Chennai Court March 1909 Judgments
Kanakku Nagalinga Naick Vs. S. Nagalinga Naick and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-31-1909
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.871a
1. The plaintiff brought a suit for partition. At the request of the parties the matter was referred to arbitration. An award was submitted, and the Subordinate Judge, with slight modifications, passed a decree in terms of the award under Section 522, Civil Procedure Code. The 1st defendant appeals, and the grounds of appeal pressed are that the award is void ab initio because notice was not given to one of the arbitrators, and invalid because signed by only one of the arbitrators. The preliminary objection is taken that under Section 522, Civil Procedure Code, no appeal lies from the decree of the Subordinate Judge except in so far as the decree is in excess of, or not in accordance with the award, and that as no such ground is pressed the appeal must be dismissed. The case of the Chairman of the Purnea Municipality v. Siva Sankar Ram 33 C.v 899 supports this objection and we agree with that decision which is based upon the ruling of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in Ghul...
Tag this Judgment!Vythianada Aiyar Vs. Vythianada Aiyar, Alias Narayanappa Aiyar, Insane ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-31-1909
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.1040
1. We are unable to accede to the contention that it was beyond the power of the Court to execute as a part of the decree the agreement of the parties that the mesne profits should be recoverable by execution first against the land described as the 3rd sethi land.2. The amount of mesne profits was left undetermined by the decree and to that extent the suit remained undisposed of. In effect there still remained one issue for disposal and it was open to the parties to adjust that part of the suit by a lawful compromise. The cases to which the Advocate-General drew our attention support this view of the matter. Radha Prasad Singh v. Lal Sahab Rai 17 I.A. 150; Muhammad Umarjan Khan v. Zinat Begum 25 A.V 385; Anando Kishore Das Bakshi v. Anando Kishore 14 C. V 50. The decree made in terms of this compromise can be executed. We do not agree with the District Judge that it has become impossible to fulfil the contract. No doubt there is an obstacle which prevents the immediate execution of the...
Tag this Judgment!Tulasi Das Nursi Vs. Medam Subhanna Chetty
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-31-1909
Reported in: 2Ind.Cas.92
1. The plaintiff brought a suit under Section 525 of the Code of Civil Procedure to have an award filed. The District Judge directed that the award should be filed and a decree passed in terms thereof with, costs. The defendant appeals.2. A number of charges were made against the arbitrator. The District Judge found against these charges and no attempt has been made to substantiate them before us. Eight issues were framed in the suit, but it is only against the finding on the fourth of these issues that any arguments have been addressed to us.3. The fourth issue is as follows:Is the so-called proceedings of the arbitrator, dated 23rd November 1904, a preliminary-award, and had the arbitrator authority to undo the same in his final award.4. The final award was passed on the 20th March 1905 and decided that the defendant was not entitled to the one-fourth share claimed by him in the property in dispute. With a view to ascertain the share of the machinery, immovable property and debts due...
Tag this Judgment!Kakkolangara Pashayagath Sayid Ibrahim Tangal and ors. Vs. Kerala Varm ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-31-1909
Reported in: 2Ind.Cas.931
1. Twenty-seven cents of land in Baliapatam were acquired by Government and a compensation of Rs. 100 was awarded and paid to the appellants, claimants Nos. 2 to 7, who are the urallars of the Baliapatam Jammath mosque. A claim was subsequently put in by the Chirakkal Rajah--1st claimant and respondent in this appeal--on behalf of his Kalarivathukkal Devasam and the matter was referred to the District Court under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act. The District Judge decided that the land acquired belonged to the Devasam and directed the appellants to refund for payment to the 1st claimant, the compensation which had been paid to, them.2. The appellants contend that the land in dispute belongs to their Janunath mosque and that, even if it be held that the right of the mosque is not made out, the title of the Devasam is not proved, and that, therefore, the award of the District Judge must be set aside.3. The land acquired is situated in Survey No. 51/1 which, with the Survey No. 30,...
Tag this Judgment!Vencatanarayana Pillai Vs. Subbammal and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-26-1909
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.1046
Wallis, J.1. This is a suit for declaration that the alleged adoption of the 2nd defendant by the 1st defendant the widow of the late V. Venkatarama Pillai is in valid and cannot affect the rights of the plaintiff as next reversioner to the estate of the said Venkatarama Pillai. The factum of the adoption is admitted but it is denied that the 1st defendant had any authority to adopt. The defendants rely on an authority conferred in the Will of the deceased, dated 8th September 1889 but the plaintiff contends that the Will was revoked by the subsequent Will of 21st March 1890, which has been admitted to probate and that whether this is so or not the Will of the 21st March must be taken to be the last Will of the deceased until the grant is revoked of the earlier Will admitted to concurrent probate and that until it is admitted to probate. Section 187 of the Indian Succession Act which applies to Hindu Wills prevents the plaintiff from claiming under it. Some of these questions present c...
Tag this Judgment!Seshagiri Aiyar Vs. Vythilinga Pillai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-25-1909
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.1049
1. Of the whole property mortgaged in 1889 to Subapathy for Rs. 1,300 three parcels were sold by the mortgagors on the 16th of April 1892, one parcel to the 3rd defendant's father for Rs. 1,000, one to the 4th defendant for Rs. 200 and one to the plaintiff for Rs. 500. The plaintiff paid cash for his purchase, but the other purchasers each undertook to pay the price to the mortgagee towards the mortgage. Subsequently Sabapathy's assignee brought to sale the property purchased by the plaintiff. And the plaintiff, to save it, paid up part of what was due on the mortgage. He now seeks contributions from the present owners of the other two parcels and the first question for our determination is as to the correct method of calculating the contribution.2. The plaintiff claims that the 3rd and the 4th defendants being bound to pay Rs. 1,200 towards the mortgage must be held liable for that amount, and the rateable distribution over all the property should be made only for the balance. Section...
Tag this Judgment!Fakir Mohideen and Vs. F. Hartnett
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-25-1909
Reported in: 1Ind.Cas.547a
1. In Criminal M.P. 250 of 1908.2. The complaint against the accused is that on the 11th June last, the accused made a certain statement to the Police Officer making an investigation under Section 174, Criminal Procedure Code, as amended by Act V of 1887, and that on 6th July last he made another statement to the Chief Presidency Magistrate in the course of an enquiry into a certain case and that the two statements are so contradictory that the accused must necessarily be guilty of an offence under Section 193, Indian Penal Code, in respect of one or other of the statements.3. The Chief Presidency Magistrate gave sanction for the prosecution on the above complaint. We arc asked to say that the sentence is invalid and to revoke it.4. We do not find any ground for interference.5. So far as the complaint is that the statement before the Police Officer is or may be false, no sanction is required; and any sanction given by the Magistrate may be treated as surplusage.6. So far as the complai...
Tag this Judgment!Kuppan Vs. Emperor
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-24-1909
Reported in: 1Ind.Cas.547
1. There is no evidence against the appellant (2nd accused) except the evidence of the 3rd and 4th Prosecution witnesses and the confession of the 1st accused implicating the 2nd accused, which confession was afterwards retracted. It seems to us clear that the evidence of the 3rd and 4th Prosecution witnesses cannot be regarded as trustworthy in view of the fact that the village Munsiff's Court makes no reference to the seizure of the 2nd accused by those witnesses (as now alleged by them). On the contrary it says that the 3rd and 4th witnesses, pursued the other thief but were unable to catch him. The Sessions Judge should have instructed the jury that if they did not believe the evidence of the 3rd and 4th witnesses the implication of the 2nd accused by the confession of the 1st accused would not be sufficient to justify a conviction. This was clearly ruled by this Court in Criminal Appeal No. 806 of 1908 where, after referring to Section 30 of the Indian Evidence Act, the Court held...
Tag this Judgment!Kandasawmy Mudali and ors. Vs. Sabraya Mudali and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-24-1909
Reported in: 1Ind.Cas.716
1. The suit is brought for a declaration that the plaintiffs, the trustees of the Subramanyan Koil temple, are entitled to take their idols in procession through the Koothadum Pilliar Koil and Jayaram Chetty Streets of Saidepett. The plaintiffs plead that it has been customary to carry these idols in procession through these streets and they contend that even independently of custom they are entitled to do so as the streets are public streets. An order passed by the District Magistrate under Section 144 of the Criminal Procedure Code restraining the plaintiffs from carrying their idols in procession through those streets is the cause of action alleged. The defendants Nos. 2 to 4, the trustees of the Karani temple, plead that the Koothadum Pilliar Street belongs to that temple and to the owners of the houses on either side of it. Similarly, defendants Nos. 6 to 9 plead that Jayaram Chetty Street belongs to the Perumal temple of which they are trustees and to the owners of the houses on ...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Marimuthu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-19-1909
Reported in: 1Ind.Cas.807
ORDERAbdur Rahim, J.1. The accused in this case is a girl of 10 years and has been convicted by the Sub-Magistrate of an offence under Section 381, Indian Penal Code, with respect to a silver button worth 8 annas belonging to her master, and sentenced to one month's simple imprisonment. Under Section 83, Indian Penal Code, a child between 7 and 12 years of age cannot be hold guilty of an offence with respect to any act unless it is shown that the child had attained sufficient maturity of understanding to judge of the nature and consequences of that act. See Queen-Empress v. Makimuddin 27 C.k 138. The Magistrate does not appear to have applied his mind to this question and the fact which transpired upon the evidence, viz., that the girl picked up the button and gave it to her mother does not in itself show that she knew that she was doing anything wrong. Further, I must note that the Sub-Magistrate was not justified in passing a sentence of imprisonment upon the accused even if an offen...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »