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.
In Re: Syed Lala Mian Sahib
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-07-1909
Reported in: 1Ind.Cas.889
ORDERAbdul Rahim, J.1. The District Magistrate before withdrawing the case from file of the Taluk Magistrate of Dharampuri ought to have given notice to the accused and heard his objections if he had any to urge to the withdrawal. Section 528, Criminal Procedure Code, it is true, does not say that notice must be given to any of the parties interested and therefore the absence of notice would not make the order illegal, but all the High Courts have agreed that notice should, in the interests of justice and fairness be given to the parties concerned. See Imperatrix, v. Sadashiv 22 B.k 549, Teacotta Shekdar v. Ameer Hajee Hafiz Paikar 8 C.m 393; Ajodheya Lal v. Paryag Narain' 7 C.W.X. 114 Umrao Singh v. Fakir Chand 3 A.k 749 and Criminal R.C. No. 426 of 1900 and Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 137 of 1903, reported in Weir's Criminal Rulings 4th Edition Volume II, pages 691 and 692. In the present instance the District Magistrate apparently acted on an office note sent to him by the D...
Kandasami Mannavan Vs. Rajagopalasami thevan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-07-1909
Reported in: 5Ind.Cas.382
1. The District Judge has decided the case on one point only holding that the debt, to satisfy which the sale was ostensibly executed, was barred by limitation. He decided that the transfer was not made for purposes which by the Hindu law would justify it. We agree with him that the debt was barred by limitation, but it does not follow that it was not a debt which the debtor's widow might properly satisfy by the alienation of her husband's estate vide Kondappa v. Subba 13 M.k 189. If the sale was a bona fide satisfaction of a debt due by the vendor's husband and was otherwise such that, had the debt not been barred, it could be upheld under the Hindu law as a sale for proper purposes, the mere fact that the debt is irrecoverable in consequence of the law of limitation, will not of itself make the sale voidable by the reversioners.2. We must, in these circumstances, ask the District Judge for a finding on the second issue on the evidence on record in the light of the above remarks.3. We...
Richard Taylor and ors. Vs. Sri Sri Sri Krishna Chandra Gajapati Naray ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-07-1909
Reported in: 2Ind.Cas.4
Arnold White, C.J.1. On April 19, 1892, Mr. W. Taylor executed a will in the following terms:This is the last will and testament of Mr. William Taylor, of Parlakimidi, Ganjam, India. I give, devise and bequeath unto S S.S. Gourachandra Gajapati Narain Deo, zamindar of Parlakimidi, all that I may possess at the time of my death, including my property at Kodaiknal, and shares and other property in the Commercial and Land Mortgage Bank, Madras, also books, furniture and other property, movable and immovable, and I appoint the said S.S.S. Gourachandra Gajapati Narain Deo to be my sole executor. I have no doubt that he will carry out my wishes. In witness whereof, I, the said William Taylor, have to this, my last Will and Testament, set my name this 19th day of April, one thousand, eight hundred and ninety-two, (1892).(Signed.) W. TAYLOR.Signed by the testator, arid acknowledged by him to be his last Will and Testament, in the presence of us, at the same time at his request and in the prese...
In Re: Mylapore Krishnasawmi Alias A. Krishnasawmi Sarma
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-07-1909
Reported in: 2Ind.Cas.33
1. In this case the accused was charged with committing offences under Sections 124-A and 153-A of the Indian Penal Code, on the 10th March 1908, and with committing similar offences and also offences under Section 505, Clauses (a) and (r), of the Indian Penal Code, on the 17th March 1908. The charges in respect of the 16th March were not proceeded with at the trial and the accused was tried and convicted of having committed offences under Sections 124-A and 153-A, Indian Penal Code, on the 17th March 1908, and also of an offence under Section 505, Indian Penal Code,2. In the argument before me no objection was raised to the form of the charge, but as the questions as to the proper form of charge are discussed by the learned Judges who heard the appeal and as these questions are of general importance I think it necessary to deal with them. With regard to setting out the words in charges of this kind it was held in England by all the Judges advising the House of Lords In Sacheverell's c...
Vellai Gownden Vs. Emperor
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-07-1909
Reported in: 2Ind.Cas.424
ORDERAbdur Rahim, J.1. Upon the facts found by the Appellate Magistrate the conviction of the accused under Section 290, Indian Penal Code, cannot obviously be supported. Some persons diverted the water of a stream into the land of the accused with the result that a certain path was obstructed. I fail to understand how the lower appellate Court could have held the accused responsible under Section 290, Indian Penal Code, for causing a public nuisance, even if what happened did amount to a nuisance when it was not he that did the act complained of. The conviction is, therefore, set aside and the fine, if paid, is to be refunded....
Kaki Subbanadri Vs. Muthu Rangayya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-06-1909
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.1039a
1. According to Vairananda Nadar v. Miya Kan Rowther 21 M. 109 which was not referred to in argument, the effect of the closing words of Section 4 of the Transfer of Property Act is to require the Court to read Section 107 of that Act along with Section 17(d) of the Registration Act; and consequently to hold, that all instruments referred to in Section 107, Transfer of Property Act, are compulsorily registrable in all cases to which that Act is applicable.2. We are to read Section 107 as supplemental to Section 17(d) of the Registration Act: that is to say, we are to add to the first sentence of Section 17(d) words to the following effect: And all instruments referred to in Section 107, Transfer of Property Act, and Section 4' as is pointed out in Makhan Lal Pal v. Banku Behari Ghose 19 C. 623. It is not altogether clear, but it seems to us that, so far as we are concerned with it in this case, it can not mean more than this. It can mean that an instrument which is not referred to in S...
Singaranelu Mudeliar Vs. Vardaraja Mudeliar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-06-1909
Reported in: 2Ind.Cas.426
ORDER1. We are not satisfied that the Collector acting under the rules framed under the District Municipalities Act, 1884, is a Court' within the meaning of Section 195, Criminal Procedure Code. If he is not a 'Court' no appeal lies to the District Judge.2. We, therefore, dismiss the petition....
Maddali Venkatrayudu and ors. Vs. Moova Sankarayya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-02-1909
Reported in: 1Ind.Cas.901
1. The third issue was framed on the assumption that the case was governed by Article 144 of the second schedule to the Limitation Act of 1877. The judgment of the Subordinate Judge proceeded on this view. He accordingly dealt with the case as if the onus was on the defendant. In this, we think, he was wrong. The article of the Limitation Act which applies is Article 142 and the plaintiff must show possession and dispossession within 12 years prior to the date of the institution of the suit. See Gopaul Chunder Chuckerbutty v. Nilmoney Mitter 10 C.b 374; Mohima Chunder Mozoomdar v. Mohesh Chunder Neoghi 16. C.j 473 and Mahammad Amanulla Khan v. Badan Singh 17 C.j 137.2. We must, therefore, ask for a finding by the Subordinate Judge on the evidence on record, whether the plaintiff or his predecessor in title was in possession and was dispossessed within 12 years prior to the date of the suit. The Subordinate Judge will of coarse, in determining this question, take into consideration the ...
Sreekakulam Vencatasubbiah Vs. Lavaaru Dade Sahib
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-02-1909
Reported in: 2Ind.Cas.433
1. It is not denied that according to a recent decision of this Court the application of the 30th May 1907 is an application to take a step-in-aid of the execution of the decree, nor is it denied that, standing by itself, it is in accordance with law; but it is contended that because it was not preceded by an application for an order under Section 89, Transfer of Property Act, it cannot be regarded as having been made in accordance with law. The applications of 1901 and 1904 asked for sale of the property, but did not expressly ask for an order under Section 89 of the Transfer of Property Act. Probably they might properly to regarded as applications impliedly asking for such an' order, as was done in Baldeo Prasad v. Ibn Haidar 27 A.k 625 but it is not necessary to do that in this case. They all asked for recognition of the applicant as transferee of the decree and for notice to the judgment-debtor under Section 248 of the Code of Civil Procedure then in force, and so according to the ...
T. Subramanya Aiyar Vs. Manika Mudeley and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-01-1909
Reported in: 2Ind.Cas.432
1. It is not here denied that the question now remaining: for decisioa is one which ought to have been investigated tinder Section 244 of the Code, of 1882. The appellant is the representative of the second and third defendants in the suit in which the decree was made which is now under execution. The appellant claims a charge on the land sold in execution to the extent to which he, by paying off a mortgage, thereon, has relieved it of liability under the mortgage. The materials before us do not enable us to decide whether he is entitled to the charge claimed or whether for any reason his clam is now inadmissible, or if he is so entitled what will be the amount for which he can claim the security?.2. In these circumstances we reverse the decrees of both. Courts and, remand the case to the Court of first instance for disposal according to law. Costs will abide the event....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›