Chennai Court January 1911 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: Muthukumara Reddy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-17-1911
Reported in: (1911)21MLJ411
ORDER1. The only objection to the conviction that needs to be considered is that founded on Section 360, Criminal Procedure Code, and Section 91 of the Indian Evidence Act.2. The petitioner has been convicted of giving false evidence in a certain criminal trial, and the statement which is alleged to be false has been proved by putting in evidence the deposition in which the false statement was made by the petitioner. It is contended that this deposition is inadmissible in as much as, when it was read over to the petitioner, another witness was being examined in the case in which the petitioner had given evidence. It is not alleged that the petitioner's deposition was not correctly recorded, and the gist of the objection is that the accused in the case in which the petitioner gave evidence or his pleader could not have been listening to the petitioner's evidence when it was read out to him. Section 360 of the Criminal Procedure Code requires that the deposition, after it has been record...
Kothilinga Setu Royar (Deceased) and ors. Vs. Sahasranama Iyer and ors ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-17-1911
Reported in: (1911)21MLJ662
Benson, J.1. The District Judge has now returned a finding that there has been an increase in the supply of water to the Moolachikulam tank in consequence of improvements carried out by Government.2. It is conceded that on this finding Government is entitled under Madras Act VII of 1865 (amended by Act V of 1900) to impose the water cess levied in this case.3. The only other question is whether it is the zemindar (the second defendant) or the tenant (plaintiff) that is bound to pay it.4. The District Judge has decided that the zemindar is the person liable, and that, if the circumstances are such as to justify him in demanding an enhancement of rent from the tenants, he should obtain the sanction of the Collector under Section 11 of Madras Act VIII of 1865.5. I am of opinion that the decision of the District Judge is right, and in accordance with the scheme of the Revenue Recovery Act (Madras Act II of 1864) as explained by this Court in Zamorin of Calicut v. Sitarama I.L.R. (1883) M. ...
Kottilinga Settu Royer, Zamindar of Urkad Vs. Sahaseanama Iyer and ors ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-17-1911
Reported in: (1911)ILR34Mad520
Benson, J.4. The District Judge has now returned a finding that there has been an increase in the supply of water to the Moolachikulam tank in consequence of improvements carried out by Government.5. It is conceded that on this finding Government is entitled under Madras Act VII of 1865 (amended by Act V of 1900) to impose the water-cess levied in this case.6. The only other question is whether it is the zamindar (the second defendant) or the tenant (plaintiff) that is bound to pay it.7. The District Judge has decided that the zamindar is the person liable, and that, if the circumstances are such as to justify him in demanding an enhancement of rent from the tenants, he should obtain the sanction of the Collector under Section 11 of Madras Act VIII of 1865.8. I am of opinion that the decision of the District Judge is right, and in accordance with the scheme of the Revenue Recovery Act (Madras Act II of 1864) as explained by this Court in Zamorin of Calicut v. Sitarama I.L.R. (1884) Mad...
Muthusawmi Pillay Vs. Govindasawmi Pillay
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-17-1911
Reported in: 9Ind.Cas.267
1. We think that, although Exhibit B may not contain words of conveyance, that document should be enforced as having been executed in settlement of a bona fide family dispute between the parties. Vide Ram Niranjan Singh v. Prayag Singh 8 C. 138 where the law relating to such settlements is dealt with. We, therefore, set aside the decree of the Subordinate Judge and restore the decree of the District Munsif with costs in this and the lower appellate Courts....
Chidambaram Chetty Vs. Somasundram Chetty and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-17-1911
Reported in: 9Ind.Cas.261
1. The first contention is that the defendant could not proceed against the appellant under Sections 38 and 39 of the Rent Recovery Act as the appellant is not a cultivating tenant but a middleman who has taken a lease of the melvaram. The contention is concluded against the appellant by the decision in Muthusami Pillai v. Arunachellam Chettiar 29 M. 79 : 15 M.L.J. 361.2. The next contention is that there was no proper notice. All that Section 39 of the Act requires was done and the contention must fail.3. The appeal is dismissed with costs....
Kotttlinga Settu Royer Avergal, Zemindar of Urkad and anr. Vs. Sahasra ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-17-1911
Reported in: 9Ind.Cas.643a
Ralph Benson J.1. The District Judge has now returned a finding that there has been an increase in the supply of water to the Mulachikulam tank in consequence of improvements carried out by Government.2. It is conceded that on this finding Government is entitled, under Madras Act VII of 1865 (amended by Act V of 1900), to impose the water cess levied in this case.3. The only other question is whether it is the zemindar (the 2nd defendant) or the tenant (plaintiff) that is bound to pay it.4. The District Judge has decided that the zemindar is the person liable, and that, if the circumstances are such as to justify him in demanding an enhancement of rent from the tenants, he should obtain the sanction of the Collector under Section 11 of Madras Act VIII of 1865.5. I am of opinion that the decision of the District Judge is right, and in accordance with the scheme of the Revenue Recovery Act (Madras Act II of 1884) as explained by this Court in-Zamorin of Calicut v. Sitarama 7 M 405; Secre...
Kolli Nagiah Vs. Vappuburi Gopala Krishniah Minor, by Next Friend Mane ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-16-1911
Reported in: 9Ind.Cas.252
Krishnaswamy Aiyar, J.1. This is an application under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, to revise an order passed by the District Judge of Guntur refusing to set aside a sale in execution of a decree. The petitioner was the 2nd defendant in the suit. His elder brother the 1st defendant was appointed guardian ad litem but the decree was passed ex parte. In execution of the ex parte decree, immovable property belonging to the defendant was sold. An application was made on behalf of the 2nd defendant to set aside the sale. There were certain irregularities alleged. It was said that the decree itself was bad because no guardian ad litem had been appointed, that the execution proceeding was bad because there was no guardian to represent the 2nd defendant in the execution proceeding, and that the property sold did not fetch an adequate price.2. In the first place, it is necessary to notice the fact that both the Courts have held that no substantial damage has accrued to the p...
K. Narasimha Chariar and anr. Vs. Pillanna and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-16-1911
Reported in: 9Ind.Cas.289
ORDERMunro, J.1. I doubt if the order of the Magistrate can be considered a 'decision' under Section 145, Criminal Procedure Code, and, that being so, costs could not be awarded under Section 148 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The order as to costs is set aside, and the costs, if paid, will be refunded....
In Re: M. Rama Moothan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-16-1911
Reported in: 9Ind.Cas.271
Ralph Benson, J.1. It is argued that in the proceedings before the District Munsif in 1896, the plaintiff's right to get actual possession was negatived on the ground that the 3rd defendant was a tenant of the 1st defendant, entitled as his tenant, to remain in actual possession, notwithstanding the plaintiff's right to recover possession of the jenm right from the 1st defendant. I observe that the 3rd defendant in these proceedings claimed a jenm right in the land, and resisted the plaintiff's claim to possession. The appellant's Vakil is unable to refer me to any evidence that the Munsif's decision proceeded on the footing that the 3rd defendant's possession was as a tenant of the 1st defendant. In these circumstances, I do not think that the plaintiff's having obtained symbolical possession from the 1st defendant behind the 3rd defendant's back in 1899 will save the bar by limitation. The case of Gopal v. Krishna Rao 25 B. 275 : 3 Bom. L.R. 1020 relied on by the appellant's Vakil se...
Mulla Vittil Seethi Vs. Korambath Paruthooli Achuthan Nair and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-12-1911
Reported in: (1911)21MLJ213
1. The order of reference in this case state's the following question for the decision of the Full Bench : 'Whether a first mortgagee who has purchased the mortgaged property in execution of a decree on his mortgage and sues for possession or in the alternative for the recovery of his money is entitled to a decree for possession subject to redemption by a puisne mortgagee with possession who was not a party to the suit by the first mortgagee?'2. Our answer is in the negative. There are conflicting decisions of this and the other Indian High Courts on the question which it is impossible to reconcile. The source of the difficulty seems to lie mainly in arriving at a definite conception of the rights of the second mortgagee. Section 60 of the Transfer of Property Act lays down the right of the mortgagor to redeem the mortgage. Section 75 of the Act gives every second or other subsequent mortgagee the same rights as against the prior mortgagee as the mortgagor has against him as regards th...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »