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.
P.V. Govinda Varier and anr. Vs. Paru Amma and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-05-1912
Reported in: 15Ind.Cas.360
1. The decree in Original Suit No. 33 of 1904 describes the land dealt with as north of a line marked in a plan attached to the decree. The claim now in question relates to Surrey No. 265/1, a field so described in a schedule attached to the same decree but not referred to by this number in the decree.2. Evidence has been admitted to show that 265/1 was not included in the land to the north of the line marked in the plan attached to the decree and we think that such evidence was rightly admitted.3. We must, therefore, dismiss the appeal with costs....
Annathurai Aiyar Vs. T. Ramanuja Chariar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-04-1912
Reported in: (1912)22MLJ411
1. Two questions have been argued. First it is contended that parol evidence was wrongly admitted to show that the upstair house described in Exh. G (item 2) was the house in reference to which the present dispute has arisen.2. It is clear from Exh. G that the intention was to convey an upstair house and that house is described as included in, i.e., standing on, a certain site which is also described and conveyed. When the document is applied to the facts existing at the date of the sale, it is found that the vendor had no upstair house on that site, but had one on the opposite side of the same street and no other in that town or elsewhere. Evidence has been admitted to show that he intended to convey that house. We think the evidence was admissible and that the words, in the document which indicated that the house sold stood upon the site described must be regarded as mere misdescription to be omitted from consideration. The second contention is that the Tamil word Kalan' in the coven...
Singaravelu Pillay and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-04-1912
Reported in: 14Ind.Cas.203
ORDER1. Following the ruling in Padmanaba Payi Kanmah v. Emperor 7 M.L.T. 79 Ind. Cas. 11 Cri. L.J. 49 we must hold that the action of the Sub' Divisional Magistrate in converting the conviction of the 1st appellant (1st petitioner) into one of abetment of theft was illegal. He apparently finds him not guilty of the principal offence and the conviction and sentence of the first appellant must, therefore, be set aside.2. We find no ground for interference in the case of the other petitioners....
In Re: Mallipaddi Gopaya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-04-1912
Reported in: 14Ind.Cas.206
ORDER1. We have considered the decisions reported in Jogendra Nath Mukerjee v. Sarat Chandra Benerjee 9 C.W.N. 277 and Kali Kinkar Sett v. Nritya Gopal Roy 12 M.k 47, but we are not prepared to differ from the view taken by this Court in Thathayya, In re 1 Cri. L.J. 422. We do not consider that it makes any difference whether the sanction is accorded to a particular person or is couched in general terms.2. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate will restore the case to his file and dispose of it according to law....
Peddupalli Mahalakshmi Vs. Kovvurru Basivireddi Garu Bhumanchireddi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-04-1912
Reported in: 14Ind.Cas.182
ORDERWallis, J.1. This case is covered by Narasimha Row v. Gangarapu 31 M. 431 : 4 M.L.T. 231.2. The petition is dismissed....
Annathturi Iyer Vs. T. Ramanuja Chariar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-04-1912
Reported in: 15Ind.Cas.223
1. Two questions have been argued.2. First, it is contended that parol evidence was wrongly admitted to show that the upstairs house described in Exhibit Or (item 2) was the house in reference to which the present dispute has arisen. It is clear from Exhibit G that the intention was to convey an upstair house, and that house is described as included in, i.e., standing on a certain site which is also described and conveyed. When the document is applied to the facts existing at the date of the sale, it is found that the vendor had no upstair house on that site, but had one on the opposite side of the same street and no other in that town or elsewhere. Evidence has been admitted to show that he intended to convey that house. We think the evidence was admissible and that the words in the document which indicated that the house sold stood upon the side described must be regarded as mere description to be omitted from consideration. The second contention is that the Tamil word ('kalan') in t...
Bapu Alias Audimulam Pillai Vs. Bapu Alias Krishnayen
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-01-1912
Reported in: (1912)22MLJ419
1. We are not prepared to dissent from the conclusion arrived at by a Full Bench of this court in Muthusami Mudali v. Veeni Chetti (1877) 1 C.L.R. 275.2. We think, however, the power conferred upon this court by Section 195 C1. (6), of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not a part of the appellate and revisional jurisdiction of this court conferred by Ch. 31 and 32 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is a special power conferred by Section 195, Clause (6). It follows, therefore, that when the Judges are equally divided the case is governed by S. (36) of the Letters Patent and not by Section 429 or Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.3. Our answer to the first question referred to us is in the affirmative. Our answer to the second question is that, in the case stated, the procedure described, in Clause (36) of the Letters Patent is to be followed....
Pramathan Thuppan Nambudripad (Son of Pathaikara Manakkal Thuppan Pram ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-01-1912
Reported in: (1914)ILR37Mad373
1. The suit out of which this Second Appeal arose was instituted by Pathaikara Pramathan Thuppan Nambudripad, the Manager of a Nambudri Illom, to recover possession of certain lands demised on kanom in 1866 to the first defendant by the plaintiff's father. At the time of the suit the lands were in the possession of the second defendant. The original demisee, the first defendant, assigned his rights to one Krishnan Nair in 1894. He subsequently in 1901 attorned to one Kodalur Nambudri who claimed the lands as the property of a temple Kizhuthir kovil Devasvam. The second defendant subsequently, obtained an assignment of the rights of Krishnan Nair. The second def en d ant denied the plaintiff's right to redeem the mortgage and set up the right of the Devasvam to the lands and his holding under the Devasvam. He denied the genuineness of the demise sued on; but both the lower Courts have held it to be genuine. In view of the findings of the Appellate Court it is unnecessary to refer to cer...
Nelliammal Vs. Mooka Nadan Alias Thangiah
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-01-1912
Reported in: 14Ind.Cas.192
1. The proceedings in this suit were irregular.2. In the first place, the petition is headed as under Section 10 of the Indian Divorce Act, but the formal prayer is not for dissolution of marriage (Section 10), but for a judicial separation (Section 22). This seems to have escaped the attention of the Court, notwithstanding that, in an application to amend the petition, the petitioner describes her petition as one for dissolution of marriage. Then, the certificate of marriage appears to have been put in evidence for the purpose of an application for leave to sue in forma pauperis. The application for leave to sue in forma pauperis was made after the institution of the suit and the marriage is not disputed. Petitioner and respondent both speak to the fact of the marriage.3. The respondent speaks to his having exchanged his profession of Christianity for the profession of some other religion and gone through a form of marriage with another woman. The petitioner gave no evidence about thi...
Vencatachellam Iyer Vs. K.V. Subramanya Iyer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-01-1912
Reported in: 14Ind.Cas.144
1. The plaintiff is the assignee for value from one Narayanasawmi Iyer of the latter's right to a sum of money deposited by him with certain third persons as security for the proper peformance of some office held by him under them. Sub-sequent to the assignment to plaintiff, the defendant attached Rs. 145 out of the security amount for a decree obtained by him against Narayanasami. The amount attached was paid into Court by the persons who held it as security and was withdrawn by the defendant The plaintiff's suit is for the recovery from the defendant of the amount received by him from Court. The defendant contends that he had no notice of plaintiff's right as assignee when he received the amount and that plaintiff has, therefore, no right to recover from him. We are of opinion that the contention is not sound. The defendant's rights are not higher than those of a purchaser of property at Court-auction. He obtained only such rights as Narayanasawmi himself had at the time of the attac...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »