Chennai Court March 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.
Zamindar of Pachipenta Vs. Maharajah of Jeypore
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-21-1912
Reported in: (1912)23MLJ97
ORDER1. This case arises out of a petition to the Government of Madras which was referred to this Court under Rule 31 of the Ganjam and Vizagapatam rules under Act XXIV of 1839 for the administration of justice and collection of revenue in Ganjam and Vizagapatam. The Maharajah of Bobbili obtained a mortgage decree against the Zemindar of Pachipsnta for a sum of about Rs. 2,75,000 which directed the sale of the mortgaged property in case of default of payment within the time fixed in the decree. The mortgaged property comprises 73 villages in all, 69 of them being situated in the Agency tracts of Vizagapatam subject to the jurisdiction of the Collector and Agent to the Governor and the remaining 4 in the non-agency portion of the Vizagapatam District and subject to the jurisdiction of the District Court. The defendants in the suit having committed default in the payment of the decree amount the decree holder took steps to bring the mortgaged villages to sale. The four villages not compr...
Khatija Bi and ors. Vs. Babu Sahib and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-21-1912
Reported in: 14Ind.Cas.544
1. This is an appeal against the judgment of Abdur Rahim, J. Reported in 8 Ind. Cas. 859 in a petition to this Court for revising the order of the District Judge of North Arcot. A suit was instituted in the District Munsif's Court of Ami by a Muhammadan female, the daughter of one Amir Sahib, for the recovery of her share of the property of Amir Sahib. Defendants Nos. 1 to 15 were Amir Sahib's other heirs. The 7th defendant was his second wife and the plaintiff and defendants Nos. 4 to 6 her children. Defendants Nos. 1 to 3 are Amir Sahib's children by his first wife, deceased. It is unnecessary to set out the exact relationship of the other heirs to Amir Sahib. Defendants Nos. 4 to 7 applied to the Munsif to be brought on the record as the representatives of the plaintiff, her share in the estate of Amir Sahib having vested in them as heirs under the Muhammadan Law. The District Munsif dismissed the application on the ground that the result of granting it would be that the defendants ...
Krishnamal Vs. Krishnaiyangar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-15-1912
Reported in: (1912)23MLJ50
JUDGEMENTCharles Arnold White, Kt. C.J.1. The question referred to us is whether a defamatory statement made by a person opposing the registration of a will in his petition to the Registrar objecting to the registration is absolutely privileged so as to exempt the party making it from liability to be punished for an offence, under Section 499 Indian Penal Code.2. In Criminal Revision Case No. 216 of 1911 we expressed the opinion that a statement made by a prisoner in his defence was absolutely privileged and we based this opinion upon the ground that the English rule of common law, that anything said in the course of a judicial proceeding before a Court of competent jurisdiction by counsel, witness or party was absolutely privileged, applied in India. The question put to us is limited to a statement made by a person opposing the registration of a will. Our answer to this question must, in the first instance, depend on the view we take on the general - question as to whether a registrat...
Rangasawmi Iyengar Vs. Rangasawmi Iyengar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-15-1912
Reported in: 14Ind.Cas.282
Sankaran Nair, J.1. The petitioner has got his remedy by suit. Farther, the contesting claimants being undivided members of the same family, they must be deemed to be in possession and cannot be dispossessed of their interest in execution. There is no ground for interference under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code. The petition is dismissed with costs....
K. Kochunny Alias Mannaraghat Elaya Nair Vs. P.C. Manavikrama Rajah Am ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-15-1912
Reported in: 14Ind.Cas.318
ORDERSankaran Nair, J.1. The order of attachment under Section 145, Criminal Procedure Code, of the elephant must be set aside as an elephant cannot be attached under that section.2. But the immoveable property or the forest is under attachment and it is conceded that the elephant was not removed from the forest at the time of attachment. Neither of the parties is entitled to enter the forest after the attachment. The officer attaching the forest is, therefore, entitled to take possession of the elephant. It is clear that the owner or the person in possession of the forest in which the pit was dug is also entitled to the ownership or possession of the elephant and prima facie the person, if any, in whose favour, the order under Section 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code will be passed, will also be entitled to the possession of the elephant unless there are special circumstances in the case to show that he is not entitled to its possession. Assuming, then, without deciding, that the pe...
In Re: Varayal Krishnan Nair
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-15-1912
Reported in: 14Ind.Cas.319
Sankaran Nair, J.1. The petitioner was charged only with having committed theft. He was convicted under Section 379 for that offence. On appeal, he was acquitted of theft and convicted of abetment of theft under Sections 109 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code. This is illegal, as the petitioner was not charged with the abetment of theft. The conviction and sentence are set aside and the fine will be refunded....
Potaraju Venkata Reddy Vs. Emperor
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-15-1912
Reported in: 14Ind.Cas.659; (1912)23MLJ39
Arnold White, C.J.1. The question which has been referred to us in this--'is the statement of a person charged with an offence in answer to a question by the Court trying him 'What have you to say,' an absolutely privileged statement so as to make him not liable to be punished for an offence under Section 499, Indian Penal Code, in respect of the statement?' There can be no question that under the law of England the occasion would have been absolutely privileged. Mr. Rosario, who argued in support of the view that under the law of this country the statement was not privileged unless the prisoner could show that it was made in good faith within the meaning of the 9th exception to Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code, has conceded this. The law of England is that there are occasions when it is for the public interest that persons should not be in any way fettered in their statements, in this case the privilege is absolute and no action lies for words spoken. The occasions are (1) Parliam...
Sree Raja Venkata Rangaya and ors. Vs. Murela Venkaya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-14-1912
Reported in: 14Ind.Cas.259
Ayling, J.1. The cause of action arose in September 1904 and plaintiff is entitled to file his suit in the proper Court within a period from that time of 3 years plus any periods for which he is entitled to claim exclusion under Section 14 of the Limitation Act. These, according to him, are three in number. The first is from 29th September 1906 when he filed his plaint in the District Muusif's Court to 19fch July 1907 when it was returned to him. He appealed against the District Munsif's order returning the plaint, and his appeal, which was eventually dismissed, was pending in the District Court from 12th August 1907 to 31sfc October 1907. This is the second period. After this, he filed a revision petition in this Court which was dismissed on 29th October 190.}. This is the third period.2. He is apparently entitled to invoke the protection of Section 14 for the first two periods, but not, in my opinion, for the third. Section 14 says nothing about a Court of Revision. The order of the ...
V. Venkatanarayana Pillai Vs. V. Subbammal and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-12-1912
Reported in: (1912)22MLJ395
1. This is a suit for declaration that an alleged adoption of the 2nd defendant by the 1st 'defendant, the widow of one Venkatrama Piilai, is invalid.2. On September 8, 1889, Venkatrana Pillai made a will (Ex. 1). The will stated that he had selected, or nominated, as his adopted son one Chiranjeevi Venkatakristna Pillai, the son of his daughter Rajammal, and that in case he should die before completing the adoption, his wife should complete the necessary ceremonies. The will directed that all the testator's properties should go to Chiranjeevi Venkatakrishna Piilai. It further directed that in case Chiranjeevi Venkatakrishna Piilai should die during the lifetime of the testator's widow she should, according to her wishes, adopt one of the other sons of the testator's daughter, Rajammal, and give the properties to him.3. On February 9th, 1890. Venkatarama Pillai adopted Chiranjeevi Venkatakrishna Piilai, 4. On March 21st, 1890, he made another will. This will makes no reference to the e...
Zamindar of Chittedu Vs. Pelleti Pedde Narayanappa Naidu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-12-1912
Reported in: (1912)23MLJ59
1. The Deputy Collector finds that garden rates were paid by the ryots for nearly 40 years on these lands. The judge finds that the suit lands became garden lands only after the wells were sunk and that the wells were not dug more than 28 years ago. It is not clear from the appeal judgment whether the judge intended to find that the rents, which were admittedly paid by the tenants, were paid only after the wells were sunk, or whether he intended to set aside the finding of the Deputy Collector that these garden rates were paid for 40 years. We will therefore ask for findings on the following questions.(1) For what time were the ryots paying the garden rates?(2) When were the wells sunk?(3) Whether the ryots were paying garden rates before the wells were sunk?The findings should be submitted within six weeks from the date of this order and seven days will be allowed for filing objections.2. In compliance with the order contained in the above judgment the District Judge submitted the fol...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »