Chennai Court March 1910 Judgments
Adhiragi Chetty Vs. Billa Tyampu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-31-1910
Reported in: (1910)20MLJ944
1. Exhibit B modifies the terms of the lease Exhibit A. It provides that on default of payment by the due date the rent in arrears shall be paid with interest with the next year's rent. If default is made even then, the property shall be surrendered to the lessor. Following the decisions in Naraina Naikan v. Vasudeva Bhath I.L.R. (1903) M. 389 and Narayana Kamti v. Handu Shetty (1901) M.L.J. 210 the defendant is not entitled to be relieved against the forfeiture. It is, moreover, found that the tender in the suit was not of the whole amount due.2. We must reverse the decree of the District Judge and restore that of the Munsif with costs in this and the lower appellate Court....
Tag this Judgment!Bogra Vs. Emperor
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-31-1910
Reported in: (1911)ILR34Mad141
Miller, J.1. It was held by Collins, C.J., and Parker, J., in Singiri Eradu v. Empress II Weir's Crl. Rule, 435 Crl. Rev. C No. 463 of 1894 (unreported) that procedure identical with that adopted by the Sessions Judge in the present case is materially irregular. The deposition taken in the Sessions Court was therefore irregularly taken, and it may be that a conviction based upon such evidence could not be sustained. But in the present case the person concerned is the witness who made the deposition and not the accused against whom it was made, and it has been read over to the witness admitted to be correct and signed. It is very difficult, I think, to see any good reason why this admission of the witness should not be taken to be a proof of the correctness of the document. There is no doubt direct authority in this Court for the view that a deposition not read over in the hearing of the Judge and the vakils (in a civil case) is not a deposition at all and cannot be used as evidence for...
Tag this Judgment!Vala Subramania Pillai Vs. Sankara Subbu Naidu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-31-1910
Reported in: 7Ind.Cas.859
Miller, J.1. I think the Subordinate Judge has fallen into the error of holding that under Article 179(4) of the 2nd Schedule to the Limitation Act of 1877, the limitation period begins to run from the date on which some step is taken in aid of execution, and that some order of the Court is accordingly necessary to initiate that step. But it is clear from Article 179(4) itself that the period starts with the application to the Court to take a step-in-aid of execution and if the application is in accordance with law and if its purpose is to move the Court to take a step-in-aid of execution it makes no difference whether the Court does or does not take the step demanded.2. If then the application of the 3rd October 1905 was an application to take a step-in-aid of execution and was in accordance with law, no order of the Court is required to bring Article 179(4) into operation, and inasmuch as the law required the issue of a notice before execution could be had, the application presented ...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Bogra
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-31-1910
Reported in: 7Ind.Cas.414; (1910)20MLJ943
ORDERMiller, J.1. It was held by Collins, C.J., and Parker, J., in the Criminal Revision Case No. 453 of 1894 In re Singiri Eradu II Weir 435 that procedure identical with that adopted by the Sessions Judge in the present case is materially irregular. The deposition taken in the Sessions Court was, therefore, irregularly taken and it may be that a conviction based upon such evidence could not be sustained.2. But in the present case the person convicted is the witness who made the deposition and not the accused against whom it was made, and it has been read over to the witness admitted to be correct and signed. It is very difficult, I think, to see any good reason why this admission of the witness should not be taken to be a proof of the correctness of this document. There is, no doubt, direct authority in this Court for this view that a deposition not read over in the hearing of the Judge and the Vakils (in a Civil case) is not a deposition at all and cannot be used as evidence for any...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Rangasami Naidu, Son of Venkatarama Naidu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-30-1910
Reported in: (1910)20MLJ568
ORDER1. The 2nd accused, a peon in the Subordinate Court of Tuticorin, was entrusted with a notice for service on the complainant. The duty of the 2nd accused under the law was merely to require the signature of the complainant to an acknowledgment of service of the notice. This direction of the law the 2nd accused disobeyed, for he represented the notice to be a warrant and actually arrested the complainant under color of the alleged warrant.2. We think the 2nd accused was rightly convicted under. Section 166 of the Indian Penal Code, and dismiss the petition....
Tag this Judgment!Ayya Pattar's son Narayana Pattar Vs. Easwara Mangalath Madath thethi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-30-1910
Reported in: 6Ind.Cas.724
1. The suit is on a hypothecation bond executed by the 1st defendant's deceased son Narayanan Nambi. Narayanan Nambi had a brother who has not been heard of. He did not join in the execution. The obligor and his brother are the followers of Makkathayam. The Subordinate Judge on appeal, holding that in a family governed by Makkathayam the property belongs to the tarwad consisting of the male members and all the females born in and married into, the family and that the loan in his case was not contracted for a purpose binding on the tarwad, has dismissed the suit as against the tarwad property. The 1st defendant pleaded that the property was stridhanam. There is no distinct finding on this plea by either Court. It does not appear' whether Raman Nambi is alive or dead. The question may arise whether in the absence of his consent the mortgage is binding, assuming that the property was not the stridhanam but belonged to the tarwad. We have to call for findings on these two questions. But a ...
Tag this Judgment!Venkaraju Venkatasami and anr. Vs. Emperor
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-30-1910
Reported in: 7Ind.Cas.176
1. The two accused in this case signed a bail bond with names which were not their own, and have been convicted under Section 465 of the Indian Penal Code of forgery by making a false document. We do not think the conviction can stand under Section 464 of the Indian Penal Code. A person makes a false document who dishonestly or fraudulently signs a document with the intention of causing it to be believed that the document was signed by a person by whom he knows it was not signed. Now in this case, the accused had before signing said to the Sub-Magistrate that their names were the names they after wards signed to the bail bond. There could, therefore, be no intention to cause the Sab-Magistrate to believe that the bail bond was signed by any person real or fictitious other than the accused.2. We, therefore, set aside the conviction, acquit the accused of forgery under Section 465 of the Indian Penal Code and direct their immediate release....
Tag this Judgment!P.L.S.A.R.S. Chettiappa Chettiar Vs. N. Periasami thevan and Another
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-24-1910
Reported in: (1910)20MLJ979
1. The Subordinate Judge finds that there was not gross negligence in the circumstances of this case on the part of the nth defendant, the prior mortgagee. The Subordinate Judge has accepted the nth defendant's explanation for not having been possessed himself of the title deeds. We are also disposed to agree with the decision in Rangasami Naicken v. Annamalai Mudali I.L.R. (1907) M. 9 where it is pointed out that the same importance does not attach to the possession of the title deeds in the mofussil as in the city of Madras, and that facility in inspecting the registry provided by the registration law should be taken into account in determining whether there was gross regligence in the prior encumbrancer. We dismiss the second appeal with costs....
Tag this Judgment!P.L.S.A.R.S. Chettiappa Chettiar Vs. N. Periasami thevan and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-24-1910
Reported in: 7Ind.Cas.810
1. The Subordinate Judge finds that there was not gross negligence in the circumstances of this case on the part of the 11th defendant, the prior mortgagee. The Subordinate Judge has accepted the 11th defendant's explanation for not having been possessed himself of the title-deeds. We are also disposed to agree with the decision in Rangasami Naicker v. Annamalai Mudali 31 M. 7 : 3 M.L.T. 87 : 17 M.L.J. 499 where it is pointed out that the same importance does not attach to the possession of the title-deeds in the Mofussil as in the city of Madras, and that facility in, inspecting the registry provided by the Registration Law-should be taken into account in determining whether there was gross negligence in the prior encumbrance. We dismiss the second appeal with costs....
Tag this Judgment!Chinna Garata Reddi Vs. Emperor
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-24-1910
Reported in: 7Ind.Cas.416a
ORDERMiller, J.1. The Magistrates were wrong in not deciding whether the accused was or was not the owner of the produce of the tree. It is not even found whether the complainant had on had not a right to possession under his mortgage and in the absence of findings on either of those questions, it being proved that the tree had been sold to the accused, I do not see what ground the Magistrates have on which to base a finding of the dishonesty in the accused. I set aside the 1st Class Magistrate's order confirming the conviction and sentence and direct him to re-hear the appeal and dispose of it according to law....
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »