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.
In Re: James Fletcher
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-02-1910
Reported in: 5Ind.Cas.973
ORDERArnold White, C.J.1. I do not think this conviction can be upheld. It is admitted that the certificate which was presented by somebody at the Booking office for endorsement--as to who presented it, I here is no evidence--was duly signed by Dr. Skinner. It is in evidence that the four parties named in the certificate were all entitled to travel at the reduced rate on a student's ticket. It is in evidence that the accused was entitled to travel at the reduced rate as a student and according to the evidence of the Station Master there is no rule prohibiting the transfer of student's ticket. The certificate which was in the first instance presented by somebody--not the accused--contains the names of students who had not applied for this certificate but there is no evidence that the accused knew this. What he did was to present the certificate after it had been endorsed ''tickets may be issued' and receive a pass. As I have said he was himself entitled to travel at the reduced rate, I ...
In Re: Bommareddi Somireddi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-02-1910
Reported in: 5Ind.Cas.974a
ORDERArnold White, C.J.1. Here the 1st accused was charged under Sections 447 and 352 of the Penal Code and convicted by the Stationary Sub-Magistrate under those sections. On appeal the Deputy Magistrate without expressing any opinion as to whether those convictions were right convicted the accused under Section 379 of the Penal Code. There is no reference in the judgment of the Stationary Sub-Magistrate to any evidence on which a charge of theft could be based and the accused had no opportunity of answering the charge of theft. The charge of theft is a distinct and separate charge and should have been separately made. If authorities are needed for this, I need only refer to the case of Jatu Singh v. Mahbir Singh 27 Ca. 660 and Yakub All v. Lethu Thakur 30 C. 288. I think the conviction on appeal by the Deputy Magistrate was bad and I must set it aside. I direct the Magistrate to restore the appeal to his file and dispose of it according to law....
Ramaswami Iyengar Vs. Janaki Ammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-02-1910
Reported in: 6Ind.Cas.723
1. The Munsif made his decree, on the 31st January, The plaintiff applied for review on the 12th March. The Munsif allowed the review on the 9th April. There was then no decree of the Munsif from which an appeal could be preferred; until the Munsif's order was set aside on the 13th September, this state of things continued. Again it was held in Ramanadhan Chetti v. Narayanan Chetty 27 M. 602 : 14 M.L.J. 321, though this was afterwards overruled, that a review could not be proceeded with if an appeal was also preferred. The attention of the Judge does not appear to have been drawn to these matters. The discretion to excuse the delay is with the Judge; and if he had exercised it with duo reference to the considerations we have adverted to, we should not have been disposed to interfere. In these circumstances we think we ought to reverse the Judge's judgment and remand the case to him to be dealt with according to law. It will be open to the Judge to re-consider the question of delay in t...
Subramania Mudaly and ors. Vs. Valu and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-02-1910
Reported in: (1911)ILR34Mad68
1. This is a suit for maintenance by the illegitimate sons of one Chidambira Mudali, deceased, against his undivided brothers and their sons. The Subordinate Judge has decreed the plaintiffs' 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 Chidam-bara 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 ...
Gorijala Pitchi Naidu and ors. Vs. Vallur Veeriah and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-02-1910
Reported in: (1911)ILR34Mad58
1. The suit land was unassessed waste, part of the defendant's village of Lakkarajupalle, hamlet of Minagallu. It was granted on darkhast in 1901 to the plaintiffs, ryots of Mahimalur. They complain 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 enjoyment 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 lands 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 l...
Kambinayani Javvaji Timmaji Amma Garu and ors. Vs. Kambinayani Javvaje ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-01-1910
Reported in: (1910)20MLJ204
Miller, J.1. The preliminary objection that the suit was not on behalf of the estate fails. There is nothing in the language of the plaint to which our attention was called which rebuts the presumption arising from the nature of the relief claimed, that the suit was on behalf of the estate.2. On the merits I have had an opportunity of reading the judgment which my learned brother has prepared, and I agree with him that the compromise does not effect an alienation by the widow of rights which she possessed, so as to make the possession of the 1st defendant's father a possession derived from her. The widow gave up or relinquished her rights and interest and all claim under the decree, but I do not read that as meaning that she transferred those rights, interests and claims to the 1st defandant's father, but only that she undertook to make no further claim under the decree. There is a transfer of property by him to her but none by her to him.3. That being so I concur in dismissing the app...
The Advocate-general of Madras Vs. A.L.A.R. Arunachelam Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-01-1910
Reported in: (1910)20MLJ387
1. In this case the Advocate-General has instituted a suit under Section 539 of the Code of 1882 on the Original Side of this Court for the appointment of the trustees and the settlement of a scheme for the management of the Rameswaram Temple in the Madura District.2. At the first hearing the case was adjourned to Chambers for the settlement of a scheme, but subsequently objection was taken by the defendant, the present Manager, that his Vakils had no authority to consent to the terms of the reference and also that the Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit. I decided to deal first with the question of jurisdiction, and it has been fully argued before me by the Advocate-General and Mr. S. Srinivasa Iyengar. Two contentions have been raised: that Section 539 does not confer upon the High Court in its Original Jurisdiction power to entertain suits in respect of charities in the mofussal, and that the Indian Legislature had no power to confer such jurisdiction on the High Court contrar...
Hazarith Syed Gulam Ghouse Sha Sahib Kadir Vs. Shonmugam Pillai and or ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-01-1910
Reported in: (1911)ILR34Mad438
Arnold White, C.J.1. These are suits for rent; and the Munsif sitting as a Small Cause Judge has decided that the suits are barred by limitation, The question I have to consider is was he right in law in so holding?2. The tenants say that the suits are barred because the arrears become due within the meaning of Article 110 of the second schedule to the Limitation Act on the date of a judgment which was delivered on a first appeal by this Court, the date of the judgment being the 7th August, 1902. The landlord says that the arrears did not become due within the meaning of that article until a later date, viz., the 24th May 1904 that being the date of a judgment by the Sub-Collector in certain proceedings before the Revenue Court under the Rent Recovery Act, The judgment of this High Court to which I have referred is a judgment in a suit in which the tenants sued the landlord for a declaration that the landlord was not entitled to vary the terms of previous puttas--the puttas in that sui...
Ramalingam Chetty Vs. Veerayya Chetty and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-01-1910
Reported in: 5Ind.Cas.939
Arnold White, C.J.1. I think the Munsif in effect, though he does not say so in so many words, held that the defendant was will to take the oath in the form proposed by the Plaintiff and that the plaintiff insisted on his taking the oath in another form. The form of oath by which the plaintiff offered to be bound is not before me but it is not suggested that it provided that the light should be extinguished, as the plaintiff insisted should be extinguished, by being blown out I he present case is not on all fours with Umayammai v. Muthiah Nadar 17 M.L.J. 99, where the Plaintiff prevented the oath being Taken by not appearing and performing his part the ceremony In the present case the plaintiff appeared but insisted that the oath should be taken in a form not specified in the proposal as to the form of oath by which he agreed to be bound. I think, however I do not find anything in Etakkot Mathumkutti Mammad's Kutti's son Majan v. Pathu Kutti 17 M.L.J. 546, which conflicts with this vie...
Zamindar Garu of Venkatagiri Vs. Vadlapudi Chinna Venkanna and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-01-1910
Reported in: 5Ind.Cas.925
Arnold White, C.J.1. The Munsif does not appear to have considered the effect of the judgment in the (Original Suit Exhibit B). It is true the plaintiff did not set up the case in the Court below that his claim was res judicata and he does not take the point in his grounds for revision to this Court. But he is not thereby precluded from raising the point here Muhammad Ismail v. Chattar Singh 4 A. 69. I set aside the decrees of the Munsif and remand the cases to be disposed of after consideration of the effect of the judgment referred to. The petitioners must pay the costs of the petitions to this Court in any event. The other costs will be dealt with by the Munsif....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »