Chennai Court February 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.
Mussalappa and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-03-1910
Reported in: 6Ind.Cas.242
ORDERArnold White, C.J.1. In this case twelve shepherds (accused Nos. 1 to 12) were charged with, and tried together for offences under Section 21(a) of the Madras Forest Act, 1882, (permitting cattle to trespass in a reserved forest) and Section 147 of the Penal Code (rioting), and four other persons (accused Nos. 13 to 16) were charged with and tried together with the twelve shepherds for offences under Section 147 of the Penal Code. The shepherds were convicted under Section 21 of the Forest Act and Section 147 of the Penal Code. The other persons were convicted under Section 147 of the Code. On appeal the convictions in the case of two of the accused were set aside. The other convictions were upheld.2. For the purposes of the questions I have to decide, I take the facts to, be these. The shepherds were found grazing about 3000 sheep and 800 goats in a reserved forest. The cattle were collected by Forest Officers arid driven to a place about 3 miles off. They arrived there on the ev...
The Baptist Missionary Society of India Vs. Horiah Behara and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-03-1910
Reported in: 5Ind.Cas.972
1. The suit is, to eject certain tenants from lands held by them and their ancestors for about half a century at a uniform rent. The lands originally formed part of a zamindari and were forest lands. They were re-claimed, the defendants contributing the bulk of the expenditure. On these facts the Judge has found in favour of the defendants' occupancy rights. We are unable to say that the Judge was legally wrong in coming to that conclusion. We may perhaps add that, though the Mohiri zamindari had all been converted into ryotwari land shortly before the grant to the tenants, the lands which formed part of that zamindari are on those side surrounded by zamindaris to which the ruling in Chukati Zamindar v. liana morn Dhora 23 Ma. 318, would apply. The tenants in this case would have probably bad notions about tenure similar to those of the tenants in the surrounding zamindaris. However this may be, we are unable to say that the Judge is legally wrong. The second appeal is dismissed with c...
South Indian Export Co. Vs. A. Subba Naidu and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-03-1910
Reported in: 7Ind.Cas.243
Wallis, J.1. This is a suit by the South Indian Export to for specific performance of an agreement entered into on the 17th February 1906 with the defendants and for an injunction restraining the defendants from committing a breach of the plaint agreement and for damages.2. It is obviously contended that the agreement is one which is capable of specific performance and the plaintiffs have stated through their counsel that if an injunction is granted against the defendants, they do not press their case for damages. It has been agreed by both sides that the question of damages should stand over pending the decision as to whether an injunction should be granted.3. In the first place, I may say a word about this agreement in general. The defendants are the owners of valuable mica mines in the Nellore District and it has been stated in evidence that they have had some difficulty in working these mines, which are undoubtedly very valuable and in fact their arrangements for financing these mi...
Choragudi Venkatadri, Vs. Emperor
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-02-1910
Reported in: (1910)20MLJ220
Benson, J. 1. I agree with the conclusions arrived at by my learned brother whose Judgment I have had the advantage of perusing. There can be no doubt, I think, that the so called Provident Fund, with its hypocritical professions of philanthropy and large promises of profit to all, was, from its very inception, a gambling concern, cunningly devised to swindle the unwary and ignorant. Its ariticles of association were such that effect could be given to them only for a brief period while the number of subscribers was rapidly increasing and the number of deaths among the lives insured was few. While this condition of things lasted the few subscribers whose nominees died stood to receive handsome sums compared with the subscriptions paid, but as soon as the increase in the number of new subscribers slackened or deaths increased, it was bound inevitably to become impossible to continue to pay the benefits promised in the prospectus, and liquidation became a necessity. The articles of associ...
Subramanya Mudali and ors. Vs. Velu and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-02-1910
Reported in: (1910)20MLJ350
1. This is a suit for maintenance by the illegitimate sons of one Chidambara Mudali, deceased, against his undivided brothers and their sons. The Subordinate Judge has decreed the plaintiff's claim with some modification as regards the amount and the defendants appeal. It has been assumed by the Subordinate Judge for the purpose of his decision, that Umayal, the mother of the plaintiffs, was a married woman who was living with Chidambara Mudali as his concubine.2. The first question is whether the plaintiffs are entitled to maintenance, and the second, whether they are entitled to it against the father's undivided brothers and their sons in consequence of their having taken the father's share of the family property by survivorship. It is altogether useless to consider whether the Hindu Law, as regards the claims of illegitimate sons as now administered, is in accord with the ancient Hindu Texts or even the authoritative commentaries. It is true the High Court of Calcutta still adheres ...
In Re: Kanagasabai; in Re: Ramamani
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-02-1910
Reported in: (1910)20MLJ425
ORDER1. In these cases the second accused and a man with whom she is said to have eloped were charged with theft of certain jewels. The case for the prosecution was that the jewels belonged to the mother of the 2nd accused. The case for the 2nd accused apparently was that the jewels belonged to herself. As to that the Magistrate has held that there was no evidence to show that the 2nd accused was the exclusive owner of the jewels or was in exclusive possession thereof. He further held that even on the assumption that she had contributed from her earnings towards their value, the joint control over and possession of the jewels were in the mother as the manager of the undivided family of which the 2nd accused was a member.2. The 2nd accused was discharged on the charge of theft. The question then arose as to who was entitled to an order for the possession of these jewels. The order which the Magistrate made was that the jewels in question should be given over to the mother and the daught...
Malikka Meladathil Karnavan Kunji Achammal Vs. Malikka Meladathil Karn ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-02-1910
Reported in: (1910)20MLJ791
1. In this case the plaintiffs Nos. 2 to 25 were through their guardians parties to the deed regarding which the declaration is sought. If a declaration were given that the deed is not binding on these plaintiffs the result would be the same as if the deed were cancelled. As observed in Chingacham Vitil Sankaran Nair v. Chingacham Vitil Gopal Menon I.L.R. (1906) M. 18 the question whether Section 7, Para IV, Clause (c) of the Court Fees Act applies or not must depend on the substance of the claim and not on the mere words which a plaintiff may choose to introduce into his plaint with reference to it. The prayer, so far as plaintiffs Nos. 2 to 25 are concerned, must, therefore, be taken to be a prayer for the cancellation of the deed, and the Subordinate Judge was right in holding that ad valorem fee must be paid. We therefore dismiss this appeal with costs which will be calculated in both Courts in the manner usual in a suit capable of valuation as this suit clearly is. The objection m...
Kanaga Sabai and Ramamani Vs. Emperor
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-02-1910
Reported in: (1911)ILR34Mad94
ORDERArnold White, C.J.1. In these cases the second accused and a man with whom she is said to have eloped were charged with the theft of certain jewels. The case for the prosecution was that the jewels belonged to the mother of the second accused. The case for the second accused apparently was that the jewels belonged to herself. As to that the magistrate has held that there was no evidence to show that the second accused was the exclusive owner of the jewels or was in exclusive possession thereof. He further held that even on the assumption that she had contributed from her earnings towards their value, the joint control over and possession of the jewels were in the mother as the manager of the undivided family of which the second accused was a member. The second accused was discharged on the charge of theft. The question then arose as to who was entitled to an order for the possession of these jewels. The order which the magistrate made was that the jewels in question should be give...
Kanagasabai Vs. Ramamani
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-02-1910
Reported in: 5Ind.Cas.468
ORDERArnold White, C.J.1. In these cases the second accused and a man with whom she is said to have eloped were charged with theft of certain jewels. The case for the prosecution was that the jewels belonged to the mother of the second accused. The case for the second accused apparently was that the jewels belonged to herself. As to that the Magistrate has held that there was no evidence to show that the second accused was the exclusive owner of the jewels or was in exclusive possession thereof. He further held that even on the assumption that she had contributed from her earnings towards their value, the joint control over and possession of the jewels were in the mother as the manager of the undivided family of which the second accused was a member.2. The second accused was discharged on the charge of theft. The question then arose as to who was entitled to an order for the possession of these jewels. The order which the Magistrate made was that the jewels in question should be given ...
Gorigala Pitchi Naidu and ors. Vs. Valllur Veeriah and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-02-1910
Reported in: 5Ind.Cas.853
1. The suit land was unassessed waste part of the defendants' village of Lakkarajapalle, hamlet of Minagallu. It was rented on darkhast in 1901 to the plaintiffs ryots of Mahimalure. They complained of obstruction and dispossession by the defendants and seek to recover it. The defendants in their written statement do not set up title in themselves or adverse possession against the Government. They plead enjoyments of the land for pasture from time immemorial and deny the right of Government to grant it on darkhast. The District Munsif decreed the plaintiffs' claim. On appeal the District Judge has confirmed the Munsif's decision. He came to the conclusion that most of the plots in dispute were pattah lands till 1873, that the defendants did not hold the land for pasture from time immemorial or as of right against the Government, and that they had no rights in unassessed waste against Government. The defendants appeal and set up various contentions. It is unnecessary to set them out at ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »