Chennai Court July 1910 Judgments
Sethuram Sahib and anr. Vs. Vasanta Rao Ananda Rao Dhybar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-29-1910
Reported in: (1911)ILR34Mad314
1. The first point taken on behalf of the appellant was that the suit was premature. As regards this we agree with the Subordinate Judge that the words in exhibit A 'as scheduled in the aforesaid suit' mean as specified in the schedules to the suit in question. In our opinion the suit was not premature.2. The second point taken was that the compromise in Original Suit No. 2 of 1896 which is embodied in exhibit A was not binding on the first defendant, inasmuch as, when the compromise was entered into, the first defendant was a minor and the leave of the Court was not obtained for the compromise. This being so Mr. Sundara Ayyar contended that the decree given by the Subordinate Judge against the first defendant in a suit on the compromise agreement was wrong.3. He also contended that, the compromise being invalid as against the first defendant, and in view of the ' terms of the compromise as to the mode of payment of the sum which the defendants agreed to pay, the decree against the sec...
Tag this Judgment!Shanmooga Tevan and ors. and Sinnan thevan Vs. Emperor
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-28-1910
Reported in: 7Ind.Cas.390a
1. In This case the four-accused have been charged and tried together for two offences of dacoity alleged to have been committed on the 30th May and 2nd June 1909. Prom the statement of the fads in the Sessions Judge's charge to the Jury, it is clear that these two alleged offences were entirely independent and were not committed in the same transaction. It is, therefore, objected that the accused should not have been tried together for the two offences in one trial. The objection seems to us to be sound. It is supported by the decision in Budhai Sheikh v. Emperor 33.CA. 292 : 10 C.W.N. 32 : 3 CrI.L.J. 126, with which we agree.2. We, therefore, set aside the convictions and sentences and direct separate re-trials in respect of each alleged dacoity save that the 4th accused will not be re-tried for the dacoity of the 30th May of which he was acquitted by the Jury. The 4th accused will remain en the same bail....
Tag this Judgment!Mcgrath Vs. C. Brachis
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-28-1910
Reported in: 9Ind.Cas.347
ORDER1. In the peculiar circumstances of the case we think that, as the expert in hand writing appears to be the principal witness in the case, the application to examine him on Commission should not have been granted. We, therefore, set aside the order of the District Magistrate directing Commission to issue....
Tag this Judgment!Venkatroya Gownden Vs. the Very Rev. N. Rondy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-27-1910
Reported in: 7Ind.Cas.343
ORDER1. The order of the Head Assistant Magistrate dated the 14th day of June 1910 was passed ex parte. Such an order can only be passed in cases of emergency or when there is no time to serve notice, vide Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The order of the Head Assistant Magistrate does not disclose the existence of such emergency or that there was not sufficient time to serve notice. The tahsilder himself, in his letter of the 12th Jane, recommended that before any orders were issued evidence should be formally recorded, and the record does not, in our opinion, disclose any such emergency as called for an ex parte order. We, therefore, set aside the order of the Head Assistant Magistrate....
Tag this Judgment!Ari Chettiar Vs. Rama Reddiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-27-1910
Reported in: 9Ind.Cas.567
1. Exhibit III which is an entry of the Ward's age in the Administration Report of the Court of Wards, is evidence of his age under Section 35 of the Evidence Act. The District Judge was justified in acting on it. The second appeal is dismissed with costs....
Tag this Judgment!Valliammai Achi Vs. Maranen Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-26-1910
Reported in: 7Ind.Cas.494
1. We think that owing to the defendant's absence at the original hearing, the plaintiff did not present all his evidence but only evidence sufficient to satisfy the District Munsif. The plaintiff could, no doubt, have adduced further evidence on the order of remand by the District Judge, but the defendant who obtained the remand did not adduce any evidence at all and the plaintiff remained content with the evidence which had satisfied the District Munsif. In these circumstances, we think, that the District Judge should not have deprived the plaintiff of his decree without giving him an opportunity of putting on the record the additional evidence which he had filed in Court from the first, and only abstained from tendering in the circumstances stated above. We accordingly reverse the decree and remand the case to the District Judge for disposal according to law after both parties have had an opportunity of adducing their evidence. The appellant will pay the respondent costs in this Cou...
Tag this Judgment!Andi Vs. Emperor
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-25-1910
Reported in: 7Ind.Cas.557
ORDERSankaran Nair, J.1. I agree with the District Magistrate that an inquest report is not a statement within the meaning of Section 180 of the Indian Penal Code and refusal to sign such a report is not an offence punishable under the Penal Code. He is also right in holding that Village Head acting under Sections 174 and 175, Criminal Procedure Code, has only the powers of a Police officer specified in Section 175. The conviction is accordingly set aside and the fine levied will be refunded....
Tag this Judgment!Venkatachala Reddi and ors. Vs. Venkatarama Reddi and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-25-1910
Reported in: (1901)ILR24Mad665
1. We are unable to accept the contention of the appellant's vakil that no appeal lay to the District Judge inasmuch as the District Munsif had not determined any question arising under Section 214 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for we find that the Munsif passed a definite order rejecting the application to execute the decree until it had been decided in a separate suit as to who were the legal representatives of the original plaintiff. The order of the District Judge in appeal directing such inquiry to be made in execution cannot however be upheld. The Munsif had no jurisdiction in execution to re-open the question as to whether certain persons brought on the record of the suit as representatives of the deceased plaintiff and as such made respondents in the appeal had been properly joined as parties or not. The matter was settled by the Appellate Court before passing its decree and therefore could not be questioned in. execution.2. The order of the District Judge is therefore set as...
Tag this Judgment!Umade Rajaha Raja Damara Kumara Thimmanayanim Bahadur Varu Vs. Sri Ran ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-22-1910
Reported in: (1911)21MLJ464
1. We do not find it necessary to consider the point dealt with in the lower court, but think it clear that Section 325-A of the Code of Civil Procedure which is made applicable by Section 47 of the Madras Court of Wards Act, 1902, is sufficient to save limitation. Section 325-A expressly excludes from calculation the period during which the decree is before the Collector for execution and the exclusion is obviously made applicable to proceedings for execution in the civil court.2. There is nothing in the language of Section 47 of the Court of Wards Act to support the contention that the last clause of Section 325-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, is only made applicable and it would be contrary to the manifest intention of the legislature so to hold.3. The conclusion is right and the appeal is dismissed with costs....
Tag this Judgment!Umade Rajaha Raje Damara Kumara Thimmanayannu Bahadur Varu Vs. Sri Ran ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-22-1910
Reported in: 7Ind.Cas.860
1. We do not find it necessary to consider the point dealt with in the lower Court, but think it clear that Section 325 A of the Code of Civil Procedure which is made applicable by Section 47 of the Madras Court of Wards Act, 1902, is sufficient to save limitation. Section 825 A expressly excludes ,from calculation the period during which the decree is before the Collector for execution and the exclusion is obviously made applicable to proceedings for execution in the Civil Court.2. There is nothing in the language of Section 47 of the Court of Wards Act to support the competition plot the last clause of Section 325A of the Code of Civil Procedure is one made applicable and it would be contrary to the manifest intention of the legislature so to hold.3. The conclusion is right and the appeal is dismissed with costs....
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »