Chennai Court February 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.
Medi Setti Pentayya Vs. Pilli Venkata Reddi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-22-1912
Reported in: 14Ind.Cas.148
1. We think the Subordinate Judge was right. The plaint, as we understand it, does not allege a partnership agreement. It set up an agreement under which the plaintiff was to sell liquor on his own account on the premises of the licensee. This seems to be what is meant in paragraph 7 of the plaint and the plaint was construed in this way by the Subordinate Judge. In paragraph of 3the plaint, there is a reference to an agreement, the terms of which might have thrown some light on the matter, but the agreement is not before us.2. We need not discuss the case referred to by the Subordinate Judge or the case referred to by the petitioner's Vakil, Nalan Padmanabham v. Sait Badrinath Sarda (1911) 2 M.W.N. 371 : 21 M.L.J. 425 : 9 M.L.T. 459 : 10 Ind. Cas. 126. These were cases of partnership. The plaintiff, as we understand the plaint, does not set up a partnership, but an agreement which would enable him to sell liquor on his own account in contravention of Section 15 of the Madras Abkari Ac...
Veerana Nadan and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-22-1912
Reported in: 15Ind.Cas.310
Miller, J.1. The appellants have been convicted of rioting by the Sessions Judge concurring generally with the assessors.2. The case is a difficult one in some respects. There is no doubt that there was an affray between the Nadars and Thevars and that all the appellants were members of the assembly of Nadars, which formed one party to the affray, and there is no reason to doubt that the affray arose out of the interference by the Thevars with a number of Nadars engaged in demolishing a house, the title to which was in dispute between the two castes.3. The Sessions Judge finds it impossible to accept as true either the account put before him of the occurrence, and it is clear that the prosecution witnesses cannot be telling the whole truth when they deny that their party inflicted injuries on the Nadars. If what appears to be the case for the Crown is the true case, that is to say, that the Police officers were not present when the affray commenced, then, the prosecution evidence is un...
Arthanari Chettiar Vs. Nagoji Rao and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-20-1912
Reported in: 14Ind.Cas.836
1. The respondent does not appear to contest the finding.2. We accept the finding, set aside the decree of the lower Appellate Court and dismiss the application for restitution, with costs here and in the Court below....
N. Rama Rao Vs. the Secretary of State for India in Council Through th ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-20-1912
Reported in: 16Ind.Cas.103
1. These appeals relate to three service Inams, attached to the offices of Nattanmai Karnam, and Kavalgar in the Melmandai zemindari. They cannot now be localised. It appears that the Inam, Deputy Collector, under orders of the Board of Revenue, has registered them in the names of the proprietors of the zemindari (of whom plaintiff is one) showing the full assessment against each. We think that this registration undoubtedly implies (as the 'plaintiff's Vakil suggests) liability to pay to Government the whole or some portion of the assessment for the Inams: and that if, as the plaintiff contends, he is not liable to such payment, it is open to him to bring the present suit.2. We are farther of opinion that unless it is shown (whether by direct evidence, admission or inference) that the lands are in the possession of the plaintiff, either immediately or through a tenant, they cannot be registered in his name against his will.3. As regards the Kaval lands, item No. 3, there is a distinct ...
Yelambal Achi Vs. Govindasami Odayar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-20-1912
Reported in: 15Ind.Cas.370
1. The point raised in second appeal is that the suit to compel registration is not maintainable in this case as the Sub-Registrar did not refuse to register the document but under Section 20 of the Registration Act refused to take it up for registration; and that the Registrar, on appeal, must be taken to have done the same thing. Reliance is placed on Gangava v. Sayava 21 B.P 699. Assuming that, when a Sub-Registrar refuses to take up a document for registration, no appeal would lie to the Registrar, and no suit could be instituted in the regular Courts to compel registration, it is not shown that in this case registration was not refused. The District Munsif says that there was an appeal against the Sub-Registrar's order to the Registrar under Section 72. If the Sub-Registrar merely refused to take up the document for registration, no appeal would lie to the Registrar against his order according to the appellant's contention. The point raised here does not seem to have been argued i...
The Public Prosecutor Vs. Bala Nagi Raddi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-19-1912
Reported in: (1912)22MLJ453
1. In this case the six accused persons were tried by the Sessions Judge of Cuddapah with the aid of assessors. The first accused was charged tinder Sections 302 and 109 of the Indian Penal Code, and the remaining five accused were charged under Section 302, with reference to the death of one Kristna Reddi. The assessors found all the accused not guilty of the offences charged against them, and the Sessions judge, agreeing with them, has acquitted them. This appeal has been preferred by the Government against the order of acquittal. As against the 1st accused there is practically no evidence to connect him with the murder of Kristna Reddi.* * * *2. We must therefore hold that the acquittal of the 1st accused is right and the appeal against him will be dismissed.3. As regards the case of the other accused, we have come to the conclusion that they must be retried. To begin with, the manner in which the learned Sessions Judge has recorded evidence in this case cannot be said to be satisfa...
Varid Sahayam Fernandez Vs. RanchordIn Kheki and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-19-1912
Reported in: 15Ind.Cas.362
1. According to Exhibit A, the first defendant is bound to pay the 2nd defendant only Rs. 1,200. There was no stipulation for the payment of any interest far the debt as the mortgage was usufructuary and the land mortgaged was to be enjoyed in lieu of interest. The plaintiff, as sub-mortgagee from the second defendant's mortgagee, cannot recover from the 1st defendant more than the sum of Rs. 1,200, which the 1st defendant; was bound to pay the 2nd defendant. The decree of the lower Appellate Court must be modified accordingly.2. We may point out that the provision made in the judgment of the lower Court for taking accounts between the parties in execution is not in accordance with law. Accounts between a mortgagor and a mortgagee should be taken by the Court before passing a final decree. In this case, however, there is no necessity for taking any accounts as the amount payable by the 1st defendant is already certain, viz., Rs. 1,200.3. It was also contended for the appellant that the...
Sri Janaganti China Venkata-rajaum Garu Vs. Kappojee Linganna and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-19-1912
Reported in: 15Ind.Cas.382
1. The defendants pleaded that the lands were (heir own private inam and that if it should be found (hat their right to hold was burdened with any service to the plaintiff, they were prepared to render the service due. It is contended that these are inconsistent pleas which cannot be combined by the defendants, There is certainly no rule preventing a defendant from raising inconsistent pleas, at any rate, where the facts to which the pleas relate are not within his personal knowledge. The next contention is that as it has been found that the defendants were bound to render service, it must be presumed that the lands in question were held by them as emoluments for rendering service. It is not shown that the Subordinate Judge has based his finding on the ground that there was no such presumption.2. He comes to the conclusion that on the evidence on record, the lands were held by the defendants merely with the burden of service and not as emoluments for service. He was entitled to arrive ...
Andiappa Pillai (by His Authorised Agent Senthivelu Pillai) Vs. Muthuk ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-17-1912
Reported in: (1913)ILR36Mad477
Benson, J.1. The substantial question argued in this Second Appeal is whether the District Judge was right in allowing fresh evidence to be adduced at the hearing of the appeal.2. It is contended for the appellant that the District Judge was wrong in so doing and that his procedure was not in accordance with Section 568 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Act XIV of 1882), as explained by the Privy Council in Kessowji Issur v. G.I.P. Railway Company (1907) 31 Bom. 381.3. I am unable to accept this contention. The circumstances under which the additional evidence in that case was admitted were wholly different from the circumstances in the present case. In the present case, the District Judge after bearing the arguments by the pleaders on both sides observed that the District Munsif had not sufficiently considered the olugu account (Exhibit I) that he had, in fact, misunderstood it, that only part of it was filed and that certain documents which the appellant before him then produced would ...
The King-emperor Vs. Nilakanta Alias Brahmachari and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-15-1912
Reported in: (1912)22MLJ490
Benson, J.1. In this case fourteen persons were tried by a Special Bench of this Court, constituted under Section 6(6) of the Indian Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1908, for an offence, punishable under Section 121 A, Indian Penal Code (conspiring to commit certain offences against the State), and also with abetting the murder of Mr. Ashe. The Special Bench acquitted all the accused on the latter charge. The majority of the Court (Sir Arnold White, C.J. and Ayling, J.) convicted the first seven and the 14th accused of the offence, charged under Section 121 A and acquitted the remainder. The third Judge of the Special Bench (Sankaran Nair, J.) convicted the 1st, 2nd, 6th and 14th accused and acquitted the remainder. The late Advocate-General has given a certificate under Clause 26 of the Amended Letters Patent of 1865 to the effect that the decision of the Court on certain specified points of law requires further consideration. The present Advocate-General, who, as Public Prosecutor, appea...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »