Chennai Court April 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.
Muthu Nadan Vs. Shunmoogatha Pillai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-18-1910
Reported in: 7Ind.Cas.79
1. Both the lower Courts seem not to have understood the difference between property dedicated to a charity and property burdened with a charge in respect of a charity. We must, therefore, ask the District Judge to find on the evidence on record whether the property was dedicated to the charity or merely burdened with a charge in favour of the charity in question.2. The finding should be submitted within six weeks, and seven days will be allowed for filing objections.3. In compliance with the above order the District Judge of Tanjore submitted the followingFINDING.1. The issue remanded is whether the property was dedicated to the charity or merely burdened with a charge in its favour. The order of remand makes no reference to the findings of fact in this Court's judgment. One such finding was (at page 12, line 40 printed book) that the plaint properties are burdened with a charge in favour of the charity and that plaintiff's family had a beneficial interest in the surplus income. In th...
Emperor Vs. Varadan and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-18-1910
Reported in: 7Ind.Cas.415
ORDERMiller, J.1. The Magistrate should have reduced the sentence when setting aside the conviction for one of the offences in respect of which the sentence was imposed. Otherwise according to the decisions he must be held to have enhanced it. The Sessions Judge does not suggest that the punishment awarded is excessive. I reduce the sentence by seven days....
Mahomed Ibrahim Sahib Vs. Syed Meera Oommal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-18-1910
Reported in: 7Ind.Cas.558a
1. We think there should be an issue as to whether the suit is barred by Section 244, Civil Procedure Code. We, therefore, direct the District Judge to return a finding on the issue after taking such fresh evidence as the parties may adduce on the issue.2. The findings should be submitted in six weeks, and seven days will be allowed for filing objections.[In compliance with the above judgment, the District Judge of Madura submitted the followingFINDING.3. The High Court in this case has called for a finding on the following additional issue:Is the suit barred by Section 244, Civil Procedure Code? 4. Plaintiff's cause of action is that she purchased at a Court sale-auction one-third undivided share in certain property, that she obtained joint possession of the property so purchased through the Court and was in joint enjoyment until the defendants interfered with her enjoyment. She, therefore, sues for partition and separate possession of her one-third share. This being the cause of acti...
Kondamodalu Linga Reddi, Minor Under the Protection of the Court of Wa ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-15-1910
Reported in: (1910)20MLJ808
1. The questions for determination in this appeal are whether in the case of an estate taken over by the Court of Wards certain acknowledgments made by the Collector as agent of the Court of Wards and by the Deputy Collector in respect of the debts due by the ward are acknowledgments of liability within the meaning of Section 19 of the Limitation Act so as to give rise to the computation of a new period of limitation from the time of the acknowledgments.2. As regards the terms of the acknowledgments it was conceded (or at any rate not seriously contested) that if the acknowledgments had been given by the party originally liable they would have been sufficient.3. It was contended, first, that the Court of Wards had no authority to make the acknowledgments so as to bind the ward, and, secondly, assuming they had, the Collector was not authorised to make them.4. For the purposes of the questions we have to decide, we do not think any distinction can be drawn (and we do not think Mr. Napie...
Panaganti Parthasarathy Nayanim Garu Vs. Pallikapu Venkatasami Reddy a ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-15-1910
Reported in: (1911)ILR34Mad138
ORDERMiller, J.1. What the Magistrate has to do under Chapter XII of the Code of Criminal Procedure is to decide which of the parties was in actual possession at the date of his preliminary order, and this he has to decide without reference to the merits of the claims of any of the parties to aright to possess the subject of dispute, I do not doubt therefore that the Magistrate may, if necessary, take and consider evidence of title to enable him to decide the question of actual possession, but proof of title is not proof of actual possession, and here the Magistrate, though he says ha admits evidence of title to 'supplement' evidence of user, still does not say that he uses it to enable him to decide on which side the truth as to user lies. Ota the other band, he finds that the evidence does not establish exclusive possession by either party; and that both parties have been from time to time using the land; and he uses the evidence of title to supplement this evidence in this sense tha...
Kondamodalu Linga Reddi Vs. Alluri Sarvarayudu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-15-1910
Reported in: (1911)ILR34Mad221
1. The questions for determination in this appeal are whether in the case of an estate taken over by the Court of Wards certain acknowledgments made by the Collector as agent of the Court of Wards and by the Deputy Collector in respect of debts due by the ward are acknowledgments of liability within the meaning of Section 19 of the Limitation Act so as to give rise to the computation of a new period of limitation from the time of the acknowledgment.2. As regards the terms of the acknowledgments it was conceded (or at any rate not seriously contested) that if the acknowledgments had been given by the party originally liable they would have been sufficient.3. It was contended first, that the Court of Wards had no authority to make the acknowledgments so as to bind the ward, and, secondly, assuming they had, the Collector was not authorised to make them.4. For the purposes of the question we have to decide we do not think any distinction can be drawn (and we do not think Mr. Napier sought...
Pananganti Parthasarathy Nayannim Garu Vs. Pallikapu Venkatasawmi Redd ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-15-1910
Reported in: 6Ind.Cas.398
ORDERMiller, J.1. What the Magistrate has to do under Chapter XII of the Code of Criminal Procedure is to decide which of the parties was in actual possession at the date of his preliminary order, and this he has to decide without reference to the merits of the claims of any of the parties to a right to possess the subject of dispute. I do not doubt, therefore, that the Magistrate may, if necessary, take and consider evidence of title to enable him to decide the question of actual possession, but proof of title is not proof of actual possession, and here the Magistrate though he says he admits evidence of title Jo supplement evidence of user, still does not say that he uses it to enable him to decide on which side the truth as to user lies. On the other hand he finds that the evidence does not establish exclusive possession by either party and that both parties have been from time to time using the land; and he uses the evidence of title to supplement this evidence in this sense, that ...
The Session Judge of Tinnevelly and the Tharappa Pillai Vs. Vencataram ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-15-1910
Reported in: 6Ind.Cas.385
ORDERMiller, J.1. It is not contended on behalf of the accused that the order for payment of compensation can stand. It is set aside and the money paid (if any) must be refunded.2. The case before the Magistrate was a summons case; he tried it, the Sessions Judge says, as a warrant case, and discharged the accused. The Sessions Judge suggests that if the accused had been tried in accordance with the procedure prescribed for the trial of summons cases, he might have pleaded guilty, but there is nothing in the record to suggest that he would have admitted any facts which he did not admit, or that the 1st class Magistrate would have had any more evidence before him to prove the facts necessary to establish an arrest as he (the Magistrate) understood it. Toe procedure adopted has not prejudiced the prosecution. But however that be, the accused is not to be prejudiced by the adoption by the Magistrate of the wrong procedure and to hold that he is an accused person who has been discharged wi...
Kondamodalu Linga Reddi, Minor Vs. Alluri Sarvarayudu of Annadevarapet ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-15-1910
Reported in: 6Ind.Cas.407
1. The questions for determination in this appeal are, whether, in the case of an estate taken over by the Court of Wards, certain acknowledgments made by the Collector as agent of the Court of Wards and by the Deputy Collector in respect of debts due by the ward are acknowledgments of liability within the meaning of Section 19 of the Limitation Act so as to give rise to the computation of a new period of limitation from the time of the acknowledgments.2. As regards the terms of the acknowledgments, it was conceded (or at any rate not seriously contested) that if the acknowledgments had been given by the party originally liable they would have been sufficient.3. It was contended, first, that the Court of Wards had no authority to make the acknowledgments, so as to bind the ward, and, secondly, assuming they had, the Collector was not authorised to make them.4. For the purposes of the question we have to decide, we do not think any distinction can be drawn (and we do not think Mr. Napie...
Mahomed Hajee Kunhamma and anr. Vs. Mussa Hajee
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-15-1910
Reported in: 7Ind.Cas.320a
1. The learned Vakil for the appellant has cited no authority of any kind in support of his contention. If the land given to his client as stridhanam was wasted away, he has not satisfied us that either by virtue of custom or contract the appellant is entitled to a further grant of land of equivalent value. Similarly, it was for the 2nd appellant to prove that she having chosen to live away from the family house, was entitled to separate maintenance. She belongs to a Moplah Marumakatayam tarwad and there are no authorities directly bearing on the point. The analogy of a Hindu tarwad is against the appellant's contention, and she could make good her claim only by proving that the customary law governing a Moplah tarwad is different. She did not adduce any such proof.2. The second appeal, therefore, fails and is dismissed with costs....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »