Chennai Court March 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.
Latchumammal Vs. Gangammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-14-1910
Reported in: (1911)ILR34Mad72a
1. The first issue raised two questions, namely, whether there was an oral will and whether there was an absolute division by the widows. The original Munsif held in the plaintiff's favour on both the questions. Mr. Oldfield held against the will but in favour of the absolute partition. He reversed and remanded the case with instructions to the Munsif to try the question as to the date of the partition. The Munsif having decided in the plaintiff's favour, an appeal was again preferred to the District Court, which now came before Mr. Broadfoot. He held the will proved and dismissed the suit, We are of opinion that he was wrong in going back upon Mr. Oldfield's decision against the will. The order of remand was based upon the decision that the will was not true, Though he held the partition was absolute, he would not dispose of the case finally as he wanted a further question to be decided as to whether it was before or after the Transfer of Property Act.2. We think that Mr. Oldfield's d...
In Re: Kurumba Hosakeri
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-14-1910
Reported in: 7Ind.Cas.397
1. We agree with the Sessions Judge that the evidence establishes the guilt of the accused. The Sessions Judge has apparently overlooked the provisions of Section 367(5) of the Criminal Procedure Code which require him to state his reasons for not passing sentence of death in a case in which he convicts an accused person of an offence punishable with death.2. We confirm the conviction and sentence and dismiss the appeal....
In Re: Ramakristnamma
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-14-1910
Reported in: 7Ind.Cas.398
ORDER1. We must set aside the order on the ground that there is nothing to show that it was made in such circumstances that it can be said to have been a continuation of the proceedings in which the evidence was given [vide Aiyakannu Pillai v. Emperor 32 M. 49 : 4 M.L.T. 404 : 19 M.L.J. 42 : 9 Cri.L.J. 41 : 1 Ind. Cas. 597]....
In Re: Suruttai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-14-1910
Reported in: 7Ind.Cas.401
1. The Sessions Judge has not explained to the jury what is meant by the offence of robbery.2. It has been held in this Court, in a case very similar to the present, that under Section 297, Criminal Procedure Code, the Judge must explain to the jury the law by which they are to be guided, and that, if he fails to do so, the verdict must be set aside. Mari Valayan v. Emperor 30 M. 41 : 1 M.L.T. 399 : 5 Cri. L.J. 78.3. Following that ruling, we are constrained to set aside the conviction and direct a retrial. ...
Thambi Alias Chinnasawmi Padayachi Vs. Avayambal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-11-1910
Reported in: (1910)20MLJ298
Benson, J. 1. The plaintiff sued for possession of a house alleging that the house was sold to him by one Meenakshi under Exh. C dated the 8th September 1897; that he leased it back to Meenakshi under Exh. A dated the 29th January 1903, that after Meenakshi's death, her daughter (the 1st defendant) executed a ' rent deed ' Exh. B dated the 6th September 1905, agreeing to rent the house for six months at a monthly rental of half a rupee and paid one month's rent, but subsequently failed to pay the rent and refused to give up possession.2. The lower appellate Court has found that Meenakshi had no title to sell the house, that it belonged to her husband who is still alive though leading a wandering life, that the alleged sale (Exhibit C) was not for any purpose binding on the inheritance, but was intended as a shield against a creditor; that Exhibit A was executed in order to give an appearance of reality to Exh. C and that the 1st defendant is not in possession under the alleged letting,...
The Secretary of State for India in Council Represented by the Collect ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-11-1910
Reported in: (1910)20MLJ869
1. The plaintiff alleges that a certain caligulah which regulated the supply of water for irrigation to his land had fallen into disrepair, and the Government officers, being bound to repair it, failed to do so. In consequence of this failure his land received no water and his crop was lost. He sued for compensation to the extent of the value of the crop which, but for the failureof the water-supply, he might have got.2. Both Courts below have considered the question whether the plaintiff has a cause of action against the Government, and though the written statement does not distinctly raise this question, we have dealt with it. In the circumstances, we are of opinion that the District Munsif was right and that the Government is not under an obligation with regard to each individual ryot to repair irrigation works whenever they require repair. There is no case, so far as we know, in which a claim like the present has ever been made in India, whether against the Government or against a ...
Thiruvengada Mudaliar and anr. Vs. S. Sadagopa Mudaliar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-11-1910
Reported in: (1910)20MLJ987
1. The main question argued in this appeal was whether a partner, whose remedy against his co-partner for a general account is barred, can recover his share of a particular item of the partnership assets which the co-partner received after the dissolution of the partnership. Mr. K. Srinivasa Aiyangar, who discussed the general principles relating to suits between partners at considerable length, was unable to cite any authority in support of his contention that such a suit cannot be maintained. He failed to convince us that there is anything in reason, or in the principles which ordinarily guide the Court in actions. between co-partners, which should deter a Court from entertaining a suit like the present, if it be open to the defendant co-partner to ask the Court to take accounts with a view to show that the plaintiff had received more than his share in the partnership assets. This is the view of the law taken in Sokkanadha Vanni Mundar v. Sokkanadha Vanni Mundar I. L. R. (1904) M. 34...
The Secretary of State for India in Council Represented by the Collect ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-11-1910
Reported in: (1911)ILR34Mad82
1. The plaintiff alleged that a certain calingula which regulated the supply of water for irrigation to his land had fallen into disrepair and the Government officers being bound to repair it failed to do so, in consequence of this failure, his land received no water and his crop was lost: ha sued for compensation to the extent of the value of the crop which but for the failure of the water-supply he might have grown.2. Both Courts below have considered the question whether the-plaintiff has a cause of action against the Government, and though the written statement does not distinctly raise this question, we-have dealt with it in the circumstances. We are of opinion that the District Munsif was right, and that the Government is not under an obligation with regard to each individual ryot to repair irrigation works whenever they require repair. There is no case, so far as we know, in which a claim like the present has ever been mada in India, whether against the Government, or against a ...
Thiruvengada Mudaliar and ors. Vs. Sadagopa Mudaliar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-11-1910
Reported in: (1911)ILR34Mad112
1. The main question argued in this appeal was whether a partner whose remedy against his co-partner for a general account is barred can recover his share of a particular item of the partnership assets which the co-partner received after the dissolution of the partnership. Mr. K. Srinivasa Ayyangar, who discussed the general principles relating to suits between partners at considerable length, was unable to cite any authority in support of his contention that such a suit cannot be maintained. He failed to convince us that there is anything in reason or in the principles which ordinarily guide the Court in actions between co-partners which should deter a Court from entertaining a suit like the present, if it be open to the defendant co-partner to ask the Court to take accounts with a view to show that the plaintiff had received more than his share in the partnership assets. This is the view of the law taken in Sokkanadha Vanni Mundar v. Sokkanadha Vanni Mundar I.L.R. (1905) Mad. 344, fo...
Natti Goundan and anr. Vs. Gurunada Goundan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-11-1910
Reported in: 7Ind.Cas.695a
1. The order passed by the learned Judge is 'dismissed with costs.' It is impossible for us to say whether the learned Judge meant to dismiss the case on the merits or whether he meant that he thought that, in the exercise of his discretion, the case was one in which he was not inclined to interfere. As we are uncertain as to this, we cannot say that the order is a judgment and this being so, no appeal lies against the order. The Letters Patent appeal is dismissed with costs....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »