Chennai Court April 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.
Authi Kesava Nattan Vs. Saravana Murugesa Naicken and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-15-1909
Reported in: 2Ind.Cas.435
Wallis, J.1. I think that in the circumstances of this case the finding that the payment was made bona fide and without collusion is in effect a finding that it was made lawfully. If so the conditions of Section 70 of the Indian Contract Act appear to me to be satisfied. I accept the findings and accordingly allow the petition, reverse the judgment of the District Judge, and give judgment for plaintiff with costs throughout....
Ottapurakkal Thazhate Soopi Vs. Cherichil Pallikkal Uppathumma and ors ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-14-1909
Reported in: 5Ind.Cas.698
1. The first contention on behalf of the appellant (fiftieth defendant) is that the suit is barred by Section 103 of the Civil Procedure Code of 1882. This can be so only if the plaintiffs in Original Suit No. 3 of 1901 are also plaintiffs in the present suit the first plaintiff now was, however, sixth defendant in the suit of 1901 and unless she can be regarded as having been also a plaintiff in that suit, Section 102 cannot apply to the case. She was not only a defendant but a contesting defendant: the written statement in which she joined (Exhibit IX-b) shows that she did not join in the prayers of the then plaintiffs, bat opposed them, and it is difficult to see on what principle they can be held to have represented her. Neither the plaintiffs' profession to be seeking money for the tarwad, nor the fact that, if they had succeeded in removing the Karnavati and obtaining a declaration that the property was improperly alienated and was at the disposal of the new Karnavati, the tarwad...
Kuttaseri Eriat Govindan Nair and ors. Vs. Kuttaseri Eriat Sankaran Na ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-14-1909
Reported in: 2Ind.Cas.183
1. The suit is brought by the junior members of a Marumakkatayam tarwad against their Karnavan to recover arrears of maintenance. The Karnavan's defence is that the plaintiffs are already in possession of tarwad property which in the circumstances of the case is sufficient to satisfy their claim. To this it is replied that the property referred to does not belong to the tarwad. The decision of the question depends upon the rule of law applicable to the inheritance to the separate property of a member of a Malabar tarwad.2. The properties are found by the lower app3llato Court to be the self-acquisition of two deceased members, Paru Amma and her son Krishnan Nair. It is contended for the appellant by Mr. Sundaro, Aiyar that on the death of Krishnan Nair, the survivor, they devolved exclusively on the 2nd defendant, the sole surviving descendant of Paru Amma; while Mr. Sabramania Sastri for the respondent urges that they lapsed on his death to of which the 1st defendant is the Karnvaan a...
Thoolipatti Rama Gowndan, Raman Chetty, Subba Gownden and Vencatachell ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-14-1909
Reported in: 2Ind.Cas.434
1. The conviction is by a Jury. It is contended, on behalf of the 1st accused that there are misdirections in the Additional Sessions Judge's charge to, the Jury and that there were really two distinct dacoities, one on the bandies of prosecution witnesses Nos. 13 to 15, and one on the bandies of prosecution witnesses Nos. 1 to 7, that these ought to have been charged separately, and that the conviction is, therefore, illegal.2. As regards this, the evidence shows that all the bandies were travelling along the road in a string, and the dacoits attacked them simultaneously. There was no plea in the Court below that there were two distinct dacoities, or two parties of dacoits. We find nothing illegal in regard to this matter.3. As to misdirection, it is said that the Judge should have found Ex. F not proved, and should not have left it to the Jury to consider its meaning. As we read the charge, the Additional Sessions Judge did tell the Jury that there was no proof of Ex. F and that it w...
G. Harisarvothama Rao Vs. Emperor
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-14-1909
Reported in: 2Ind.Cas.193
1. In this case, Bodi Narayana Rao and G. Harisarvothama Rao have been convicted of an offence punishable under Section 124A, Indian Penal Code, in respect of an article published in the Tolugu Weekly Journal 'Swaraj,' on the 26th March 1908. The former (Narayana Rao), on the 18th March 1908, made the statutory declaration under Act XXV of 1867 that ho was the owner of the Swaraj Press and the Printer and Publisher of the 'Swaraj' newspaper. The latter was the managing proprietor' of the paper. The article reads as follows:Perverted mind.It is unnecessary to mention in detail the inhuman cruelty the Feringhees showed (caused) to the patriots and natives in Tuticorin in the name of authority. Just as it is said that all those that are born in Lanka (Ceylon) are only Rakshasas, so it is known to the world that all the white faced (men) who are arriving in this country possessed of uncontrolled power, become ill-natured, hardhearted and seized by the Devil of envy; commit many horrible ac...
In Re: Kesava Panda
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-08-1909
Reported in: 2Ind.Cas.159
ORDERAbdur Rahim, J.1. The charge laid by the complainant related to an offence under Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code, which is triable by a Magistrate, and, therefore, the Magistrate who held an enquiry and discharged the accused because no case was made out against him, had no power under Section 250, Criminal Procedure Code, to award compensation to the accused. The power is given to the Magistrate only in cases triable by him as is clear from the language of the section itself. The order under Section 250 is, therefore, set aside and the compensation, if paid, is to be refunded.2. I ought to observe that the District Magistrate, in making the reference, merely forwards the records of the cases in which the order which the High Court is requested to quash was passed, with a note that in his explanation the Sub-Magistrate admitted that he made a mistake and requested that the order might be quashed. Under Section 438, Criminal Procedure Code, the District Magistrate or the Sessi...
Pulukkavandy Ambalam and ors. Vs. Periyakaruppa Kone and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-08-1909
Reported in: 2Ind.Cas.203
1. Defendants Nos. 1 to 5 appeal. The Subordinate Judge found that these defendants were members of an undivided Hindu family and this finding was not challenged before us. The suit was to recover the principal and interest due on a promissory note executed by the 2nd defendant in favour of the plaintiff and for certain other reliefs which are not now material. A decree was given on the promissory note against the 2nd defendant personally and against the family properties of defendants Nos. 1, 3, 4 and 5.: The 4th defendant is the son of the 2nd defendant. The 2nd and 3rd defendants are the sons of the first defendant, and the 5th defendant is the son of the 3rd defendant. So far as the 2nd defendant and his son the 4th defendant are concerned, the appeal was not pressed, the 2nd defendant being the maker of the promissory note, and the 4th defendant, as son of the 2nd defendant, being bound to pay the debt so far as his interest-in the property is concerned, there being no contention ...
Pasupathy Mudali and ors. Vs. A. Subramanya Gurukkal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-08-1909
Reported in: 2Ind.Cas.428
ORDERAbdur Rahim, J.1. This order is clearly illegal and must be set aside. The Magistrate has passed the order without in any way trying to conform to the provisions of Section 145, Criminal Procedure Code, which requires that proper proceedings must be drawn up and both parties be, allowed an opportunity to state their respective cases and prove their claims by evidence. Here the Magistrate states that the police report showed that the counter-petitioners admitted that the petitioner was in possession of the property in dispute, and without instituting any proceedings and giving notice of the same to the parties and hearing what they had to say, passed an order declaring that the counter-petitioners had no right to disturb the enjoyment of the land by the petitioner. Under Section 145, Criminal Procedure Code, the Magistrate can declare one of the contending parties to be in possession of the property in dispute after trying the question in Court according to the procedure laid down ...
In Re: A.G. Ganapathy Sastry and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-07-1909
Reported in: 3Ind.Cas.344
Arnold White, C.J. and Ralph Benson, J.1. This is an application by the Government Pleader and the Public Prosecutor that Mr. A.G. Ganapathy Sastry and Mr. T.V. Krishnaswamy Iyer, two first grade pleaders, practising in Tinnevelly, may be suspended or dismissed tinder the provisions of Section 13 of the Legal Practitioners Act XVIII of 1879.2. In Sessions Case No. 1 of 1908 on the file of the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge of the Tinnevelly Division, a Subramania Siva was convicted of an offence under Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code and one Chidambaram Pillai was convicted of abetment of these offences. In Sessions Case No. 2 of 1908 on the file of the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge of the Tinnevelly Division, V. C. Chidambaram Pillai was convicted of offences under Section 124-A & 153-A of the Indian Penal Code. On appeal to this Court these convictions were upheld. At the trial of Sessions Case No. 2, Mr. Ganapathy Sastry and Mr. Krishnaswamy Iyer were called as...
Gengappa Naidu Vs. Subbu Naidu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-07-1909
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.1044
1. The sale to the 6th defendant was attested by all the three living reversioners except the plaintiff who was absent at the time and it was not disputed that the attestation was in token of consent. All those who formed the next reversioners consented to the alienation. The District Judge's findings are not clear. When he speaks of the transaction as colourable that does not seem to mean more than that the 6th defendant is not proved to have paid money to the widow for the land. It is clear that the occasion was not one on which a 'colourable' or 'unreal' transaction could be suspected. If the widow desired to benefit her half-brother she could do so by transferring her land to him but not by keeping it for herself. Moreover, it was not the plaintiff's case that nothing passed by the sale, but only that it did not bind him. The District Judge seems further to hold that the consent of the reversionary heirs was not a sufficient consent because some of them were paid for giving it, bri...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »