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.
M. Subraya Iyer Vs. Emperor
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-01-1912
Reported in: 14Ind.Cas.199
ORDERMiller, J.1. I have found some difficulty in applying Section 166 of the Indian Penal Code to this case, but I am not prepared to say that it is wrong to read Section 89 of the District Municipalities Act as containing a direction to refrain from seizing carts employed in the conveyance of passengers and goods. As the Sessions Judge sees no reason for rejecting the evidence that saman had been put in the cart before it was seized, I do not doubt that the cart when seized was, though not actually in motion, employed at the time of seizure, in the conveyance of goods. It is not necessary that I should discuss the Sessions Judge's interpretation of the proviso to Section 89, but I do not wish to be taken as accepting it or as holding that so wide a protection as he seems to think is afforded by it to those who fail to perform the not very onerous duty of paying the registration fee for their carts. In the present case, there were goods placed in the cart as part of its load and it wa...
Pattaikara Manakkal Kuppen Vs. Chvorakkapatti Munde Kottil and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-01-1912
Reported in: 14Ind.Cas.168
1. The suit out of which this second appeal arose was instituted by Pattaikara Pramathen Kupen Nambudripad, the manager of a Nambudri Illom, to recover possession of certain lands demised on kanom in 1866 to the 1st defendant by the plaintiff's father. At the time of the suit, the lands were in the possession of the 2nd defendant. The original demisee, the 1st 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 Kisuthri Kovil Devasom. The 2nd defendant subsequently obtained an assignment of the rights of Krishnan Nair. The 2nd defendant denied the plaintiff's right to redeem the mortgage and set up the right of the devasom to the lands and his holding under the devasom. He denied the genuineness of the demise sued on, but both the lower Courts have held it to be genuine. In view of the finding of the Appellate Court, it is unnecessary to refer to certain other contenti...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›