Chennai Court April 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.M. Narayana Nambudri Vs. Muhammad and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-18-1912
Reported in: 15Ind.Cas.844
1. We think that,, as the defendants got into possession as Kanomdars under the plaintiff, they are bound to restore his possession before. they can set up an independent title Code on Ejectment, page 216 Muthuvaien v. Sinna Samavaiyan 28 M.P 526 : 15 M.L.J. 419. We must, therefore, set aside the decrees of the lower Courts and give the plaintiff a decree as prayed for. Improvements, according to the District Munsif's finding, shall be paid for. Plaintiff will have costs throughout from respondents Nos. 3. 1 to 6 and Nos. 13 to 15. Times for redemption will be six months from this date....
Muthukumaraswami Pillai and Seven ors. Vs. King-emperor
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-17-1912
Reported in: (1912)ILR35Mad397
Benson, J.1. In this case fourteen persons were tried by a Special Bench of this Court, constituted under Section 6(b) of the Indian Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1908, for an offence punishable under Section 121A, 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 fourteenth 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 first, second, sixth and fourteenth 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 farther consideration. The present Advocate-General, who, as Public ...
Kolli Valappil Kalathile Veettil Karnavan Ravunni Nair and anr. Vs. Na ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-17-1912
Reported in: 14Ind.Cas.590
Ayling, J.1. I agree in the view of the learned Judge that defendant is liable to pay the enhanced Government revenue. Section 76 of the Transfer of Property Act throws the harden of paying Government revenue on the mortgagee, in the absence of a contract to the contrary. I certainly can find no contract to the contrary in Exhibit A. See also Tuppan Nnmbudri v. Chinnapari Kutti 18 M.L.J. 31.2. As regards the amount for which a decree has been given, there appears to have been no dispute raised by defendants in the original Court as to the amount due; and none of the issues covers such a point. In my opinion, the learned Judge was justified in awarding the sum claimed in the plaint.3. The appeal is dismissed with costs.Sadasiva Iyer, J.4. I entirely agree. With the greatest respect, I dissent from the decision in Krishnier v. Arapvli Iyer 14 M.L.J. 488 and Panigaton Kanaran v. Raman Nair 17 M.L.J. 517 which proceed upon the ground that the mortgagee and mortgagor would not have contempl...
Muthukumarsawmi Pillai and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-17-1912
Reported in: 14Ind.Cas.896
Ralph Benson, J.1. In this case fourteen persons were tried by a Special Bench of this Court, constituted under Section 6(b) of the Indian Criminal Law Amendment Act, 108, for an offence punishable under Section 121A, 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 121A 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, a...
Kandadai Ramanujachariar Vs. Pranatharti Harachariar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-16-1912
Reported in: 14Ind.Cas.588
1. We do not think the decree is incapable of execution. We construe it as entitling the plaintiff to the demolition of a continuous length of about 40 feet of wall newly erected over the old party-wall. From the counter-petitions of defendants in the proceedings of 1905, it seems clear that this wall included the portions marked, D, E and F in the sketch referred to by the District Munsif, and whether it included anything to the north of the portion marked D may be determined on evidence to be now taken. Bhugobat Singh v. Ram Adhim Singh 22 W.R. 330. We reverse the decree of the District Judge and remand the matter to the District Munsif for disposal in the light of the above remarks.2. Costs will abide the result....
Vellaya Rowther and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-16-1912
Reported in: 14Ind.Cas.596
1. As regards the 2nd and 3rd accused, we find no ground for interference and we confirm their convictions and dismiss their appeal.2. As regards the 1st accused, the Sessions Judge has, we think, erred in admitting Exhibit F in evidence. The deposition of the Sub-Inspector shows that it was a statement taken in the coarse of an investigation and reduced to writing (Section 167 of the Criminal Procedure Code). The writing could not, therefore, be used as evidence.3. The evidence that the cloths produced by the 1st accused, if he, in fact, produced any, were cloths stolen at the dacoity, is the principal evidence against the accused; the evidence of indentification is, in his case, distinctly weak. The Sessions Judge's direction to the Jury as to the value of Exhibit F must have drawn their attention particularly to that document, and may very well have led to their acceptance of the identification of the cloths by Prosecution witness No. 6; it is impossible to say that it has not affec...
Meenakshi Sundara Nachiar Vs. SA. Rm. Ct. Chidambaram Chetty and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-15-1912
Reported in: (1912)23MLJ119
1. The question for decision in this Second Appeal is whether the plaintiffs are entitled to recover from the defendant the rent of two villages for Fasli 1315. The defence to the claim is that the plaintiff's lessors seriously obstructed the enjoyment of the villages by the defendant in that year, by which she sustained loss to the extent of Rs. 1,300 and that the plaintiffs are, therefore, not entitled to claim any rent for that year. The amount of rent due for the year according to the contract of lease was Rs. 1,245-12-3. The plaintiffs are alleged to have obstructed the lessee's enjoyment both of certain Karuvela trees and the paddy lands. With regard to the former, both the Lower Courts have found that the obstruction was not of a substantial character. With respect to the paddy land, both Courts have concurred in finding that the plaintiffs, having brought the villages to sale for arrears of rent for previous faslis in November 1905 and purchased them at the auction sale, took s...
In Re: Vuppalapu Virasawmy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-15-1912
Reported in: 14Ind.Cas.601
1. In this case, we accept the Sessions Judge's appreciation of the evidence and find that the remains found in the bush were those of the son of P.W. No. 3, that the boy was seen in the arms of the accused on the afternoon of the 22nd of December by Prosecution witness No. 5 and that either on the 22 ad itself or shortly afterwards, the jewelry which he was wearing was disposed of by the accused through the Prosecution witness No. 12.2. On this evidence, we think the conviction under Section 369 of the Indian Penal Code was justified, but in order to justify the conviction under Section 302, there is wanted some further evidence that the boy's death was due to violence. This case differs from that which the Sessions Judge refers to, Queen-Empress v. Sami 13 M.h 426 in that here, there is no proof that the boy did not die a natural or accidental death, and, in the absence of proof that a murder has been committed, the accused cannot be convicted of that offence. Considering the age of ...
Sevathiyarudayan Vs. Karuppudayan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-15-1912
Reported in: 14Ind.Cas.703
1. The lower Courts have found that, with a view to injure the defendant, the Village Officers brought to sale the plaint lands which belonged to the defendant, but were registered in the name of another person for arrears due by such person on the other lands belonging to him without personal service on him and without any service on the defendant who was known to them to be the true owner, in direct disobedience to the Board's Standing Orders, and that the sale was, in consequence, fraudulent. It also appears that it was illegal as opposed to the provisions of Section 44 of the Revenue Recovery Act, as they sold one item of 1 acre and 84 cents, the largest in the patta, while there were three smaller items included in the patta, and the arrear was only Rs. 1-14-0; the sale, therefore, was both fraudulent and illegal. It was objected that the defendant did not take steps to sot it aside under Section 38 within thirty days, but there is nothing to show he ever heard of it until the pre...
P. Somamma Vs. P. Basamma and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-14-1912
Reported in: 14Ind.Cas.704
1. There was no application for execution, and, on that ground, the petition might properly have been dismissed. Vide Ramachendra Iyer v. Subramanya Chettiar 14 M.L.J. 393.2. On that ground, we dismiss the appeal with costs, without deciding any of the questions discussed by the Courts below....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »