Chennai Court October 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.
The Public Prosecutor Vs. Chirreddi Munayya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-31-1911
Reported in: (1911)21MLJ1071
1. This is an appeal by Government against the acquittal of one C. Munayya on a charge of having murdered one Seshamma on the 24th September 1910. The Sessions Judge accepts the prosecution evidence as true, but thinks that it is not in law sufficient to establish the guilt of the accused. In this we are of opinion that he is in error.2. The material facts proved may be stated as follows:Seshamma was a widow, living with her brother. He was absent from home on the 24th September last. She was last last seen alive in her house about 1 o'clock on that afternoon. About 3 o'clock the same afternoon the accused and another man were seen by two witnesses to enter the house, and to leave it again some time later. Sometime before 6 o'clock the same afternoon one Baligadu went to the house and found her lying dead in the room, her head and face beaten in evidently with a mallet which lay blood-stained by her. He at once gave the alarm, and the two witnesses who had seen the accused and another ...
B. Venkayya and anr. Vs. K. Sateyya and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-31-1911
Reported in: (1914)ILR37Mad281
1. The District Munsif has found on the third issue that the appellants (defendants Nos. 2 and 3) had no occupancy rights and, although the Subordinate Judge has not recorded any express finding on this point, it is clear from his judgment that he regarded the relations in which the parties stood, as precluding any independent right of occupancy existing in these appellants. We think that Exhibits C and II show that the District Munsif's conclusion on this issue was correct. It was contended for the appellants that the (first respondent's) plaintiff's title having been determined before suit by expiry of his lease deed he was not entitled to obtain a decree of ejectment against the appellants, but we think that the expiration of his lease deed does not necessarily imply the expiration of his right of possession and as against parties who are in no better position than trespassers he is entitled to a decree; [vide Gibbins v. Buckland (1863) L.J. 32 and Knight v. Clarke (1885) 15 Q.B.D. ...
Venkadam Narayana Iyer and anr. Vs. Siva Subramania Iyer and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-30-1911
Reported in: 13Ind.Cas.985; (1912)22MLJ49
1. We are of opinion that, under the circumstances mentioned in the judgment of the Subordinate Judge, the plaintiff was Justified in giving the girl Meenakshi in marriage. The grandfather and the paternal uncle had practically abandoned guardianship of the girl, and, as found by the Subordinate Judge, their assurance that they would celebrate her marriage in proper form was not sincere. It is then urged by Mr. C.V. Anantakrishna Aiyar that, as the marriage was celebrated within two days of the confinement of the 2nd defendant's wife, we must disallow the plaintiff the expenses incurred by him in connection with the marriage. It might be that it was not proper on the part of the plaintiff, according to the Hindu ceremonial law, to celebrate the marriage during a period of pollution, as to which, however, we express no decided opinion. But it is not contended that the marriage would be invalid on that account, and we do not think we are called upon to punish the plaintiff by making him ...
A.R.R.M.S.V. Sevugan Chetty Vs. Krishna Aiyangar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-25-1911
Reported in: 13Ind.Cas.268; 13Ind.Cas.268; (1912)22MLJ139
1. We think that the Courts below were in error in refusing to allow the plaintiff to amend his plaint as prayed in his petition of the 8th July 1909. This petition was put in before any evidence had been recorded. It did not allege any new facts, but merely prayed that an additional relief might be granted on the facts stated in the original plaint.2. It may be that the further relief then asked for had become barred in the interval but we do not think that this by itself necessarily renders the amendment improper. The rule applicable is that contained in Order VI, Rule 17 of the new Code of Civil Procedure which enacts that the Court may at any stage allow a party to amend the pleadings 'in such manner as may be just' and that all such amendments shall be made as may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties.' There can be no doubt that both the conditions laid down in the above rule are satisfied in the present case. The relief...
Muniya Konan Vs. Perumal Konan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-24-1911
Reported in: (1913)24MLJ352
1. The facts found in this case are that certain immoveable property was purchased for the benefit of the plaintiff in the suit by one Ramasami Konan his maternal uncle and that it was subsequently sold by the 3rd defendant, the plaintiff's father as if it belonged to the family of which he and the plaintiff were members. Defendants Nos. 1 and 2 claim under the sale by the 3rd Defendant. The contention on the merits in the lower Courts was that the purchase in the name of the minor was really benami for the 3rd defendant or the family, and that therefore the plaintiff had no exclusive right to the property, and the sale by the 3rd Defendant was valid.2. On the finding of the District Court that the purchase was made by the maternal uncle and for the benefit of the minor the sale by the 3rd defendant cannot be upheld and defendants Nos. 1 and 2 have no title. It is contended that on the finding that the sale was for the benefit of the minor, it must be held to be a void transaction as a...
In Re: N. Jaladu and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-24-1911
Reported in: AIR1914Mad49; (1913)ILR36Mad453
1. In this case the appellants have been convicted under Section 366, Indian Penal Code of the offence of kidnapping a girl (prosecution witness No. 1) of about 10 years of age from the guardianship of her mother prosecution witness No. 2 with intent that she might be compelled to marry against her will. The facts found by the lower Court are that the second accused, a relation of prosecution witnesses Nos. 1 and 2, asked prosecution witness No. 2 and prosecution witness No. 3, her (prosecution witness No. 2's) grand-mother to send the girl for three days for Bogikolusu (or present gathering at a festival) but really with the intention of disposing of the girl in marriage to the first accused without the consent of the girl and prosecution witness No. 2 and prosecution witness No. 3. Prosecution witness No. 3, the girl's great grand-mother, let her go. More than a week after the second accused had taken the girl to her village she led her to another village on a false pretext. She then...
The Sessions Judge of Tanjore Vs. Thiagaraja thevan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-23-1911
Reported in: 15Ind.Cas.313
ORDER1. We accept the opinion of the Sessions Judge that the assessor referred to by him is not a proper assessor to sit in this case. The Sessions Judge should dispense with his attendance, choose another assessor in his place, and try the case de novo....
V. Vaidinadier Vs. G. Krishnasami Iyer,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-20-1911
Reported in: (1913)24MLJ515
1. The judgment of the Lower Appellate Court is unsatisfactory. The suit in each of the three second appeals was for damages for malicious prosecution. The defendant charged the plaintiff in each of the suits with abetting the offence of assault committed by certain other persons. He says that each of the plaintiffs used-certain language which showed that he was guilty of abetment. The complaint against the 3 plaintiffs was dismissed. The Subordinate Judge has not recorded a finding on the question whether, as a matter of fact, the language imputed to the plaintiff in each suit was used by him or not. But he says that assuming he did so, there was no reasonable and probable cause for the charge of abetment against him. In arriving at this finding the Subordinate Judge has apparently thrown the onus on the defendant. He observes ' Taking the defence evidence at its best, it makes out no further than the use of the expressions set forth at the outset, by the respective appellants. From t...
Sivagurunatha Chettiar and anr. Vs. Ramasami Aiyangar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-20-1911
Reported in: (1913)25MLJ630
1. This petition raised the question whether, when the sole plaintiff in a representative suit instituted with permission obtained under Rule 8, Order I, dies before there has been any adjudication, the suit can be revived or continued by one of the persons having the same interest in the suit. The question is not directly covered by any precedent and is one, by no means, easy to decide.2. The suit in which the order impugned by this petition has been made was instituted with sanction obtained under Rule 8 Order 1 by one Sreenivasa Chariar, a voter in the Kumbakonam Devasthanam circle, seeking a declaration that the election of the 7th defendant as a member of the Devasthanam committee is void and for an injunction to restrain him from exercising the office of such member. Sreenivasa Chariar died before the date on which the case was posted for examination of witnesses and, on the application of the Respondent, and the voter in the Devasthanam, who wanted to proceed with the suit, it h...
T.N. Muthuveerappa Chetti Alias T.N. Batcha Chetty and anr. Vs. T.R. P ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-20-1911
Reported in: (1912)22MLJ68
1. This is an appeal from the order of Bakewell J. in an application by the respondent to be declared the guardian of his minor girl aged about five years. The petitioner is living in the Civil and Military Station, Bangalore, and the child at the time of the application was and now is in the custody of her deceased mother's mother and father living in Madras. The learned Judge bases his order on the only ground that nothing was shown 'disqualifying the respondent either in his conduct or in his opinion from having the custody of his child.'2. It would appear that the learned Judge treated the application as one to enforce the petitioner's legal right to the custody of his child and as similar to an action to recover the child from the appellants. The appellants, the child's maternal grandfather and maternal grandmother, alleged in their affidavits that the petitioner and his wife (now deceased) had not been getting on well for some time before her death, that she had been living with ...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »