Chennai Court January 1912 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.
Pitchuvier and ors. Vs. Perumal Konan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-16-1912
Reported in: 13Ind.Cas.651
1. A reference was made under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act by the Collector for the determination of the apportionment of the compensation, awarded by him, between the Mahajans and the ryots of the village in which the acquired land was situate. While the investigation before the Judge was going on, the parties arrived at an understanding that the money should be paid to the Mahajans after the expiration of four months, if within that time1 four of the ryots did not file a regular suit to establish their right to any portion of the money. The four ryots did file a suit for the purpose in the Munsit's Court within the four months, but the defendants the Mahajans attempted to defeat that suit by raising a technical objection that all the ryots should have instituted the suit. The suit was consequently withdrawn, with leave to sue again, and the present suit was launched, making all the ryots parties.2. It is now contended that, as the present suit was commenced after the expira...
V. Thiruvengadam Pillai by Agent V. Lachmiah Vs. Doridla Subbiah and a ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-12-1912
Reported in: 13Ind.Cas.659
1. The appellant in Appeals Nos. 50 and 51 of 1910 is the assignee of a decree which one Abdul Aziz had obtained against one Subbiah in the District Court of Cuddapah. The assignment is dated 16th March 1906 and notice of it was given to hubbiah on the 20th March 1906. The 1st and 2nd respondents in Appeal No. 51 of 1910 had a decree against Abdul Aziz which was passed by the District Munsif's Court to Nandalur. On the application of the respondents, attachment was ordered on 20th June 1906 by the District Muusif of Nandalur of Abdul Aziz's decree against Subbiah and notice was given to the Cuddapah District Court under Rule 53 of Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure. The appellant, on the 1st March 1909, applied to the Cuddapah District Court for execution of the decree in question on the strength of the assignment and the respondent also applied to the said Court for execution of the said decree. The District Court has dismissed the appellant's application, and allowed the applic...
Challa Venkata Reddy and anr. Vs. Devabaktunni and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-10-1912
Reported in: 14Ind.Cas.65
1. We cannot go behind the Subordinate Judge's finding that the transaction was not a nominal transaction. We cannot say that he has failed to consider any important evidence on this question.2. The next contention is that the Subordinate Judge was wrong, having found that the transaction was intended by the parties to be a mortgage, in holding that he was unable, with reference to Section 92 of the Indian Evidence Act, to give effect to it as a mortgage. His view is clearly in accordance with Bala Krishna Das v. Legge 27 I.A. 158 which is explained in Ac utaramaraiu v. Subbaraju 25 M.k 7. The Privy Council decision in Maung Rayin v. Ma Shwe La (1911) 2 M.W.N. 30: 12 Ind. Cas. 39 cited on behalf of the appellants, lays down only that fraud antecedent to the execution of a document which led to the execution of the document in its actual form, or fraud intended against a third party, which would render the enforcement of the contract contrary to public policy, can be proved by parol evi...
Venkattan Alias Venkatachellam and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-08-1912
Reported in: 14Ind.Cas.655
1. This is an appeal against, the conviction of the 1st, 2nd, 5th and 6th accused in Sessions Case No. 23 of 1911 in the Sessions Court of Tanjore. The case was tried by a Jury, the charge against the accused being dacoity. Two other accused, the 3rd and the 4th, were acquitted by the Jury. So far as the first accused is concerned, the only evidence of identification of him as one of the persons who were present at the dacoity was given by Alamelu, the 7th witness, who was deaf and dumb. We find that she could not be cross-examined by the Vakil for the accused. The learned Sessions Judge notes, in her deposition, that it was found impossible to convey to the witness the questions which the Vakil for the accused sought to put to her in cross-examination. If it was not possible to make the witness understand the questions put in cross-examination, we fail to see what guarantee there was that she understood the questions put in examination-in-chief. No doubt, the learned Sessions Judge ob...
In Re: Gorle Kandungadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-08-1912
Reported in: 13Ind.Cas.828
1. In this case the Sessions Judge of Vizagapatam has referred to this Court under Section 307, Criminal Procedure Code, Sessions Case No 28 of 1911,in so far as the case against the 2nd accused is concerned. He was charged with house-breaking by night and theft in a building. The only evidence as against him is that material object No. 47, one of the jewels stolen from the Prosecution 1st witness's house, was traced to his possession. The 1st accused stated that he had given it to the second accused and on the Police going to the house of the latter with the 1st accused and others he delivered it up. He denied, at the trial, that he gave up this jewel. But the evidence that he id deliver it must be accepted, The question is, what presumption arises against him in the circumstances? The property was traced to him about three weeks after the theft took place. The 1st accused stated that he had given it to him, and only one of the jewels stolen was found in his possession.2. In these cir...
Emperor Vs. Andiasavaloo Naidoo
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-08-1912
Reported in: 13Ind.Cas.832a
1. This is an appeal by the Government against the order of acquittal passed by one of the Presidency Magistrates of Madras in C.C. No. 612 of 1911 in which the the accused was charged with an offence under Sections 262 and 420 of the Madras City Municipality Act by failing to take out a license for keeping a pardal having an external roof covered with inflammable materials. The Municipality was unable to prove that the accused constructed the building. The Magistrate, in consequence, acquitted him. Section 262 is in these terms: 'No external roof, verandab, pandal or wall of a building shall be made of grass, leaves, mats or inflammable material except with the written permission of the President.'2. The contention for the Crown is that the expression 'shall be made' does not mean 'shall be composed of' and that, therefore, the existence of pandal composed of grass, leaves, mats or other in flammable materials without the permission of the President would be an offence. It is clear to...
Govinda Naicken and anr. Vs. Apath Sahaya Iyer Alias Aiyavu Iyer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-05-1912
Reported in: (1912)22MLJ257
1. The suit was brought for specific performance of a contract to sell certain lands. Although the agreement to sell was executed by the defendant alone, it was stated in the document that the lands were being enjoyed in equal shares by the defendant and the defendant's divided elder brother and that they had been purchased out of money belonging to them severally. The defendant agreed to have the proposed sale deed executed by himself and by his brother on his own account and as guardian of his minor son.2. The District Munsif found (1) that both the parties knew full well at the time of execution of the agreement to sell (Ex. A) that one-half of the land belonged to Ramaswami Iyer and his son, (2) that the agreement fell through owing to the default of both parties. Referring to illustration (a) to Section 15 of the Specific Relief Act and to Section 17, he decided that this was not a case in which specific performance of a part of the contract could be enforced in as much as the def...
Govinda Naicken and anr. Vs. Apathsahaya Iyer Alias Ayawaiyer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-05-1912
Reported in: (1914)ILR37Mad403
1. This suit was brought for specific performance of a contract to sell, certain lands. Although the agreement to sell was executed by the defendant alone, it was stated in the document that the lands were being enjoyed in equal shares by the defendant and the defendant's divided elder brother, and that they had been purchased out of money belonging to them severally. The defendant agreed to have the proposed sale deed executed by himself and by his brother on his own account and as guardian of his minor son.2. The District Munsif found: (1) that both parties knew full well at the time of execution of the agreement to sell (Exhibit A) that one-half of the land belonged to Ramasamier and his son, and (2) that the agreement fell through owing to the default of both parties. Referring to illustration (a) to Section 15 of the Specific Relief Act and to Section 17, he decided that this was not a case in which specific performance of a part of the contract could be enforced, inasmuch as the ...
Katil Sheik Ummar Saheb Vs. Khazi Budan Khan Saheb
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-05-1912
Reported in: (1914)ILR37Mad228; 25Ind.Cas.898
1. The plaintiff, who is the Khazi of the Kundapur Jumma Masjid appointed by Government, instituted the suit in this case against the defendant to restrain him from officiating at marriages celebrated in the place and for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 11 which the defendant had received as fees for four nikahs performed by him in violation of the plaintiff's rights. The Munsif dismissed the suit, holding that the plaintiff had no cause of action against the defendant, as he acquired no exclusive right by his appointment as Khazi to officiate at marriages. The District Judge reversed his judgment and passed a decree in the plaintiff's favour. The Munsif relies, in support of his conclusion, on Section 4 of the Khazis Act XII of 1880 Clauses (b) and (c) of which lay down that nothing herein contained, and no appointment made hereunder, shall be deemed to render the presence of a Kazi or Naib Kazi necessary at the celebration of any marriage or the performance of any rite or. ceremony, or ...
In Re: Perumal Naicken
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-04-1912
Reported in: 13Ind.Cas.817
Sundara Aiyar, J.1. The facts in this case are quite clear. The accused who suspected his wife of criminal intimacy with another man waylaid her as she was returning1 with two other women and attacked her with a, clasp knife with a blade five inches long and three-fourths of an inch broad. He inflicted several injuries on his wife--none of which, however, proved fatal--when she ran to the deceased, one of her companions, for protection and clasped her arms round her waist. The deceased begged of the accused not to strike his wife, who thereupon stabbed the deceased with the same knife with which he had attacked his wife. The blow fell on the deceased's back and she fell down and died. There can be no doubt, as found both by Snndara Aiyar, J, and Spencer, J., that the accused intended to kill his wife, and it is equally clear that he did not want to kill the deceased. He struck her because she intervened and tried to prevent him from killing his wife. Did he then want to inflict on her ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »