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.
J.M. Rodrigues Vs. A.M. Mathias and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-05-1911
Reported in: (1911)21MLJ481
1. The petitioners in their Application for probate valued the assets at Rs. 14,031-9-2. The counter-petitioner objected that their valuation was too low and the proper valuation was found to be Rs. 26.547-14-6. The counter-petitioner has now appealed and has paid stamp duty ad valorem on. Rs. 14,031-9-2. It is contended by the petitioner that stamp duty should be paid on Rs. 26, 547-14-6. The counter petitioner replies that he need not have paid more than Rs. 2 stamp duty as the appeal falls under Article 1 or Article 11, Schedule II, of the Court-Fees Act, and that in any case he is not bound to pay on more than the petitioner's valuation. We do not think Article 11 of Schedule II applies, for the order appealed against undoubtedly has the force of a decree as it decides the representative title and to this extent we agree with the decisions of this Court in Appeal No, 94 of 1900 and Appeal 54 of 1900. In support of the contention that Article 1 of Schedule II applies, we are referre...
C. Ramanujulu Naidu and anr. Vs. C. Apparanji Ammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-05-1911
Reported in: 9Ind.Cas.417
Arnold White, C.J.1. This is an appeal from a decree of Mr. Justice Bakewell directing the defendants to remove a certain wall which is marked in the plan, and perpetually restraining them from erecting any wall or building so as to obstruct the access of light and air through the three openings on the southern wall of the plaintiff's house. The allegation in the plaint--paragraph 4--is: 'That the defendants have recently commenced to erect on the first floor of their house a structure which is calculated to interfere with the plaintiff's right of light and air to the windows, doors and rooms on the southern side of her house, which right the plaintiff claims as a right by reason of her house having been built for upwards of 20 years, and thereby having acquired by peaceable enjoyment a right of light and air thereto.'2. Now, three points were taken in appeal. The first point was that the plaintiff had not proved 20 years' enjoyment of the right by way of easement. The second point was...
Gopisetti Narainsawmi Naidu Garu, Receiver, Nidadavole Estate Vs. Tall ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-05-1911
Reported in: 9Ind.Cas.642
Munro, J.1. There are two points raised in this petition. One relates to the rent of Fasli 1315. The Munsif has dismissed the claim as barred by limitation. It is pointed out for the petitioner that he was prosecuting with due diligence the same claim in a Court which had no jurisdiction to decide the matter. He had instituted the suit in the Revenue Court thinking that under the Estates Land Act, (I of 1908), the suit has (sic) be instituted in that Court. But the (sic) is for kattubadi against the Inamdar and that claim is not a claim for rent within the meaning of that word in the Estates Land Act. The suit, therefore, properly lay (sic) the ordinary Civil Court. The petitioner is entitled to the deduction of the time from the date of the institution of the suit in the Revenue, Court, to the date on which the plaint was returned by the Revenue Court. If this deduction is made the suit is within time. I see no reason why that deduction should not be allowed in the plaintiff's favour....
Sellamuthu Servaigaran and Mottayan Vs. Pallamuthu Karuppan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-03-1911
Reported in: (1911)21MLJ161
Benson, J.1. In this case it has been found that the accused with a view to support a fraudulent claim of title to a house, broke into it at night during the temporary absence of the owner, assaulted the owner's servant who was in charge of the house, and took forcible possession of it.2. It is argued that the conviction of the accused for house-bracking by night under Section 457, I.P.C., cannot legally be sustained because there is no finding that the accused acted 'with intent to commit an offence or to intimidate, insult or annoy any person in possession of the property' within the meaning of Section 441, I.P.C. The Sub-Magistrate says that the accused 'made a forcible entry into the house in order to establish the sale deed,' and the Sub-Divisional 1st Class Magistrate found that the accused 'broke open the house to take possession of it by force.' The Vakil for Petitioners relies on the case Queen Empress v. Rayapadayachi I.L.R. (1896) M. 240 and on an unreported case Cr. Rev. Ca...
Palaniappa Tevan and ors. Vs. Shadagopa Mudaliar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-03-1911
Reported in: 9Ind.Cas.729
1. The contentions in appeal are confined to 3rd, 5th and 9th issues and to a new point of law under the old Section 135 of the Transfer of Property Act. As to the 3rd issue we have no hesitation in accepting the finding of the Court below that the hypothecation bond sued on is not void for want of consideration. The admission and conduct of the defendants which have been set out by the Subordinate Judge can leave no doubt on the point. As to the 5th issue the point taken is that in one of the sales at which the plaintiffs purchased a part interest in the bond, the date of the bond was by a clerical error given as 1880 instead of 1879. All other particulars were correctly given and no one was under any mistake as what was being sold. Section 236, Civil Procedure Code, 1882, only requires a reasonably accurate description and this, we think was in this case sufficiently complied with. The facts in Benode Behary Mookerjee v. Raj Narain Mitter 30 C. 699 which has been pressed upon us were...
Pachudayan Vs. Emperor
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-03-1911
Reported in: 9Ind.Cas.730a
1. The case, as found by the Sessions Judge to have been proved against the prisoner whom he has convicted under Section 302, is summed up in paragraph 9 of his judgment. We think there can be no doubt that the deceased, Mary Goundan, was murdered sometime on the night of 28th September. His body was found in a well not far from the shed where he had been sleeping that night. The body bore several abrasions and some incised injuries and there were marks also on the neck. It appears that the accused had an intrigue with the daughter of the deceased and that the latter on that account kept her away from the village. The accused apparently wanted her back but the deceased would not let her return to the village. This might furnish a motive for accused wishing to do away with Mary Goundan, and the question is, is it proved that the prisoner was in fact concerned in the murder? There is the evidence of the widow of the deceased and his son that the accused was seen at about midnight outside...
Ramien Vs. Veerappudian and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-02-1911
Reported in: (1912)22MLJ217
1. Two points are argued in this second appeal. The first point is that as the District Munsif presumed the genuineness of Exhibit A the appellate court had no power in law to hold that it should not be presumed to be genuine and reject it. Reliance is placed in support of this argument on Section 4 of the Evidence Act, which lays 'down that when the court may presume a fact it may either do so or call for proof of it. The contention apparently is that the appellate court was bound either to hold Exhibit A to be genuine until it was disposed or at least to call for proof. This argument entirely ignores the practice prevailing in the courts of this presidency in the trial of suits. When prima facie evidence of custody and of the date of a document purporting to be thirty years old is given the court generally re-marks the document on the footing that there is sufficient evidence to justify its being marked as an Exhibit at that stage. It is only subsequently that the opponent exercises ...
Gurusawmi Nadan and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-02-1911
Reported in: 13Ind.Cas.831
ORDERAbdur Rahim, J.1. There is absolutely no warrant for the order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate. There is no evidence to show that the accused were likely to commit a breach of the peace or disturb the public tranquillity or to do any act which would probably occasion a breach of the peace. All that is found is that on a previous occasion, about a year ago, the Nadars asserted their right to carry palkis through the public street on occasions of marriage, and there was a breach of the peace, as some people in the village opposed the Nadars taking palkis in procession on the ground apparently of the Nadirs' caste, which, in their opponents' estimation, is not high enough to justify otieir using palkia during marriage. Nothing particular happened at the time the present proceedings were instituted, except that the marriage session was fast approaching and the Police and the Sub-Divisional Sub-Magistrate were apprehensive that, if the Nadars insisted on their right as before and othe...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›