable to agree with the decision.2. Certain questions were asked him by the Sessions Judge, the answers to which appear to amount to confes...
Tag this Judgment!Nallor Kothathian Vs. Ganapathi Sethurayan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-10-1908
Reported in: 2Ind.Cas.488
Miller, J.1. The plaintiff sued to recover money advanced by him on mortgage to the defendant's father, on the ground that he had been ousted from the possession of the land mortgaged, possession to which he was entitled under his mortgage. He had previously sued in O.S. No. 59 of 1903 on the file of the District Munsif to recover possession of the land but had failed, the Courts finding that he had never obtained possession, and apparently that the then 1st defendant, Velu Sethurayan, was entitled to possession as against him.2. In the present suit the defendant's guardian pleaded that the defendant was not liable to repay the money because the plaintiff had held possession of the land for seven years before he was ousted, i.e., up to 1902. She also pleaded that the suit was barred by limitation, having been instituted more than 3 years after the date of dispossession. This appears to have been the ground of her plea of limitation, though it is new (sic)t out in the Written statement....
Tag this Judgment!Palaniandy Pillai Vs. Arunachellum Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-09-1908
Reported in: 3Ind.Cas.387
ORDERMiller, J. 1. In this case the Village Magistrate is alleged to have fabricated a record of a Criminal case according to the complainant there was no such case and the whole record is evolved from the malicious imagination of the Village Magistrate who desired, to provide evidence for use in the future. The question is whether Section 197 of the Code applies so that, he cannot be prosecuted without the sanction, required by that section. This will be so if he is accused as a Judge but not otherwise. The Regulation XI of 1816 does not require the Magistrate trying a case to make any record, and no doubt it was not in tended that he should do so, what is required is that the Karnam shall maintain a register of persons confined by order of the Village Magistrate. The Village Magistrate was not, therefore, bound to make a record as a Judge' and it seems to me that the Magistrate is right in holding that he was not acting as a Judge when he made it if he did make it. The case of Impera...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »