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.
Muruga Chetty and ors. Vs. Rajasami and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-03-1912
Reported in: (1912)22MLJ284
Sundara Aiyar, J.1. This is an application by the 2nd appellant in S.A. No. 1045 of 1907 for the restoration of the second appeal, setting aside the order of dismissal for default passed on the 26th January 1910. The case was posted for orders under Rule 100(a) of the Appellate Side Rules of Practice as the appellant had failed to pay the charges for printing the papers in the case. The appellant did not appear either in person or by pleader when the appeal was called on for hearing on the morning of the 26th January, and it was dismissed for default with the 3rd respondent's costs, by Munro and Krishnaswami Aiyar, JJ. The application for restoration was put in on the 74th February 1910. As the 3rd respondent opposes the restoration of the appeal, we have gone fully into the circumstances under which the appeal was dismissed. The appellant has put in an affidavit on which he relies to show that he was prevented by sufficient cause from appearing at the hearing of the case and, if we sh...
Narna Balayya Vs. Rudravaram Venkatappa and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-03-1912
Reported in: 15Ind.Cas.221
1. In this case the 2nd defendant, who had a mortgage of certain properties from the 1st defendant, instituted a suit on his mortgage and obtained a decree for sale. The plaintiff claiming to be a prior mortgagee entitled to a sum of Rs. 3,300 objected to the sale. The District Munsif, in whose Court proceedings in execution of the 2nd defendant's mortgage were going on, directed that notice should be given to intending bidders of the plaintiff's claim of a prior mortgage. No sale bad yet been held. The plaintiff's suit is for a declaration that the 2nd defendant's sale should be subject to his mortgage for Rs. 3,300.2. Two legal objections were raised by the 2nd defendant to the suit. The first objection is that the suit was beyond the jurisdiction of the District Munsif's Court as the amount claimed by the plaintiff as due to him on his mortgage, was more than Rs 2,500. This contention ought, in our opinion, to have been upheld. The District Judge considers that the matter in dispute...
Emperor Vs. Mushnooru Suryanarayana Murthy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-02-1912
Reported in: (1912)22MLJ333
Benson, J.1. This is an appeal by the Public Prosecutor on behalf of Government against the acquittal of one Suryanarayana Murthi, on a charge of having murdered the girl, Rajalakshmi.2. The facts of the case, so far as it is necessary to state them for the purposes of this appeal, are as follows:The accused, with the intentipn of killing Appala Narasimhulu, (on whose life he had effected large insurances without Appala Narasimhulu's knowledge, and in order to obtain the sums for which he was insured), gave him some sweetmeat (halva) in which a poison containing arsenic and mercury in soluble form had been mixed. Appala Narasimhulu ate a portion of the sweetmeat, and threw the rest away. This occured at the house of the accused's brother-in-law where the accused had asked Appala Narasimhulu to meet him. Rajalakshmi, who was aged 8 or 9 years, and who was niece of the accused, being ,the daughter of accused's brother-in-law, took some of the sweetmeat and ate it and gave some to another...
In Re: Gurusawmi Nadar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-02-1912
Reported in: (1912)22MLJ251
ORDERAbdur Rahim, J.1. There is absolutely no warrant for the order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate. There is no evidence to show that the accused were likely to commit a breach of the peace or disturb the public tranquility or do any act, which would probably occasion a breach of the peace. All that is found is that on a previous occasion, about a year ago, the Nadars asserted their right to carry palkis through the public street on occasions of marriage, and there was a breach of the peace as some people in the village opposed the Nadars taking palkis in procession on the ground apparently of the Nadars' caste which, in their opponents' estimation, is not high enough to justify their using palkis during marriage. Nothing particular happened at the time the present proceedings were instituted, except that the marriage season was fast approaching and the police and the Sub-Divisional Magistrate were apprehensive that if the Nadars insisted on their right as before and the other party ...
Sri Raja Malaraju Lakshmi Venkayamma Row Bahadur Zamindar Garu Vs. Gop ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-02-1912
Reported in: (1912)22MLJ253
Abdur Rahim, J.1. The question raised by this appeal relates to mesne profits of a village called Repudi which is in possession of the Receiver of the Nidadavole estate. The appellant obtained a decree for recovery of the village in the court of the District Judge of Godavari but in an appeal by one out of the three reversioners entitled to the Nidadavole Zamindari who were also entitled to the estate of Papamma Row, the widow of the last Zamindar, it was held by the High Court that there had been no completed transfer of the village by Papamma Row, who had bought it with her own money, the plaintiff and hence she was not entitled to recover one-third share of the village which represented the share of the contesting reversioners. An appeal has been preferred from the judgment of the High Court to the Privy Council and is still pending decision. The dispute relating to one-third share in the village was not therefore finally determined, but in as much as the mesne profits in any event ...
Sri Raja Satrucheria Veerabhadra Raju Garu, Alias Sivaskanda Raju Baha ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-02-1912
Reported in: (1912)22MLJ451
1. In this case the plaintiff, a land-holder, instituted a suit for rent of faslis 1315 to 1317 and of a portion of fasli 1318. The Sub-Collector passed a decree in the plaintiff's favour which was reversed by the District Court, so far as the rent for faslis 1315 to 1317 was concerned, on the ground that the plaintiff did not tender a patta to the defendant for those faslis, and the suit for rent for those faslis was therefore unsustainable under the provisions of Section 7 of the Rent Recovery Act VIII of 1865. That section provided that 'no suit brought and ho legal proceedings taken to enforce the terms of a tenancy shall be sustainable unless pattas and muchilikas have been exchanged as aforesaid.' The effect of the section was to make the tender of a patta a condition precedent to entitle a landlord to institute legal proceedings to enforce the terms of a tenancy. It did not make the exchange of pattas and muchilikas or the tender of a patta necessary to give the landlord a right...
Ramuvien Vs. Veerappudayan and Nine ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-02-1912
Reported in: (1914)ILR37Mad455
1. Two points are argued in this Second Appeal. The first point is that, as the District Munsif presumed the genuineness of Exhibit A, the Appellate Court had no power in law to hold that it should not be presumed to be genuine and to reject it. Reliance is placed in support of this argument on Section 4 of the Evidence Act, which lays down that, when the Court may presume a fact, it may either do so or call for proof of it. The contention apparently is that the Appellate Court was bound either to hold Exhibit A to be genuine until it was disproved, or at least, to call for proof. This argument entirely ignores the practice prevailing in the Courts of this Presidency in the trial of suits. When prima facie evidence of custody and of the date of a document purporting to be 30 years old is given, the Court generally marks the document on the footing that there is sufficient evidence to justify its, being marked as an Exhibit at that stage. It is only subsequently that the opponent exerci...
The Public Prosecutor Vs. Mushunooru Suryanarayana Moorty
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-02-1912
Reported in: 13Ind.Cas.833
Ralph Benson, J.1. This is an appeal by the Public Prosecutor on behalf of Government against the acquittal of one Suryanarayana Murthi, on a charge of having murder the girl, Rajalakshmi.2. The facts of the case, so far as it is necessary to state them for the purposes of this appeal, are PS follows:The accused, with the intention of killing Appala Narasimhulu (on whose life he had effected large insurances without Appala Narasimhulu's knowledge, and in order to obtain the sums for which he was insured), gave him me sweetmeat (hah a) in which a poison containing arsenics and mercury in soluble form had been mixed. Appala Narasimhulu ate a portion of the sweetmeat, and threw the rest away. This occurred at the house of the accused's brother-in law where the accused had asked Appala Narasimhulu to meet him. Rajalakshmi, who was aged 8 or 9 years, and who was niece of the accused, being the daughter of accused's brother-in-law, took some of the sweetmeat, and ate it and gave some to anot...
Mandi Ghasi Vs. Emperor
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-02-1912
Reported in: 13Ind.Cas.781
1. The conviction in this case cannot be sustained with respect to the first, count. Two witnesses were examined. The first witness does not identify the accused as one of the persons who took part in the dacoity. The 2nd witness does not prove any dacoity at all.2. With regard to the second and third counts, the charge does not set oat the particular dacoity which was intended to form the subject-matter of the trial. At the trial three different dacoities were spoken to with reference to the second count and several dacoities with respect to the third count. There was nothing to indicate to the accused which particular dacoity he was being tried for with respect to each count. There was no attempt on the part of the prosecution to show that the different dacoities spoken to with reference to the second and third counts respectively were parts of the same transaction. On this ground the conviction must be set aside. The accused cannot be charged with more than three dacoities in all. W...
Chellammal Vs. T.P. Krishnasawmy Iyer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-01-1912
Reported in: 13Ind.Cas.618
Sundara Aiyar, J.1. The plaintiff is the wife of the defendant. The latter had instituted a suit for recovery of his wife and for restitution of conjugal rights. That suit was compromised between the parties and the compromise provided that the 'plaintiff has no objection whatever to give the 1st defendant herein for being worn by her one pair of kammal set with diamonds which was given to her by her father at the time of her marriage and which is worth about Rs. 1,200 and one gold sovereign malai which was given to her by the plaintiff and which is worth Rs. 450, and that at other times the said jewels should be in his custody for safety'. The present suit by the plaintiff is to recover the second of the two jewels mentioned in the compromise, namely, the kasimalai. The suit has been dismissed by the lower Court on the ground that the provision with regard to the jewels in the compromise decree is an unexecutable one and that, therefore, this suit is not maintainable, the proper remed...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›