Chennai Court February 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.
Subbaraya Rowthu Minda Nainar and Vs. Kuppusamy Aiyangar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-12-1909
Reported in: 1Ind.Cas.535
Arnold White, C.J.1. I agree with the conclusion at which my learned brother has arrived in his judgment, which I have had the advantage of reading.2. It seems to me, however, that the order of the Subordinate Judge may be supported on this short ground. The Nadars mortgaged to the respondents their mortgage interest under the decree which they (the Nadars) had obtained against the appellants. For the purpose of realizing their security the respondents brought a suit on the mortgage to them of the Nadars' mortgage interest in the mortgaged property. This mortgage interest under the decree obtained by the Nadars includes the right to sell the property in default of payment. It seems to me no order for the sale of the decree obtained by the Nadars against the appellants was necessary in order to enable the respondents to execute the decree which they had obtained and I do not think that either Section 273 of the Code of Civil Procedure or Section 184 of the Civil Rules of Practice applie...
Manikkavasaka Desika Gnana Sambanda Pandara Sannadhiar and ors. Vs. Su ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-11-1909
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.1141
Miller, J.1. I am not prepared to hold that the Subordinate Judge was wrong in admitting the review. His order has not been printed and put before me, but apparently he was of opinion that he had committed a mistake in excluding the unstamped acknowledgment from his consideration. Possibly on that point he was wrong and had really committed no mistake but that does not prevent the admissibility of the review.2. The decision on review may be supported on the ground that the settlement of account signed by the 3rd and 4th defendants, who had, as the Subordinate Judge finds, authority to adjust accounts, brings the case within Article 64 Schedule II of the Limitation Act of 1877 which governs the case. Vide--Manjunatha Kamti v. Devamma alias Gomathiamma 26 M.k 186. 3. The decree ought to have been against the 1st defendant only and against him as trustee of the Sri Panchanadaswami Koil in Trivadi. This is clear from the plaint itself.4. Subject to this modification the petition is dismiss...
V.R. Krishnasami Aiyar Vs. Bathi Gadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-11-1909
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.1136
ORDER1. The decision of the District Judge can only be supported on the view that he intended to find as a fact that an implied contract to go on paying the Ayan rate existed between the landlord and the tenants. But we cannot think that the District Judge found anything of the sort; for (1) he does not specifically say so, (2) no such contract was pleaded and (3) not a single patta was produced on the defendants' side to support such a plea.2. The failure to produce a single patta was especially significant in view of the fact that the single patta (Exhibit D) produced by the plaintiff (or was it a muchilika as the Head Assistant Collector found?) contained an express clause reserving the right of the then landlord to levy a crop-war rate. Even if there had been a finding as to an implied contract in favour of the tenants it would have been necessary to determine the further question how far such contract was binding on the present landlord. Vide the last clause of Section 11 of Act V...
Vindamuri Guramma Vs. Kamalla Basavudu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-11-1909
Reported in: 1Ind.Cas.621
Munro, J.1. The presumption is that the pro-note was made for consideration and as the defendants have not rebutted the presumption, as the District Munsif finds, the result is that the pro-note must be taken to be supported by consideration. It is payable to the payee on his order. The payee was, therefore, a holder in due course. He transferred it to the plaintiff who, by the transfer acquired his rights. Vide Section 53 of the Negotiable instruments Act. The decree is, therefore, reversed, and the plaintiff will have a decree with costs throughout for Rs. 145-3-3 with interest on the principal at 15 per cent per annum from date of suit till this date and further interest on the aggregate thus adjudged at 6 per cent per annum from this date till payment....
Ambakkagari Nagi Raddi and ors. Vs. Basappa
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-09-1909
Reported in: 1Ind.Cas.79a
1. We think that it would be much better if in cases of appeal under Section 250, notice were given to the accused as he is the party prejudiced if the appeal is allowed and the order of compensation rescinded. Section 250(3), however, provides that there shall be an appeal from an order under the section as if such complainant or informant had been convicted on a trial held by such Magistrate; and Section 422 provides explicitly for cases in which notice of appeal is to be given to the Public Prosecutor and the accused, but says nothing of any notice being given to persons in the position of the petitioners. In Emperor v. Palaniappavelan 29 M.k 187 there was no notice to the Public Prosecutor which was clearly required by Section 250 read with Section 422 and the interference of the High Court in revision may be supported on this ground. But in this case we can see no illegality and we are not prepared to interfere. We may observe that if the appeal succeeds the petitioners will not b...
In Re: Payini Chellaya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-09-1909
Reported in: 1Ind.Cas.248
ORDER1. We are of opinion that statements of a defamatory character made by an accused person in the course of the statement which he is invited to make under Section 342, Criminal Procedure Code, must be considered privileged. In Hayes v. Christian 15 M.k 414 it was laid down that statements made by an accused person or his counsel in the ordinary course of his defence are privileged, but it was held that such privilege did not protect defamatory statements against a witness interjected during the examination of such, witness by the accused who was represented by counsel. Such statements, in the opinion of the Court, could not be held to have been made in the ordinary course of a legal proceeding and were, therefore, not entitled to privilege. In the present case we think the complaint was rightly dismissed....
Vonlidi Chinna Subbi Reddy Vs. Somudu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-05-1909
Reported in: 1Ind.Cas.686
Munro, J.1. The District Magistrate is in error in thinking that he has no power to go into evidence and order committal if he thinks the evidence warrants it.2. Lakshminarasappa v. Mekala Venhatappa 31 M. k133 has been recently overruled by a Full Bench In re Narayanaswamy Naidu (1909) 1 I.C. 228. The District Magistrate is, therefore, directed to dispose of the petition before him in accordance with law....
Veggu Manikyam Vs. Emperor
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-04-1909
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.875
ORDERMunro, J.1. The Magistrate has in effect directed the properly to be returned to the person from whose possession it was taken, and as that order is, in effect, the appropriate order to be passed in the circumstances of the case, there is no need for this Court to interfere except to set aside the further order that the petitioner is to receive the property on condition of her producing the property or its equivalent value when ordered by a competent Civil Court. ...
The Sessions Judge of the Tinnevelly Division Vs. Sivan Chetty
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-03-1909
Reported in: 1Ind.Cas.187
Benson and Munro, JJ.1. In this case the accused made a complaint of dacoity against certain persons to the Village Munsif, who gave information to the Station House Officer, who then came to the village and took a statement from the accused in which the accused repeated the charge of dacoity against the persons named in his complaint to the Village Munsif. The police referred the charge as false, and, with the sanction of the Superintendent of Police, the person who made the complaint of dacoity has been proceeded against for an offence under Section 211, Indian Penal Code, and has been committed to the Sessions. The question is whether the facts alleged against him amount in law to an offence under Section 211, Indian Penal Code. The matter is by no means free from difficulty, and the decisions in regard to it are conflicting. We are, however, of opinion that the question mast be answered in the affirmative. The section runs as follows: 'Whoever, with intent to cause injury to any pe...
In Re: Ponnusawmy Pillay
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-03-1909
Reported in: 1Ind.Cas.79
ORDER1. The rule referred to in the letter of the District Magistrate is made under the power conferred by Section 29(n) of the Abkari Act of 1886 and is within the powers conferred by that section.2. Under this rule the Magistrate who adjudged the confiscation has power to direct that the confiscated article may be sold or destroyed.3. We are of opinion that the sale may reasonably be construed as not only authorising the Magistrate to direct the sale of the article, but as also authorising him to give directions as to the mode of sale.4. The order of the Magistrate in the case referred to us purports to have been made under Section 517 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. We do not think the order can be supported as an order under the powers conferred by that section....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »