Chennai Court August 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.
Balusu Lakshmayya and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-22-1912
Reported in: 16Ind.Cas.520
ORDERAyling, J.1. The judgment of the Deputy Magistrate does not comply with the requirements of Section 367, Criminal Procedure Code. There is a long recital of the facts preceding the alleged offence, but no discussion of the evidence or anything to indicate that the Magistrate has considered such essential points as the ownership of the grain, the possibility of accused having acted in good faith, or the evidence implicating individual accused persons. The order of the Deputy Magistrate confirming the convictions and sentences is set aside; and he is directed to re-hear the appeal and dispose of it according to law. The accused, who has been admitted to bail by this Court, will remain on the same bail pending disposal of the appeal by the Deputy Magistrate....
Kasi Chetty and ors. Vs. Srimathu Devasikhamony Nataraja Dikshitar and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-22-1912
Reported in: 16Ind.Cas.622
1. As regards the question of lease in perpetuity, the effect of the authorities in this Court, of which the most recent is Sreemuth Devasigamani Pandara Sannadhi v. Palaniappa Ohettiar 34 M.K 535 : 9 Ind. Cas. 281 : 20 M.L.J. 969 : (1911) 2 M.W.N. 154 : 9 M.L.T. 83 is to restrict the right of a temple trustee to cases in which there enters at least some element of necessity. It is not here contended that there was any necessity for a permanent lease. We find no reason to refuse to accept the result arrived at by these decisions. We agree with the Subordinate Judge that Exhibit IV-A is invalid.2. As to the plaintiff's right to sue, we see no reason why he should not maintain the suit whether he is, or is not in law, the trustee of the temple, a matter which we need not and do not decide. He is admittedly one of the disciples attached to the mutt, and is in possession of the property in suit and managing the affairs of the temple to which the property belongs and sues on behalf of the t...
Mandy Abdul Rahiman Saheb by His Son and Repressentative, Mundy Mathar ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-22-1912
Reported in: 16Ind.Cas.616
Abdur Rahim, J.1. The finding of both the Courts is that, although by Exhibit A, the mother and the aunt of Syed Abdulla, who sold the house in dispute to the plaintiff, purported to make a hiba, or simple gift, of the property to the said Abdulla, yet in fact they never relinquished possession of it, but continued to live in it as before with their other children. The District Judge also finds that the continued residence of the donors in the house was not in the capacity of tenants-at-will of the donee. At the same time, it is found that Syed Abdulla, after the date of the gift, obtained pattas in his name and paid lists. The conclusion, which the lower Courts seem to arrive at, is that there was no transmutation of possession, and the District Judge, in more than one place in his judgment, calls the transaction a paper gift. If this be the correct reading of the finding of the lower Courts, there can be no doubt that the gift is invalid and the plaintiff's suit was rightly dismissed...
In Re: Vijiaraghavalu Naidu and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-21-1912
Reported in: (1914)26MLJ63
ORDER1. The facts in this Revision petition are as follows:One Venkatasami Naidu was charged before the Chief Presidency with an offence under Section 415 of the Indian Penal Code; he was released on bail and the two petitioners signed a bond for his appearance in the sum of Rs. 2,500 each; the accused committed suicide before the date of surrender; the Chief Presidency Magistrate called on the sureties to show cause why their bail should not be forfeited and, after arguments decided that they were liable on the ground that the suicide of the accused was a preventible reason for his non-appearance and one which they should have a made themselves aware of and guarded against. It was first argued on this petition that the Chief Presidency Magistrate approached the question from the wrong point of view and that he should have held that the accused had not failed to, attend and that death prevented his attendance. We intimated at the hearing that we were unable to accept this view and Dr. ...
Vijiaraghavulu Naidu and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-21-1912
Reported in: 16Ind.Cas.332
ORDER1. The facts in this revision petition are as follows: One Venkatasamy Naidu was charged before the Chief Presidency Magistrate with an offence under Section 415 of the Indian Penal Code. He was released on bail and the two petitioners signed a bond for his appearance in the sum of Rs. 2,500 each. The accused committed suicide before the date of surrender: the Chief Presidency Magistrate called on the, sureties to show cause why their bail should not be forfeited and, after arguments, decided that they were liable on the ground that the suicide of the accused was a preventable reason for his non-appearance and one which they should have made themselves aware of and guarded against. It was first argued on this petition that the Chief Presidency Magistrate approached the question from the wrong point of view and that he should have held that the accused had not failed to attend and that death prevented his attendance. We intimated at the hearing that we were unable to accept this vi...
Sepahdar Khan Santhoji and ors. Vs. Badi Bi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-20-1912
Reported in: 17Ind.Cas.284
1. The District Judge is in error in holding that the provisions of the Partition Act IV of 1893 do not apply to a suit like the present in which a preliminary decree for partition had been made but in which the final partition had not been effected. Section 10 of the Act makes this plain, as pointed out in Kadir Bacha Sahib v. Abdul Rahiman Sahib 24 M.k 639 followed in Bai Hirakore v. Trikamdas Hirachand 10 Bom. L.R. 23.2. We set aside the order of the District Judge on the preliminary matter and direct him to restore the appeal to the file and dispose of it according to law.3. It is open to him to consider whether the application should be disposed of owing to any laches on the part of the petitioner before the District Munsif or for any other cause. Costs will abide the result....
Arunagiri Mudaliar Vs. Uthando Mudali
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-20-1912
Reported in: 17Ind.Cas.242
1. The application for delivery of the property was made on the 19th January 1910, i.e., after the Limitation Act of 1908 had come into force. The sale had been confirmed on the 28th July 1906, and thereupon became absolute under Section 314 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1882. It has been contended before us that the sale did not become absolute until the final dismissal of the petition put in by a third party under Section 311 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1882, but we are unable to accept this contention. On these facts, we are of opinion that the Article of Limitation Act applicable to the present application is Article 180 of the 2nd Schedule of the Act of 1908, the period of limitation being three years from the date when the sale became absolute.2. We, therefore, dismiss this appeal with casts....
Thathara Nannabha Chetty Vs. Kuppal Krishnammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-20-1912
Reported in: 16Ind.Cas.799
1. The first point taken in this appeal, is that the appellant is entitled to treat the decree in appeal as substituting a corresponding date for the actual date in the original decree and reliance is placed on the decision of the Privy Council in Bhup Indar Bahadur Singh v. Bijai Bahadur Singh 23 A.K 152 : 2 Bom. L.R. 978 : 10 M.L.J. 290 : 5 C.W.N. 52 : 27 I.A. 209. That case does not, however, lay down such a principle. It decides that, where the words 'date of the decree' are used in the original decree, those words, after the decree is affirmed, mean the date of the appellate decree. The case of Ramasawmy Kone v. Sundara Kone 31 M.P 28 : 17 M.L.J. 495 : 3 M.L.T. 26 is a clear authority against the appellant and we cannot accept the distinction sought to be made, no trace of this being found in the judgment. To do what we are asked to do would be to alter the decree. It is then suggested that Article 181 of the Limitation Act (IX of 1908), does not apply and reliance is placed on Ma...
Gopalakrishnamaraju by His Mother Bangaraya Vs. Venkatanarasa Raju and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-19-1912
Reported in: 17Ind.Cas.309; (1912)23MLJ288
1. It is sufficient to say that we agree with the Judgment of Krishnaswami Aiyarj. in Kameswsra Sastri v. Veeracharlu I.L.R. (1910) M. 422 that marriage is obligatory on Hindus who do not desire to to adopt the life of a perpetual Brahmachari or of a Sanyasi and this being so, that debts reasonably incurred for the marriage of a twice born Hindu male are binding on the joint family properties....
Mangalasheri Illath Krishnan Nambudri Vs. Mangalasheri Illath Kesavan ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-19-1912
Reported in: 16Ind.Cas.612
Sankaran Nair, J.1. The petitioner and respondents Nos. 1 to 6 form the members of a Brahmin tarwad. The petitioner alleges that the 1st respondent, the karnavan of the tarwad, has made several alienations which are not binding on the family and, therefore, seeks to remove the 1st respondent from the karmvanship, to set aside the alienation (sic) and for other consequential relief's. (sic) states that the 1st respondent, as (sic) of his family and the 7th respondent (sic) karnavan of the family of defendants Nos. (sic) to 10, are the trustees or uralans of Kelalur temple and that the first respondent in collusion with the 7th respondent has made many alienations and seeks to set aside those alienations and to recover the properties which are in the possession of the alienees. He further alleges that the 1st respondent, as the karnavan of his tarwad and the 11th respondent as the karnavan of defendants Nos. 11 to 17, are the uralans of Esanmangalam temple and that they in collusion have...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »