Chennai Court October 1910 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.
Raman alias Kuttan's daughter Karthyayini and Anr. Vs. theyyan's son R ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-11-1910
Reported in: 9Ind.Cas.572
1. This appeal is dismissed with costs for default. Under Order XLI, Rule 22 sub-rule 4, we deal with this memorandum of objections.2. We think the memorandum of objections must be allowed with costs: See Achutta Bhatta v. Manjunathayya 26 M. 654. ...
Solai Naik and anr. Vs. Emperor
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-04-1910
Reported in: (1911)ILR34Mad349
1. We answer the question referred to us in the affirmative. Section 91 of the Evidence Act lays down 'when the terms of a contract, or of a grant or of any other disposition of property have been reduced to the form of a document, and in all cases in which any matter is required by law to be reduced to the form of a document, do evidence shall be given in proof of the terms of such contract, grant, or other disposition of property, or of such matter, except the document itself or secondary evidence of its contents in cases in which secondary evidence is admissible under the provisions hereinbefore contained.'2. In our opinion the words 'any matter required by law to be reduced to the form of a document' could not have been intended by the Legislature to apply to mere observation of physical facts which under the ordinary law has to be proved by testimony in Court- All the instances in which this section has been applied are cases in which the matter required to be reduced to the form ...
In Re: Butari Chinna Vobiah
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-04-1910
Reported in: 9Ind.Cas.288
1. The Sessions Judge and the Assessors have found the appellants guilty of the murder of one Sugali Nannegadu and we have no doubt they are right. Nannegadu was admittedly murdered about 6 P.M. outside the Chavadi in the village of Brahmanapalli and while the defence alleged that the murder was committed by some unknown strangers. We have no doubt that Prosecution Witnesses Nos. 1 and 2 were present at the time and that they were telling the truth when they say the appellants were the murderers. By 8-30 P.M., prosecution Witness No. 1 was giving a statement to the Sub-Magistrate at Kadiri five miles from the scene of offence, and this after a visit to his own village on the way and in this the appellants were implicated. Much has been made of the fact that in that statement, Ankigadu was said to have witnessed the beating whereas Ankigadu merely says he saw Prosecution Witness No. 1 running from the village of Brahmanapalli and was told by him of the murder. There is in the circumstan...
In Re: Penchul Reddi Kottur
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-04-1910
Reported in: 9Ind.Cas.567a
ORDERAyling, J.1. The petitioner, undoubtedly, committed an offence under Section 21(f) of the Forest Act by quarrying in a reserved forest without a permit; but under the peculiar circumstances of the case, little more than a nominal sentence was called for, for the petitioner quarried the stone for use in construction of a Chavadi for which he had taken a contract from the minor Irrigation Overseer and it is clear from the latter's evidence (as defence witness No. 1) that whatever the petitioner did was with his knowledge and support. He says he has been accustomed to allow his contractors to quarry without obtaining permits and to deduct the seignior-age due to the Forest department from the contractor's final bills. This he seems to have regarded as quite proper and legal. It is a dangerous system and likely to lead to abuse, but there is no reason to hold that the petitioner was actuated by any dishonest or bad motive.2. The conviction is upheld, but the fine is reduced to Rupees ...
Chidambabam Chetty Alias Raman Chetty Vs. Karuppan Chetty and Three or ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-03-1910
Reported in: (1912)ILR35Mad678
1. This case is covered by the decision in Kali Amma v. Palappakkara Manakal : (1910)20MLJ347 . An ex parte decree was passed on the 4th September 1894. The third defendant, a minor, who says he attained majority on the 16th January 1909, applies on the 25th idem to sot aside the ex parte decree. The new Limitation Act came into force on the 1st of January 1909. If this Act applies, it is clear that the application is barred. Article 164 of the new Act gives thirty days from the date of the decree for the application. The other alternative of thirty days from the date when the applicant becomes aware of the decree where he was not served with notice, has no application to the facts of this case as it is not alleged that notice was not served. The period of thirty days from the date of the decree would have expired on the 4th of October 1894. The appellant pleads the disability of minority, But under Section 6 of the new Limitation Act, it avails only as regards suits and applications f...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›