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.
Venkatesa Iyengar Vs. Kamalammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-14-1911
Reported in: (1912)22MLJ212
1. In this case we intimated our opinion at the hearing that the conclusion arrived at by the lower appellate court regarding the plaintiff's title was binding on us, the question being purely one of fact. But the validity of that court's judgment was also attacked on the ground that the District Judge acted without jurisdiction in delivering his judgment an the 29th December 1909 when the court was closed for the Christmas holidays.2. We are of opinion that the delivery of judgment on a holiday (we are taking it that the 29th December 1909 had been notified as a general holiday) is not illegal. It is not contended that there is any express provision of law prohibiting the performance of any judicial work on a holiday or laying down that a judgment delivered on a holiday shall be void. Section 30 of the Madras Courts Act III of 1873 enacts: 'The High Court may permit the civil courts under its control to adjourn from time to time for periods not exceeding in the aggregate two months in...
S.A. Anantanarayana Iyer and ors. Vs. Savithri Ammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-14-1911
Reported in: (1912)22MLJ231
1. The suit out of which this second appeal arises was instituted on a pro-note executed in favour of the plaintiff's husband by the first defendant on behalf of himself and as guardian of the second defendant, who is his natural son given away in adoption to a brother of his. There were four brothers in an undivided Hindu family, namely, the plaintiff's husband Aiyasawmi Iyer, the first defendant, the second defendant's adoptive father and one Subramania Iyer. Disputes arose between them in connection with the partition of their family property. Aiyasawmi Iyer, the plaintiff's husband, was burdened with 6 daughters, only two of whom had been given away in marriage. Several daughters of some of the other brothers had been married at the expense of the family. Aiyasawmi Iyer made a claim that he was entitled to have an allotment towards the expenses of the marriage of his other daughters. The other brothers in settlement of this claim agreed to pay him Rs. 5,000. This agreement is one o...
Maravadi and ors. Vs. Pamakkar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-14-1911
Reported in: (1912)22MLJ309
1. The suit in this case is one for arrears of maintenance instituted by 15 members of a family in South Canara governed by the Aliyasantana system of law, against its manager or Yejamanathi the defendant. The plaint alleges that the defendant left the family house of the parties and went away to reside elsewhere about five years before the date of the suit, and that she neglected to look after the maintenance of the plaintiffs, junior members of the family. The defendant denied that she quitted the family house and contended that several of the plaintiffs were living away from the house. She alleges she has no objection whatever to maintain the plaintiffs if they all come and live in the family house. She denies the plaintiffs right to separate maintenance when not living in the house. Her case is that the 4th plaintiff and her minor children, plaintiffs Nos. 10 to 12, were living in the house of 4th plaintiff's husband, that the 5th plaintiff and her minor children, plaintiffs 13 to ...
Maradevi and Thirteen ors. Vs. Pammakka
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-14-1911
Reported in: (1913)ILR36Mad203
1. The suit in this case is one for arrears of maintenance instituted by 15 members of a family in South Canara governed by the Aliyasantana system of law, against its manager or ejmanthi, the defendant. The plaint alleges that the defendant left the family house of the parties and went away to reside elsewhere about five years before the date of suit, and that she neglected to look after the maintenance of the plaintiffs, junior members of the family. The defendant denied that she quitted the family house and contended that several of the plaintiffs were living away from the house. She alleges she has no objection whatever to maintain the plaintiffs if they all come and live in the family house. She denies the plaintiffs' right to separate maintenance when not living in the house. Her case is that the fourth plaintiff and her minor children, plaintiffs Nos. 10 to 12, were living in the house of the fourth plaintiff's husband, that the fifth plaintiff and her minor children (plaintiffs...
In Re: Adala Yerrivadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-14-1911
Reported in: 13Ind.Cas.216
ORDER1. The Sub Divisional Magistrate, in his order, says the accused is a youth of poor wits, clouded all the more by his born infirmity, and never knew or apprehended that such serious consequences would ensue. And, again, in his letter of reference, he says that he was not able to make the accused understand anything or to understand anything from him, and that he appeared to be utterly ignorant of the grave consequence of his act.2. These observations make us doubt whether, as a matter of fact, the accused was not a lunatic at the time of the trial and also at the time that he committed the act which is charged as an offence against him.The Sub-Divisional Magistrate should hold an inquiry into the question whether the accused was a lunatic at either of these times under Chapter XXXIV, Criminal Procedure Code. If he finds that he was not a lunatics on either of the occasions, he will then, as required by Section 341, Criminal Procedure Code, try the accused or commit him to the Sess...
S.A. Anantanarayana Iyer and ors. Vs. Savittri Ammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-14-1911
Reported in: 13Ind.Cas.458
1. The suit out of which this second appeal arises was instituted on a pro-note executed in favour of the plaintiff's husband by the 1st defendant on behalf of himself and as guardian of the 2nd defendant, who is his natural son given away in adoption to a brother of his. There were four brothers in an undivided Hindu family, namely, the plaintiff's husband Aiyasami Aiyer, the 1st defendant, the 2nd defendant's adoptive father and one Subramania Aiyar. Disputes arose between them in connection with the partition of their family property. Aiyasami Aiyer, the plaintiff's husband, was burdened with 6 daughters only two of whom had been given away in marriage. Several daughters of some of the other brothers had been married at the expense of the family. Aiyasami Aiyer made a claim that he was entitled to have an allotment towards the expenses of the marriages of his other daughters. The other brothers in settlement of this claim agreed to pay him Rs, 5,000. This agreement is one of the sti...
Venkatesa Iyengar Vs. Komalammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-14-1911
Reported in: 13Ind.Cas.463
1. In this case we intimated our opinion at the hearing that the conclusion arrived at by the lower Appellate Court regarding the plaintiff's title was binding on us, the question being purely one of fact. But the validity of that Court's judgment was also attacked on the ground that the District Judge acted without jurisdiction in delivering his judgment on the 29th December 1909 when the Court was closed for the Christmas holidays.2. We are of opinion that the delivery of judgment on a holiday (we are taking it that the 29th December 1909 had been notified as a general holiday) is not illegal. It is not contended that there is any express provision of law prohibiting the performance of any judicial work on a holiday or laying down that a judgment delivered on a holiday shall be void. Section 30 of the Madras Courts Act, III of 1873, enacts: 'The High Court may permit the Civil Courts under its control to adjourn from time to time for periods not exceeding in the aggregate two months ...
In Re: P. Muneyya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-13-1911
Reported in: (1913)ILR36Mad471
ORDER1. The order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate is absolutely illegal. He says 'provided that Silam Ramudu's alibi which is supported by the Second Court witness Papanna Narasimham is found on investigation to be true, I sanction the prosecution of Parala Muneyya and Lingam Appayya for the offence of perjury and of Sikkala Papayya for presumably abetting them,' No sanction can be granted of a provisional character in case certain conditions are satisfied in the future. It was the duty of the Magistrate before granting sanction to satisfy himself that there was, at the time of the order, a permit facie case against the petitioners here.2. We set aside the order....
Muthia Chetti Vs. Emperor
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-05-1911
Reported in: (1912)22MLJ181
1. In this case the accused has been convicted under Section 471 of the Indian Penal Code of fradulently or dishonestly using as genuine a document which he knew or had reason to believe to be a forged document.2. The facts are that the accused was summoned to produce the document in question (Exhibit J.) in O.S. No. 39 of 1910 on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court of Madura West. He was not a party to that suit. In answer to the court summons he produced the document. He was afterwards examined as witness in that case, and he gave the deposition marked as Exhibit K. He then stated on oath that the prosecution first witness in that case gave the document to him. The learned Sessions Judge has found that the document was not genuine and that the prosecution first witness did not give it to the accused We decide the case on the assumption that these findings are correct. So fat as the production of the document was concerned, the accused was bound to obey the summons of the court....
In Re: Muthiah Chetty
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-05-1911
Reported in: (1913)ILR36Mad392; 13Ind.Cas.286
1. In this case the accused has been convicted under Section 471 of the Indian Penal Code of fraudulently or dishonestly using as genuine a document which he knew or had reason to believe to be a forged document.2. The facts are that the accused was summoned to produce the document in question (Exhibit J) Original Suit No. 39 of 1910 on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court of Madura (West). He was not a party to that suit. In answer to the Court summons he produced the document. He was afterwards examined as witness in that case, and he gave the deposition marked as Exhibit K. He then stated on oath that the prosecution first witness in that case gave the document to him. The learned Sessions Judge has found that the document was not genuine and that the prosecution first witness did not give it to the accused. We decide the case on the assumption that these findings are correct. So far as the production of the document was concerned, the accused was bound to obey the summons of t...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »