Chennai Court December 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.
Basrur Venkata Row Vs. the Crown
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-29-1911
Reported in: (1912)22MLJ270
Sundara Aiyar, J.1. The appellant, who was the 1st accused in Sessions Case No. 19 of 1910 in the Sessions Court of South Canara, was tried along with two other persons, the appellant for the forgery, and two others for abetment of the forgery, of certain documents. These documents were certain income tax records in the Udipi Taluq office in the office of the Head Assistant Collector of South Canara. The forged documents related to the assessment to income tax of one Vishnumurti Upadhya for the year 1905-1906. The prosecution alleges thai the B. Schedule of income put in by Vishnumurti under the Income-Tax Act, the Takid issued to the Village officers of Gundmi to send a report, the Takid issued to the Patel of Gundmi to communicate to the assessee the order of confirmation of the tax, the deposition of Vishnumurti before the Village officers, the deposition of Venkirtatrrnana Bhatta (a witness) before them, the list of the houses prepared by the Shanbhog and the report submitted by hi...
Narayana Kutti Goundan Vs. Pechiammal Alias Mahali Ammal and C.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-29-1911
Reported in: (1912)22MLJ364
Sundara Aiyar, J.1. The facts necessary for the disposal of this second appeal may be very briefly stated. One Venkatachella Mudali hypothecated certain land to one Muthu Goundan in 1898 and died in 1904 leaving behind him two widows, the 1st and and defendants in this suit, and 5 daughters defendants Nos. 3 to 7. Muthu Goundan obtained a decree on his mortgage bond against the widows and certain purchasers from them. The property was directed to be sold in execution of the decree and while the sale was actually going on, Narayana Kutti Goundan, one of the plaintiffs in this suit, paid the amount of the decree into court. Four of the daughters executed a mortgage bond in favour of the two plaintiffs here for the amount which the bond alleges was received from them for discharging the amount required for paying up the decree amount due to Muthu Goundan. The property mortgaged under the instrument was the same as that which had been mortgaged to Muthu Goundan. The plaintiff's suit is to ...
Rev. Dr. Albrecht and anr. Vs. Bathee Jellamma
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-29-1911
Reported in: (1912)22MLJ247
Wallis, J.1. This is an appeal from an order of the District Judge of Guntur appointing the respondent, a Hindu widow, guardian of her minor daughter and directing the counter-petitioner, Dr. George Albrecht, who belongs to an American Mission, to deliver up the minor to her mother. There was some conflict of evidence, but on a careful examination the facts proved seem to me as follows, The petitioner and her deceased husband lived at Tallapalli, some 14 miles from Rentachintaka, the head quarters of the respondent, who accordingly visited Tallapalli in the course of his missionary tours. According to his evidence, which I see no reason to disbelieve, Narasayya, the petitioner's husband and father of the minor, came to him and asked to be baptised. The request was refused as he was living with a concubine, but he continued to attend the counter-petitioner's services. His wife also asked the counter-petitioner to baptise her and get her husband to take her back. The counter-petitioner a...
In Re: Basrur Venkata Row
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-29-1911
Reported in: 14Ind.Cas.418
Sundara Aiyar, J.1. The appellant, who was the 1st accused in Sessions Case No. 19 of 1910 in the Sessions Court of South Canara, was tried along with two other persons, the appellant for the forgery and the two others for abetment of the forgery of certain documents. These documents were certain income-tax records in the Udipi Taluq office in the office of the Head Assistant Collector of South Canara. The forged documents related to the assessment to income-tax of one Vishnumurti Upidhya for the year 1905--1906. The prosecution alleges that the B. Schedule of income put in by Vishnumurti under the Income Tax Act, the takid issued to the Village Officers of Gundmi to send a report, the takid issued to the Patel of Gundmi to communicate to the assessee the order of confirmation of the tax, the deposition of Vishnumurti before the Village Officers, the deposition of Venkatatrmana Bhatta (a witness) before them, the list of the houses prepared by the Shanbhog and the report submitted by h...
Rev. Dr. George Albrecht and anr. Vs. Bathee Jellamma
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-29-1911
Reported in: 13Ind.Cas.453
Wallis, J.1. This is an appeal from an order of the District Judge of Guntur appointing the respondent, a Hindu widow, guardian of her minor daughter and directing the counter-petitioner, Dr. George Albrecht, who belongs to an American Mission, to deliver up the minor to her mother. There was some conflict of evidence, taut on a careful examination the facts proved seem to me as follows. The petitioner and her deceased husband lived at Tallapalli, some 14 miles from Rentachintalla, the headquarters of the respondent, who accordingly visited Tallapalli in the course of his missionary tours. According to his evidence, which I see no reason to disbelieve, Narasayya, the petitioner's husband and father of the minor, came to him and asked to be baptized. The request was refused as he was living with a concubine but he continued to attend the counter-petitioner's services. His wife also asked the counter-petitioner to baptize her and get her husband to take her back. The counter-petitioner a...
Aiya Chalamaya Vs. Emperor
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-29-1911
Reported in: 13Ind.Cas.777
ORDERRalph Benson, J.1. The sentence in this case was passed on the 16th March, 1911, and the District Magistrate's letter of reference was written only on the 8th July. Again, a reference was made by this Court to the District Magistrate in regard to the case on the 18th July, but it was not answere until the 30th November, i.e. after more than four months had elapsed.2. The sentence is certainly inadequate, but it is not now, after the elapse of nine months, expedient to enhance the sentence by ordering the accused to undergo 2 or 3 months' imprisonment as proposed by the District Magistrate....
Srinivasa Aiyar Vs. Balakrishna Devai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-15-1911
Reported in: 13Ind.Cas.860; (1912)22MLJ187
ORDER1. This is an application for the transfer of a suit from the Presidency Court of Small Causes to this court and the application has come on before us, as a Bench sitting on the appellate side of the court2. A preliminary objection was taken by the counter-petitioner that we have no jurisdiction to hear it, as the application should be made to a judge sitting on the original side. We are of opinion that this objection must be upheld.3. Section 13 of the Letters Patent gives power to the High Court as a Court of Extraordinary Original. Civil Jurisdiction to with draw a suit pending in any other court and to try and dispose of it itself. According to that section the power of transfer is to be exercised by the High Court as a court of extraordinary original jurisdiction. It is contended that this does not show that this court has not also got the power to direct a transfer in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction. Reliance is placed in support of this contention on Section 24 o...
Arunachella thevan and Arunachella thevan and anr. Vs. Emperor
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-15-1911
Reported in: (1912)22MLJ186
1. The appellants have been convicted by a jury of offences under Sections 392 and 397, Indian Penal Code and sentenced each to 5 years' rigorous imprisonment. This sentence, as the learned Sessions Judge himself subsequently discovered and has pointed out in a letter of reference, is less than the minimum prescribed by Section 397, I.P.C.2. I do not find any misdirection in the charge to the jury except as regards the liability of the appellants to conviction under Section 397, I.P.C The Judge, while pointing out to the jury that there is no evidence that these appellants caused the grievous hurt or (apparently) used deadly weapons, has directed the jury that they may convict the appellant of an offence under Section 397, I.P.C., merely because grievous hurt was caused by some of the robbers and (apparently) that some of the robbers used knives. This view finds no support in the wording of the section, especially as compared with Section 394,I.P.C., and is opposed to the ruling of thi...
In Re: Subbian Servai and Five ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-15-1911
Reported in: (1913)ILR36Mad472
ORDERAyling, J.1. The accused were convicted of theft in removing fish from a Government irrigation tank. They pleaded guilty: but the District Magistrate relying on the ruling in the High Court Proceedings No. 663, dated 10th April 1880, has referred the case on the ground that the capture of fish in an ordinary irrigation tank does not amount to theft.2. The ruling quoted, which has been followed in a later case, Subba Reddi v. Munshoor Ali Saheb I.L.R., (1901) Mad., 81, is authority for the general principle above referred to: but there is reason to doubt whether that principle is to be applied to all cases and under all circumstances or was intended to be so applied. A somewhat different view has been taken both by the Bombay and Calcutta High Courts: vide Queen-Empress v. Shaik Adam I.L.R., (1886) Bom., 193 and Maya Ram Surma v. Nichala Katani I.L.R., (1888) Calc., 402. In the former case the tank in question was an enclosed municipal tank; but the ratio decidendi was that the fis...
In Re: Arunachella Tevan and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-15-1911
Reported in: 13Ind.Cas.282
Spencer, J.1. The appellants have been convicted by a jury of offences under Sections 392 and 397, Indian Penal Code, and sentenced each to 5 years' rigorous imprisonment. This sentence, as the learned Sessions Judge himself subsequently discovered and has pointed out in a letter of reference, is less than the minimum prescribed by Section 397, Indian Penal Code.2. I do not find any misdirection in the charge to the jury except as regards the liability of the appellants to conviction under Section 397, Indian Penal Code. The Judge, while pointing out to the jury that there i8 no evidence that these appellants caused the grievous hurt or (apparently) used deadly weapons has directed the jury that they may convict the appellants of an offence under Section 397, Indian Penal Code, merely because grievous hurt was caused by some of the robbers and (apparently) that some of the robbers used knives. This view finds no support in the wording of the section, especially as compared with Section...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »