Chennai Court October 1909 Judgments
V. Sesha Aiyar Vs. Bhavaji Mangal Doss Jee Varu and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-29-1909
Reported in: (1910)20MLJ144
Munro, J.1. The suit was on a promissory note, execution of which was admitted by the appellant who however, contended that he received no consideration for it. The Subordinate Judge, on appeal, held that on the appellant's own admission the plaintiff was entitled to a decree. Now what the appellant admitted is contained in paragraph 3 of his written statement. He there says that the plaintiff and one Narayana Iyer, Police Inspector, had money dealings; that they were unwilling that any written documents should pass between them because of the official position of Narayana Iyer, and that at the request of both of them he executed the suit note as a mere same-lender. The Subordinate Judge on this observed that the 1st defendant was liable, because, although the con-side ration did not pass to him it did pass to his friend. Now the definition of ' consideration ' is to be found in Section 2(d) of the Indian Contract Act, and that definition shews that consideration means an act, abstinen...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Abbulu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-29-1909
Reported in: 5Ind.Cas.743
ORDER1. Under Section 221, Criminal Procedure Code, if the accused has been previously convicted of an offence, and it is intended to prove such previous conviction for the purpose of affecting the punishment which the Court is competent to award, the fact, date and place of the previous conviction should be stated in the charge. Thus if it is intended to rely upon a previous conviction in order to justify the imposition of a sentence of whipping in addition to other punishment, the previous conviction should be mentioned in the charge as it is relied upon for the purpose of affecting the punishment. Section 75, Indian Penal Code, has, we may observe, no application to such a case. Mere omission to set out the previous conviction is not, however, sufficient reason for interfering in appeal or revision with the sentence passed. Under Section 535, Criminal Procedure Code, no sentence shall be deemed invalid merely on the ground that no charge was framed. To justify the Court's interferen...
Tag this Judgment!Muthia Nadar Vs. David Nadar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-29-1909
Reported in: 5Ind.Cas.756
Sankaran Nair, J.1. The fact that the defendant signed the account kept by the plaintiff does not necessarily show that he thereby acknowledged there was a debt due. The entry must show that the defendant by his signature acknowledged that a debt was due by him otherwise it would only be an acknowledgment of the correctness of the figures entered therein. The account-book is not in this Court. I, therefore, set aside the decree, direct the Subordinate Judge to restore the suit to his file and dispose of it according to law. The costs will abide the result....
Tag this Judgment!V. Sesha Iyer Vs. Bavaji Mangal Doss Jee Varu, Disciple of Mohunt Bagh ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-29-1909
Reported in: 5Ind.Cas.757
Munro, J.1. The suit was on a promissory-note, execution of which was admitted by the appellant who, however, contended that he received no consideration for it. The Subordinate Judge on appeal held that on the appellant's own admission the plaintiff was entitled to a decree. Now what the appellant admitted is contained in paragraph 3 of his written statement. He there says that the plaintiff and one Narayana Iyer a Police Inspector had money dealings, that they were unwilling' that any written documents should pass between them because of the official position of Narayana Iyer, and that at the request of both of them he executed the suit note as a mere name-lender. The Subordinate Judge on this observed that the first defendant was liable because, although the consideration did not pass to him, it did pass to his friend. Now the definition of consideration is to be found in Section 2(d) of the Indian Contract Act and that definition shows that consideration means an act, abstinence or...
Tag this Judgment!Manavicraman Styled Ettan Ettan Rajah Vs. Veerarayan Styled Anujan Val ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-29-1909
Reported in: 5Ind.Cas.742
Sankaran Nair, J.1. In this case the petitioner was summoned to appear as a witness by the Alatur Munsif. Such summons cannot be issued before the party applying for the summons deposits a certain sum of money in Court under Section 160 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Act XIV of 1832). It was so deposited. The witness attended. His evidence was not taken and he had to attend again. The sum deposited in Court and paid to him (i.e.,) Rs. 9-140 being insufficient for his expenses he claimed an additional sum of Rs. 100-2-0 and prayed for an order directing' the plaintiff in that suit to pay him that amount. The Munsif allowed ' this application on the 13r,h June. The witness applied under Section 235, Civil Procedure Code (Act XIV of 1882), to send this order for execution to the Munsif's Court at Palghat. He stated therein that the plaintiff had no property within the jurisdiction of the Alatur Munsif but he had his property only within the jurisdiction of the Palghat Munsif and he praye...
Tag this Judgment!Bhadra Rajayya Vs. Machabathmi Lakshmi Devamma
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-29-1909
Reported in: 5Ind.Cas.815
Miller, J.1. I donot think the defence was barred. In the former suit the defendant was not allowed to deny the plaintiff's title but it was not found that the plaintiff had any title.2. In the present suit the District Munsif finds that the defendant is no longer the plaintiff's tenant and the question of estoppel does not seem to arise. I must hold that the defence on title was not barred, and reversing the decree, remand the suit for disposal on the merits according to law. The costs of this petition will abide the event....
Tag this Judgment!Padmanabha Panji Kannaya Vs. King-emperor
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-28-1909
Reported in: (1910)20MLJ84
1. In this case the appellant and another were charged with offences under Sections 467 and 468 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant was convicted under these sections. Such evidence as there is, however, shews that the alteration of the document was made, not by the appellant, but by the man who was charged along with him. The conviction of the appellant under Sections 467 and 468 of the I.P.C. was therefore wrong. We are asked, however, to consider the propriety of convicting the appellant for abetment of these offences. We have not been referred to any authority in support of the proposition that when a person has been charged with a certain offence and has been convicted of that offence the appellate Court can, on finding that the conviction is not sustainable, convict the accused of abetment of that offence. No doubt, under Section 423 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the appellate Court has power to alter a finding, but we take it that that power cannot be used arbitrarily but ...
Tag this Judgment!Syed Saib Vs. Meeram Bee
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-28-1909
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.140; (1910)20MLJ12
ORDER1. The only question which calls for decision upon the petition of Syed Saib is, whether the Magistrate was right in holding that the counter-petitioner Meeram Bee, who was the wife of Syed Saib, but is alleged to have been divorced by him in the irrevocable form by pronouncement of three talaks, is entitled during the period of her iddat, supposing such divorce is proved, to the benefit of an order for maintenance which had been made in her favour before the pronouncement of talak. The Magistrate relies upon the decisions in Gulam Mohidin v. Kasara Bibi Weir's Criminal Rulings Vol. II p. 617 In the matter of the petition of Din Muhammad 5 A. n226 and Shah Abu Ilyas v. Ulfat Bibi 19 A.p 50. in support of his view, but it is urged by the Vakil for the petitioner that these cases do not lay down the law correctly. His contention would be valid if it can be said that according to Muhammadan law a woman irrevocably divorced ceases even before the expiry of her iddat to be the wife of ...
Tag this Judgment!Padmanaba Payi Kanniah Vs. Emperor
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-28-1909
Reported in: 5Ind.Cas.145a
1. In this case the appellant and another were charged with offences under Sections 467 and 468 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant was convicted under these sections. Such evidence as there is, however, shows that the alteration of the document was made not by the appellant, but by the man who was charged along with him. The conviction of the appellant under Sections 467 and 468 of the Indian Penal Code was, therefore, wrong. We are asked; however, to consider the propriety of convicting the appellant for abetment of these offences. We have not been referred to any authority in support of the proposition that when a person has been charged with a certain offence and has been convicted of that offence, the appellate Court can, on finding that the conviction is not sustainable, convict the accused of abetment of that offence. No doubt under Section 423 of the Criminal Procedure Code the appellate Court has power to alter a finding, but we take it that that power cannot be used arbit...
Tag this Judgment!G. Narayanaswami Nadu Garu Vs. Sree Rajah Vellanki Sreenivasa Jaganna ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-28-1909
Reported in: 5Ind.Cas.318
1. In these cases, the suit village was bequeathed by the late zemindar to his two brothers-in-law, Jagannadha, the defendant's predecessor, and another. The zemindar's widows bought out the other and put Jagannadha in possession of the whole village under Exhibit C, dated the 22nd January 1869, under which Rs. 3,200 was treated as the peishcush payable on the village and Jagannadha was required to remit that sum annually together with the water-cess and road-cess to the zemindari, which remained liable to Government as there had been no separate registration of the village. Jagannadha was ousted from possession by the Rajah's surviving widow in 1886. He brought a suit and eventually recovered possession in accordance with the judgment of the Privy Council in December 1898. In March 1899 he applied for separate registry, but owing to the opposition of the zemindarini, he was obliged to file a suit, Original Suit No. 19 of 1901, for a declaration of his right to separate registry, and o...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »