Chennai Court March 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.
Sinna Tevan Alias Sinna Karrupan Tevan and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-09-1909
Reported in: 1Ind.Cas.546
1. The point urged before us in appeal is that there is a misdirection in the charge of the Sessions Judge to the jury in that he did not instruct the jury with sufficient clearness that before he can find that there was a dacoity, they must be satisfied that there were at least five persons taking part in the offence, and that if any of those charged are acquitted they must be excluded in considering whether the evidence proves that the number of offenders was not less than five.2. Seven offenders were originally charged. Of these one was acquitted at the former trial, two were discharged by the Magistrate subsequently and one was acquitted at the present trial. But there is nothing to show that the jury took any account of these as going to make up the number of five offenders. The Judge did explain the definition of dacoity and, in fact, explained it in a sense unduly favourable to the accused as regards the question of the number required to convert a robbery into a dacoity in that...
Kollipara Seetapaty Vs. Kantipati Subbayya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-05-1909
Reported in: (1910)20MLJ718
1. We are unable to agree with the view taken by the learned Judges in Parameshwaran Nambudri v. Vishnu Embrandari I.L.R. (1904) M. 479 as regards the appellate decision in that case. As the decision of the appellate Court in the case before us was made without jurisdiction we think this Court is bound to set it aside. As regards the decision of the appellate Court we think the cases Ramasami Chettiar v. R.G. Orr I.L.R (1903) M. 176 and Shankarbhai v. Sonabhai I.L.R. (1900) B 317 were rightly decided.2. We would answer the question which has been referred to us in the affirmative. ...
Kollipara Seetapaty Vs. Kankipaty Subbaya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-05-1909
Reported in: 1Ind.Cas.543
OPINION1. We are unable to agree with the view taken by the learned Judges in Parameshwaran Nambudiri v. Vishnu Embrandri 27 M.k 479, as regards the appellate decision in that case. As the decision of the Appellate Court in the case before us was made without jurisdiction, we think this Court is bound to set it aside. As regards the decision of the appellate Court, we think the cases Ramasamy Chettiar v. R.G. Orr 26 M.k 176, and Shankarbhai v. Somabhai 25 B.k 417, were rightly decided. We would answer the question which has been referred to us in the affirmative....
In Re: Susai Lazar Fernandes
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-04-1909
Reported in: 1Ind.Cas.553
ORDERMunro, J.1. There is evidence to support the conviction. The Magistrate should have recorded his reasons for transferring the case to his own file, but his omission to do so is only an irregularity, and it is not shown that the accused has been in any way prejudiced--the omission to record reasons is not sufficient ground for setting aside the order of transfer, Prakas Chunder Dutt v. Emperor 34 C.k 918. There is nothing in Section 528 to prevent the Magistrate from transferring the case to his own file; he had first transferred it to the file of the Sub-Magistrate. The petition is dismissed....
Armugam Pillay Vs. Kathana Pillay and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-04-1909
Reported in: 1Ind.Cas.560a
1. It is contended before us that the third defendant ought to have been made a party to the appeal under Section 85 of the transfer of Property Act. But the suit is not one under the provisions of Chapter IV of the Transfer of Property Act. It is not a suit for foreclosure, sale or redemption. It is in ejectment. We are of opinion that Section 85 of the Transfer of Property Act does not apply to such suits. See Ram Narain Ram v. Palu Patak 1 A.L.J.R. 367. No other question of law arise on the facts found.2. We dismiss the second appeal with costs....
M.S.M. Duraisawmy Chettiar and ors. Vs. Kuppusami Padayachi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-04-1909
Reported in: 1Ind.Cas.802
1. The appellants, the trustees of a certain temple, sue to recover a plot of land with the house thereon from the defendants. The land was a vacant manai when it was let to the defendants' predecessors in title in 1891. No term was fixed; the lease provided for the payment of an annual rent. It is also stated therein that it was made for the purpose of the lessee building a house and living therein. The lower appellate Court has held that the lease being for building purposes, there is a presumption in the absence of anything to the contrary in the lease that the defendants hold on a permanent tenure and that the plaintiff's suit, therefore, must fail. It is contended before us that as the trustees have no power to grant a permanent lease, the presumption is that the lease they have granted, is not permanent, and there is nothing in the lease itself to show that the lessees were to hold in perpetuity. The lease expressly states that it was made for the lessee building the house to ena...
Tha, Ka, Nataraja Aiyar Vs. Ki, Subramania Aiyar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-03-1909
Reported in: 1Ind.Cas.806
1. The plaintiff and his father in 1889 executed a nominal sale-deed in respect of all their family properties in favour of the defendant and put the defendant in possession thereunder, In O.S. No. 72 of 1901 the plaintiff sued the defendant for the recovery of his half-share of the said properties which were all included in the plaintiff's pattah No. 122. He got a decree for half the lands in that pattah, One of the land in the pattah was Survey No. 287 S. By a clerical error the land was referred to in the plaint as Survey No. 287 L., and this error was copied into the decree. The District Munsif in execution allowed the plaintiff his share in Survey No. 287 S, and put him in possession. On appeal the District Judge held that the executing Court was wrong as Survey No. 287 S. was not in the decree and reversed the order of the District Munsif. The plaintiff then filed the suit, to which S.A. No. 1502 of 1907 relates, for a declaration that the suit property belonged to him and for an...
N.P.N.M. Chithambaram Chettiar Vs. Krishna Aiyengar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-03-1909
Reported in: 1Ind.Cas.803
1. The Tinnevelly Bank. Ld., was incorporated in 1896. According to the Memorandum of Association the appellant and another, their heirs, executors and administrators were to be secretaries of the Bank, but from 1902 the appellant alone has been doing duty as secretary. The duties and emoluments of the secretaries are set out in the articles of association, but not in the Memorandum of Association. On the 1st November 1907, the shareholders at an ordinary general meeting decided to appoint a certain person as managing agent of the Bank with powers of superintendence over the appellant. The appellant was also deprived of the keys of the Bank safe. The appellant, therefore, filed 0. S. No. 58 of 1907 against seven Directors of the Bank and the person appointed as managing agent as above-mentioned. He prayed, among other things, that the keys might be delivered over to him, that a permanent injunction might be issued to the defendants restraining them from interfering with the performance...
Punchapagesa Aiyar Vs. Subramanya Aiyar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-02-1909
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.872a
1. After, the decree for partition was passed on the 15th September, the property of the plaintiff was sold in execution of a decree for a debt binding on the plaintiff and the defendant. The decree debt was paid by the plaintiff on the 11th November 1903 and the sale was set aside. The right to contribution arose on that date. There is, therefore, no bar by the proceedings in the partition suit. We dismiss the appeal with costs.2. As to the memorandum of objections we hold that the binding nature of the debt is not res judicata. We, therefore, dismiss that also with costs....
Sannasi Ambalagarau and anr. Vs. Venkatapathy Chetty and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-02-1909
Reported in: 2Ind.Cas.420
1. The Judge holds that if the plaintiffs had sued for a declaration of title and for an injunction, then the suit would be maintainable, but as the suit is only for an injunction he holds that it will not lie. But the prayer for an injunction necessarily involves a declaration of title where the title is denied. The decree of the Judge cannot be uphold. We set it aside, direct him to restore the appeal to his file and dispose of it in accordance with law. Costs will abide the event....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »