Chennai Court February 1908 Judgments
Rangasawmi Chetty and 2 ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-28-1908
Reported in: (1908)18MLJ330
Wallis, J.1. An accused person cannot in a criminal trial waive the benefit of the legal provisions regulating the trial. There has clearly been a misjoinder of charges, the conviction must be set aside, and the fines if levied, must be refunded....
Tag this Judgment!Kalavagunta Venkata Kristnayya and ors. and Vs. Kalavagunta Lakshmi Na ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-27-1908
Reported in: (1908)18MLJ403
Arnold White, Kt., C.J.1. The question which has been referred to us is 'Is a contract to make a' payment to a father in consideration of his giving his daughter in marriage to be regarded as immoral or opposed to public policy within the meaning of Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act?'2. I am of opinion that our answer to this question should be in the affirmative.3. I should have had little hesitation in coming to this conclusion had it not been for the fact that in Vaithyanathan v. Ganga razu I.L.R. (1889) M. 83 in which the judgment was delivered by Sir Muthuswamy Aiyar, the learned Judges would appear to have approved of the decision in an earlier case, Visvanathan v. Saminathan I.L.R. (1893) M. 9, in which a contract to make a payment to a father in consideration of his giving his daughter in marriage, the marriage having taken place in the Asura form, was held to be enforceable. There can be no doubt that the contract which was held to be contrary to public policy in Vaithyana...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Sankara Pillai Alias Sankaranarayana Pillay
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-26-1908
Reported in: (1908)18MLJ197
1. It appears from the explanation given and also from the diary that the case was adjourned for judgment on the 5th August. Afterwards, and before the judgment was written, an application was made to call another witness for the defence. No order was made upon that application and the judgment was written on the 14th. The Magistrate, before it was delivered, left, and another Magistrate was appointed in his place who read out his predecessor's judgment and sentence and signed and dated it in open court on the 19th August. It is contended that this is illegal and that, inasmuch as the judgment and sentence were not delivered in open court by the Magistrate who heard the case and wrote the judgment, the accused should have been retried.2. We are of opinion that the course adopted was not illegal or improper and that, under Section 367 of the Criminal Procedure Code, it is not necessary that the presiding officer of the court who wrote the judgment should be the same person as the presid...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Rajah Venkata Narasimha Appa Row Bahadur Vs. Shree Rajah Suranani ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-26-1908
Reported in: (1908)18MLJ420
1. For the decision of this appeal we have to consider a portion of the will of Rajah Suraneni Jagannatha Lakshma Row, Zeminder of Mailvaram who died on the 31st July 1859. We assume for the purpose of this judgment that the will is genuine, a point which is in dispute.2. The important portion is the paragraph numbered I in the translation. It runs as follows:We have no male issue; as a suitable boy could t not be found among the Jnaties no adoption has been made till now. If our wife Lakshmidevamma Rao, finds a suitable boy among our Jnaties she shall make our adoption according to her will and in accordance with the law. If no boy is found and if our daughter Venkata Chinnaya has a son that boy becomes ('or will become') a dauhitra karta ('daughter's son, heir') according to the law (Dharmasastras): so that bay alone should become the karta for the entire property belonging to us. According to the law the kartaship rests in our wife: so our funeral rites as well as the acts to be don...
Tag this Judgment!Rajah Venkata Narasimha Appa Rao Bahadur Vs. Rajah Surnani Venkata Pur ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-26-1908
Reported in: (1908)18MLJ409
1. In this case the plaintiffs sued to recover possession of certain moveable property which was in the possession of Venkata Chinnaya Rao at the time of her death in 1902 and also of a house built by her and of the Darmakartaship of a certain temple which was under her management at the time of her death, and which then passed into the possession of her husband who is the defendant. The Subordinate Judge dismissed the suit as regards themoveable property, which he held was Chinnaya Rao's absolute property, and which, therefore, passed to her husband on her death. The other property he decreed to the plaintiffs. Against that decree the defendant appeals. The plaintiffs filed a memorandum of objections as regards the moveable property, but it was not moved before us.2. The relationship of the parties and of various members of the family is shewn below: Rajah Lakshmi Rayanam Garu. |___________________________________________________________________________| | | Venkatapathi Rao Ramachend...
Tag this Judgment!Aiyathurai Ravuthan Vs. San. Muhamad Meera Ravuthan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-25-1908
Reported in: (1908)18MLJ238
Wallis, J.1. In this case as pointed out in the judgment of the learned Chief Justice the transferee of a mortgage has brought a suit for sale against the mortgagor and has joined therewith a claim against his transferor the original mortgagee for damages in case it should appear that any portion of the mortgage debt had been discharged by the mortgagor before the date of the transfer and so not be recoverable in the present suit from the mortgagor. The question is, is such a joinder of defendants and causes of action permissible, and this again appears to me to depend on the question whether the decision against allowing such a joinder in Muthappa Chetty v. Muthu Palani Chetty I.L.R. (1903) M 80 or the contrary decision in Meyappa Chetty v. Peirannan Chetti I.L.R. (1905) M. 50 should be followed. The decision in Muthappa Chetty v. Muthu Palani Chetty I.L.R. (1903) M. 80 proceeded upon the authority of English cases, and the chief question in my opinion is, are these cases applicable?2...
Tag this Judgment!Krishnier and ors. Vs. Lakshmiammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-25-1908
Reported in: (1908)18MLJ275
1. This is a suit by the plaintiffs as reversioners for a declaration that certain alienations are invalid, so far as they are concerned, after the death of their mother.2. Ananthakrishnaiyar was the last full owner of the property. He died some 45 years ago, leaving a widow Tayamal and two daughters Tailamal and Lachmi. Tayamal gave a house and certain of the lauds to the 3rd defendant and certain other land to the 2nd defendant, these being, respectively, the sons of her daughters Tailamal and Lachmi. This was in 1867. Tayamal died about 1870, and Tailamal died in 1901. Lachmi is still alive. She is the mother of the 2nd defendant and of the plaintiffs.3. The plaintiffs are the younger brothers of the 2nd defendant, and their suit is for a declaration that the alienations made by Tayamal in 1867 are invalid as against them after the death of their mother Lachmi. Lachmi is the first defendant; her eldest son is the 2nd defendant. Tayamal's son is the 3rd defendant; and the alienees fr...
Tag this Judgment!Acchabba Beori and ors. Vs. King Emperor
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-24-1908
Reported in: (1908)18MLJ250
1. We think a new trial must be ordered in this case on the ground of misperception of evidence and misdirection. The Sessions Judge allowed the 17th prosecution witness to give hearsay evidence as to the guilt of the 4th accused and also recorded alleged confessions by accused Nos. 4 and 12 made when they were in the custody of the police. The Sessions Judge also misdirected the jury, in our opinion, in telling them that confessions to the Police if followed by the production of stolen property were admissible, whereas he should have pointed out that such confessions are only admissible in so far as they relate distinctly to the fact thereby discovered.2. Evidence of such confessions should not be allowed to be given or recorded to any greater extent, nor when such evidence as is properly admissible has been recorded, should the jury afterwards be told generally that the prisoners had confessed, as has been done in this case.3. Further the Sessions Judge did not warn the jury to take ...
Tag this Judgment!Murugappa Asari Vs. Santhiammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-19-1908
Reported in: (1908)18MLJ198
1. The respondent does not appear. The decision which is relied on as operating as res judicata, itself provides that the present plaintiff shall be at liberty to sue for the recovery of the land in question after the issue of the sale-certificate. The decree is quite irregular in form, but having regard to this special provision, we do not think it operates as res judicata.2. The decrees of the lower Courts must be set aside and the suit remanded to the Court of First Instance for disposal according to the law.3. Costs hitherto incurred will abide the event....
Tag this Judgment!Bahubalendrani Guruvaraju Vs. Bahubalendrani Chandrasakara Raju by Gua ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-19-1908
Reported in: (1908)18MLJ252
1. It is urged that there is no appeal in this case under Section 19 of the Succession Certificate Act from the order of the Agent to the Governor at Vizagapatam, as it is contended that the Agent is not a District Court and the decision in Chakrapani v. Varahalamma I.L.R. (1894) M. p. 227 is referred to. Mr. Thiruvenkata Chariar has, however, very properly called our attention to the definition of District Judge in the General Clauses Act, 1868, which was in force in 1880 when the Succession Certificate Act was passed.2. In Section 2(12) 'District Judge' is denned as the Judge of a Principal Civil Court of Original Jurisdiction.3. We think under Section 3 of the Act XXIV of 1839 and Rule X, Clause 4, of the Rules framed pursuant to that Act, the Agent is the Judge of the Principal Civil Court of Original Jurisdiction in the Agency. In Section 3 of the Succession Certificate Act 'District Court' is denned as a Court presided over by a District Judge. Consequently, under Section 19, Suc...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »