Chennai Court October 1909 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Damara Kumara Thimmia Nayamni Bahadur Varu Vs. Pullama Naidu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-12-1909
Reported in: 5Ind.Cas.510
1. The Subordinate Judge finds that the season was middling 'one and that the defendants are entitled to partial remission. Exhibit A, however, makes no provision for remission in middling years,' but only for remission in, case of excess or failure of rains, and clearly abnormal seasons were alone contemplated. We modify the decree of the Subordinate Judge by restoring the decree of the District Munsif with costs in this and the lower appellate Court....
Vencatamuniappa Chetty Vs. Goddam Chandappa and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-12-1909
Reported in: 5Ind.Cas.466
1. It has been recently held by the Privy Council that misjoinder of causes of action is not a ground on which a decree can be reversed, Rup Narain v. Gopal Devi 36 I.A. 103 We must, therefore, reverse the decree of the Subordinate Judge, remand the appeal to the District Judge of North Arcot for disposal according to law. Costs will abide the result....
In Re: Shivappa Higade
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-12-1909
Reported in: 5Ind.Cas.935
1. The Sessions Judge has seriously misdirected the jury in paragraph 20 of his charge and this in the face of what was laid down by this Court in the judgment in Criminal Appeal No. 592 of 1905. The Sessions Judge told the Jury there was no fores in the argument that the accused may not have foreseen and may not have intended that a dacoity should take place. The Sessions Judge should not have taken the matter out of the hands of the jury in this way. He should have set out the evidence bearing upon the question and left it to the jury to say what was the proper inference to be drawn from that evidence. We set aside the conviction, acquit the accused of offences under Sections 395 and 109 of the Indian Penal Code and direct his immediate release....
Paramasawmi Iyengar Vs. Pusala thevan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-08-1909
Reported in: (1910)20MLJ142
1. The question is whether the plaintiff is entitled to claim wet assessment on dry lauds cultivated with wet crops, whatever may be the source of irrigation. The Judge has found that there was no contract, express or implied, to pay rent at the rate claimed, and nothing has been urged before us to show that he was wrong. It was then argued that the plaintiff is entitled to prove that he is entitled to do so by custom. The Deputy Collector and the District Judge held that the custom is invalid as it is opposed to the provisions of Act VIII of 1865. We agree. We are unable to agree with the appellant's pleader that in such cases the landlord does not raise the rent. Where the rent payable is in fact higher, the case falls within the proviso to Section 11, Rent Recovery Act. A usage to charge assessment at the wet rate on account of the tenant's converting land from dry to wet or any other improvements effected at the tenant's expense is illegal. See Fischer v. Kamakshi Pillai I.L.R. (19...
Ramasawmi Odayan Vs. P.M. Ramasawmi Odayan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-08-1909
Reported in: (1910)20MLJ386
1. Sadashiv Rayaji v. Maruthi Vithal I.L.R. (1890) B. 455 is authority that a vakil, unless specially empowered, cannot bring a suit to a close by offering to be bound by the oath of the opposite party in a particular form, and we are prepared to follow that decision. It is not shewn in this case that the vakil was specially empowered. As to the evidence given by the plaintiff the District Judge has disbelieved it and we cannot interfere in second appeal. This appeal is dismissed with costs....
In Re: Ottupura Narayanan Somayajipad;
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-08-1909
Reported in: 3Ind.Cas.934
1. We think that the answer to the question referred for our decision must be in the affirmative.2. In the case of Queen-Empress v. Srinivasulu Naidu 21 M.k 124 it was held by a Full Bench of this Court that where action was taken by a Magistrate under Section 476 of the Code of 1882, such action was to be regarded not merely as the lodging of a com-plaint by the Magistrate but was a proceeding which was tantamount to an 'order' of the Court and was, therefore, subject to revision by the High Court under Section 439 of the Code.3. The decision of this Court in the case of Eranholi Athan v. King-Emperor 26 M.k 98 proceeded on the ground that the Legislature in 1898, by the addition of the words 'and as if upon complaint made and recorded under Section 200' in Sub-section (2) of Section 476, intended to make it clear that when action is taken under Sub-section (1), such action is not to be regarded as an order but merely as the lodging of a complaint.4. We think that this view is erroneo...
Ramasami Odayan Vs. P.M. Ramasami Odayan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-08-1909
Reported in: 5Ind.Cas.514
1. Sadasshiv Rayaji v. Maruti 14 B.k 455 is authority that a Vakil, unless specially empowered, cannot bring a suit to a close by offering to be bound by the oath of the opposite party in a particular form, and we are prepared to follow that decision. It is not shown in this case that the Vakil was specially' empowered. As to the evidence given by the plaintiffs, the District Judge has disbelieved it; and we cannot interfere in second appeal. This appeal is dismissed with costs....
In Re: Kora Ayyapa and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-08-1909
Reported in: 5Ind.Cas.809
ORDERMiller, J.1. I have no doubt that the persons to whom bail has been refused in this case were not persons accused of an offence: there is a conflict of opinion as to whether persons in their position are accused persons within the meaning of the Code, but there is no authority for the contention that they are persons accused of an offence. None is to be found in Emperor v. Tula Khan (1908) 5 A.L.J. 318 to which the Magistrate refers. The learned Judges there while holding that a term of imprisonment under Chapter VIII may be awarded by a 'sentence' within the meaning of Section 397 of the Code, do not hold that it is a punishment for an 'offence'. Banerji, J., expressly distinguishes the one from the other at page 342. The order refusing bail is wrong and is set aside and bail must be accepted if tendered....
NaraIn Bhatta and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-08-1909
Reported in: 5Ind.Cas.934a
ORDERMiller, J.1. Of these petitioners Nos. 22 and 23 were sitting in what is called the 2nd room; and it is contended that this room cannot be taken to be part of the common gaming house and so the presumption under Section 7 does not arise.2. This contention was not raised in either Court below and the things found in the 2nd room afford evidence that it was part of the gaming house.3. I dismiss the petitions....
Chiralayath Ayinkoottib Moopil Kunhan Raja and anr. Vs. Thozhukat Utay ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-08-1909
Reported in: 5Ind.Cas.933a
1. It was first argued that the defendants are bound to surrender the land as they have an anubhavam only so far as thirty-five paras, of paddy are concerned and the case of Vythilingam Pilial v. Kuthira Vattath Nair 16 M.L.J. 358 was relied on. The deed in question in that case was a kanom instrument and it lay on the defendant tenant to show that after the period of 12 years the jeumi had no right to recover possession. It also appears that the tenant in that case was only entitled to an anubhavam so far as the share of the produce therein referred to was concerned. In the present case the grant Exhibit A to the defendant is recited to be renewed anubhavam grant. Prima facie, therefore, the land is granted in anubhavam. The fact that there was kanom advanced does not make it any the less an anubhavam. It was then contended that the defendants have forfeited their right as Exhibit A expressly provides that the grantee has no power of alienantion. But 12 years have elapsed since the da...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »