Chennai Court November 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.
Maddaniah Vs. Bhimappa and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-24-1911
Reported in: 13Ind.Cas.469
1. The plaintiff sold certain goods to the 3rd defendant. The 3rd defendant did not pay the price of the goods. Part of the goods subsequently passed into the possession of the 1st and 2nd defendants respectively. In a case of cheating instituted by the plaintiff against defendants Nos. 1 to 3 the goods were taken possession of by the Police and sold, and the price of the goods in the possession of the 2nd defendant was subsequently paid over to him after the termination of the case. The plaintiff instituted the present suit to recover the value of all the goods against all the defendants Nos. 1 to 3. He did not challenge the validity of the sale to the 3rd defendant, and the suit has proceeded on the footing that the property in the goods passed to him.2. Both the lower Courts have passed a decree against the 2nd defendant, the appellant before us, for the value of the goods which had passed into his possession and were sold while he was holding them. The plaintiff alleged in his plai...
In Re: Arulanandham Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-23-1911
Reported in: (1912)22MLJ138
ORDER1. In this case the Second Class Magistrate awarded compensation to the accused whom he acquitted on a charge of theft. The complainant gave to the Village Magistrate a report of the theft and the Village Magistrate made a report to the police. The Second Class Magistrate took no cognizance of the offence on the report of the police. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate set aside the order awarding compensation on the ground that the case was not instituted by 'complaint' as defined in the Criminal Procedure Code or upon information given to a police officer or to a Magistrate, the Village Magistrate not being a Magistrate within the meaning of Section 250 of the Criminal Procedure Code (See Section 1). In this view the Sub-Divisional Magistrate was, in our opinion, right. The only person to whom the complainant gave information was the Village Magistrate. He cannot be regarded as having given information to a police officer, although the Village Magistrate was bound to report the occurr...
In Re: N. Ponnusamy Nadan and Fifteen ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-23-1911
Reported in: (1913)ILR36Mad470
ORDER1. We agree with the District Magistrate a view that the Sub-Divisional Magistrate to whom the case was referred by the Sub-Magistrate was bound to dispose of the case himself and that he had no power to send the case back to the Sub-Magistrate for disposal. The provision in clause II of Section 349 of the Criminal Procedure Code that the Magistrate to whom the proceedings are submitted may pass such order as he thinks fit, means when taken in conjunction with the words immediately preceding, viz., 'judgment' and 'sentence' that he may pass such other final order disposing of the case as he may think fit. We sat aside the conviction of the accused by the Sub-Magistrate and direct the Sub-Divisional Magistrate to dispose of the case himself....
N. Pounusawmy Naidu and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-23-1911
Reported in: 13Ind.Cas.110
ORDER1. We agree with the District Magistrate's view that the Sub-Divisional? Magistrate to whom the case was referred by the Sub-Magistrate was bound to dispose of the case himself and that he had no power to send the case back to the Sub-Magistrate for disposal. The provision in Clause 2 of Section 349 of the Criminal Procedure Code that the Magistrate to whom the proceedings are submitted may pass such order as he thinks fit, means, when taken in conjunction with the words immediately preceding, viz., (judgment), and sentence, that he may pass such other final order disposing of the case as he may think fit. We set aside the conviction of the accused by the Sub-Magistrate and direct the Sub-Divisional Magistrate to dispose of the case himself....
In Re: Arulanantham Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-23-1911
Reported in: 13Ind.Cas.221
ORDER1. In this case the second class Magistrate awarded compensation to the accused, who was acquitted on a charge of theft. The complainant gave to the Village Magistrate information of the theft, and the Village Magistrate made a report to the Police. The 2nd class Magistrate took congnizance of the offence on the report of the Police. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate set aside the order awarding compensation on the ground that the case was not instituted by 'complaint' as defined in the Criminal Procedure Code or upon information given to a Police officer or to a Magistrate, the Village Magistrate not being a Magistrate within the meaning of Section 250 of the Criminal Procedure Code (see Sub-section 1). In this view, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate was, in our opinion, right. The only person to whom the complainant gave information was the Village Magistrate. He cannot be regarded as having given information to a Police officer, although the Village Magistrate was bound to report the o...
Mullaseri Gapala Menon Vs. Krishekai Kovilakath Manavikraman Alias Anu ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-22-1911
Reported in: 13Ind.Cas.179; (1912)22MLJ146
1. The first question argued before us relates to limitation and arises upon the facts. One Seshan Pattar was sued in the District Munsif's Court at Alatur, in 1904, by the present appellant and the latter recovered a decree for payment of money but the decree was reversed by the Subordinate Judge's Court of Palghat on the 3rd September 1904. Before the judgment of the appellate court, however, was passed, the appellant had executed the original decree against Seshan Pattar. Then it appears the assignor of the respondent in this appeal instituted a suit in 1906, in the District Munsif's Court at Alatur and attached before judgment the right of Seshan Pattar to the restitution of the property recovered from him by the appellant under the decree of the appellate court dated 3rd September 1904. The application for execution, which the District Munsif found would save limitation, was made by Seshan Pattar's sons on the. 30th August 1907. At the time of the application the decree had been a...
Mullaseri Gopala Menon Vs. Krisheki Kovilaknath Manavikraman Alias Anu ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-22-1911
Reported in: 13Ind.Cas.179
1. The first question argued before us relates to limitation and arises upon the facts. One Seshan Pattar was sued in the District Munsif's Court at Alatur in 1904 by the present appellant, and the latter recovered a decree for payment of money, but the decree was reversed by the Subordinate Judge's Court of Palghat on the 3rd September 1904. Before the judgment of the Appellate Court, however, was passed the appellant had executed the original decree against Seshan Pattar. Then it appears the assignor of the respondent in this appeal instituted a suit in 1906 in the District Munsif's Court at Alatur and attached before judgment the right of Seshan Pattar to the restitution of the property recovered from him by the appellant under the decree of the lower Appellate Court dated 3rd September 1904. The application for execution which the District Munsif found would save limitation, was made by Seshan Pattar's sons on the 30th August 1907. At the time of the application the decree had been...
Pugalia Vettorammal and anr. Vs. Vettor Goundan, Minor by His Next Fri ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-21-1911
Reported in: 13Ind.Cas.475; (1912)22MLJ321
1. The question of law raised in this second appeal is whether a deed of gift executed by the plaintiff's father in favour of the 1st defendant, the daughter of the donor's deceased undivided brother, is valid and binding as against the plaintiff , the donor's son, according to the Hindu Law. The facts found are that after the death of the 1st defendant's father she and her mother, the 2nd defendant, were under the protection of the plaintiff's father who by survivorship became possessed of the whole of the property which formerly belonged to him and the 1st defendant's father. He maintained the 1st defendant and gave her in marriage, and some years afterwards executed the disputed deed of gift, Exhibit I, in 1897. The plaintiff was and still is a minor. The total extent of the family property in the hands of the plaintiff's father and the value of the property comprised in Exihibit I are in dispute. The finding of the lower courts is that the land given under Exhibit I is worth Rs. 40...
Pugalia Vettorammal and anr. Vs. Vettor Goundan by His Next Friend and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-21-1911
Reported in: 13Ind.Cas.475
1. The question of law raised in this second appeal is whether a deed of gift executed by the plaintiff's father in favour of the 1st defendant, the daughter of the donor's deceased undivided brother, is valid and binding as against the plaintiff, the donor's son, according to the Hindu Law. The facts found are that after the death of the 1st defendant's father she and her mother the 2nd defendant were under the protection of the plaintiff's father, who by survivorship became possessed of the whole of the property which formerly belonged to him and the 1st defendant's father. He maintained the 1st defendant and gave her in marriage, and some years afterwards executed the disputed deed of gift, Exhibit I, in 1897. The plaintiff was and still is a minor. The total extent of the family property in the hands of the plaintiff's father and the value of the property comprised in Exhibit I are in dispute. The finding of the lower Courts is that the land given under Exhibit I is worth Rs. 400 a...
Ramasami Reddi Vs. Lakshmiambal Ammal and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-20-1911
Reported in: 13Ind.Cas.200
1. We think the order of the District Judge is right. Order XXIV, Rule 4 gives the Court a discretion as to the disposal of costs in a suit for the recovery of a debt, where the amount claimed has been deposited in Court.2. The appeal is dismissed with costs....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »