Chennai Court September 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.
The Sessions Judge of Coimbatore Vs. Immudi Kumara Kangaya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-18-1912
Reported in: 17Ind.Cas.410; (1912)23MLJ368
ORDER1. In this case the Sessions Judge moves us to quash a commitment made to his court on the ground that the committing Magistrate refused to summon certain witnesses whom the accused desired to be examined by the Magistrate under Section 208 of the Criminal Procedure Code prior to his making the commitment. It appears that examination and cross-examination' of the witnesses for the prosecution was closed on the 5th June last and accused were examined on the same day and stated that their Vakil would file written statements on their behalf. The case was therefore adjourned to the 8th June when the written statemants were put in and the Vakil of the accused argued that there was no sufficient evidence for the prosecution to justify a commitment. Owing to the absence of one of the accused (who was on bail) the case was adjourned to the 11th June and then again to the 20th June and then the present application was for the first time made to summon and examine some sixteen witnesses for...
In Re: Manjeshwar Padmanabha Batta and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-18-1912
Reported in: 17Ind.Cas.400
1. The case in Ramanathan Chettiar v. Ananthanarayana Iyer 5 Ind. Cas. 291 shows that the District Judge has power to make inquiries before granting sanction under Section 18 of the Reglious Endowments Act.2. The District Judge has carefully gone into the whole matter on the affidavit filed on both sides and has come to the conclusion (a) that 3rd respondent is himself to blame for not taking up the duties of trustee and that respondents Nos. 2, 4, 5 and 6 against whom alone the application was really directed were not to blame; (b) that the application is not bona fide and as really set up by 1st respondent (one of the trustees), who could not have his own way in the temple management, and (c) that the respondents Nos. 2, 4, 5 and 6 have not been prima facie proved to be guilty of any misappropriation or of any such misconduct as will justify the granting of the leave to sue.3. I am unable to find that in using his discretion to grant or refuse leave to the petitioners to institute th...
Purushotama Das Pragji Sait and ors. Vs. Jeta Bhai Nagji Sait and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-17-1912
Reported in: 17Ind.Cas.33
Sundara Aiyar, J.1. This is a petition under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code against the judgment of the Subordinate Court of North Malabar refusing to set aside an order passed by the District Munsif of Cannanore filing an award. The reference to arbitrators in the case was without the intervention of any Court; the arbitrators passed an award. Amongst the objections taken by the defendant to its being filed, one was that the arbitrators had not decided all the questions in dispute between the parties. Before proceeding further, it would be desirable to refer to the muchilika or karar by which the reference was made to the arbitrators. It states: 'You are empowered by us and with our consent to settle by arbitration all the disputes going on between Nos. 1, 2 and 3 herein regarding the ware-house No. 776 in Ward D of Cannanore town, the buildings included therein and the rent thereof which form the joint acquisition of myself, Purushothama Das Pragji Suit No. 1, and of Megji A...
thekkumthatathil Kelukutti Vs. Emperor
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-17-1912
Reported in: 17Ind.Cas.414
1. The evidence leaves no doubt that the accused fired at the deceased, who was one of his own watchmen, mistaking him for a thief and inflicted a fatal wound in the chest, from which deceased died almost immediately. The real question is, whether the accused may be given the benefit of exception 2 to Section 300, Indian Penal Code; and, after careful consideration, we must agree with the Sessions Judge in holding that he cannot.2. From the evidence of prosecution 2nd witness, it is clear that the accused had no reason to apprehend any thing more serious than the advent of thief or thieves intending to steal his cocoanuts or jack fruit; and it cannot be contended that it was necessary to shoot such a thief in order to defend his property, especially as accused had assembled no less than five men to help him in guarding his tope. That accused in firing at deceased must have known himself to be likely to cause the man's death, admits of no doubt; the gun is a handy, serviceable weapon, a...
Gollapudi Venkatakrishnama Chetti and anr. Vs. Lakshmi Narasimham and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-17-1912
Reported in: 17Ind.Cas.393a
1. The question is whether the mortgage by deposit of title-deeds is fraudulent within the meaning of Section 24 of the Insolvency Act, 11 and 12, Victoria, C. 21.2. A promissory-note was executed and the title-deeds were deposited to secure the amount of the note on the 10th August 1908 by the Insolvents, Cantham & Co., defendants Nos. 1 to 4. They carried on their business on the 11th, the 12th was holiday. On the 13th, it was found that they had absconded and a creditor presented a petition of adjudication the same day. The insolvents have not appeared since.3. The promissory-note is for a sum of Rs. 20,962.1-6. This is made up as follows:Rupees 6,500 is alleged to have been paid by the plaintiffs at the time of the execution of the pro-note.Rupees 2,500 is said to have been paid to one Mallikarjunudu at defendants' request.Rupees 3,000 is said to have been paid to Sanku Ramasami Chetti.Rupees 1,700--the amount the plaintiffs undertook to pay to one Radhakrishna's son on account of ...
In Re: Kollipara Veakamma
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-16-1912
Reported in: (1912)23MLJ381
Sadasiva Aiyar, J.1. The petitioner who was the plaintiff before the District Munsif's Court could have appealed to the District Court against the Munsif's decree if she considered that that decision was legally wrong. If she had done so and if she failed even in appeal she could have come up in second appeal to this Court '-as a suit relating to a claim for maintenance.'2. Instead of doing so she has put in this revision petition under Section 115 C.P.C. 225 days after the District Munsif's decision. This is not a case in which 'no appeal lies' to the High Court and hence Section 115 cannot apply. There is no question of jurisdiction, perversely illegal decision, or material irregularity of procedure involved but only a question whether the District Munsif committed an error of law in allowing the plaintiff's Vakil's consent to bind the plaintiff in the decision of the suit. It is admitted that the Vakil's Vakalat empowered him to compromise the suit but the contention is that without...
Sallijib Kotakal Manakal Neelakandan Nambudri and ors. Vs. Sallyil Kot ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-16-1912
Reported in: 17Ind.Cas.128
1. This is a suit for a declaration that a Saswatham granted to the family of the 2nd defendant in 1897 is not binding on the Devaswom of which the 1st defendant, the managing member of the plaintiff's tarwad and the 2nd defendant, the manager of the family of defendants Nos. 2 to 9, are the Uralans. The Saswatham was granted by a karar executed between the 1st defendant and the 2nd defendant. Admittedly, the 2nd defendant's family did not possess any Saswatham rights in these properties before. The grant of a Saswatham is prima facie an improper act. It has been upheld in this case by the lower Courts on the ground that the Devaswom was not in a position to establish its title to atleast four out of the six items of the properties comprised in the Saswatham. This finding is not open to any legal objection. With regard to item 2, one of the remaining two items, the jenmam title of the Devaswom was admitted by the Karnavan of the 2nd defendant's tarwad about the year 1863. According to ...
Giles Seddon Vs. the Deputy Collector of Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-16-1912
Reported in: 17Ind.Cas.117
1. This appeal arises out of a reference by the Deputy Collector of Madras to the Chief Judge of the Court of Small Causes under Section 49 of the Land Acquisition, Act, I of 1894. The Chief Judge decided that the plot of ground referred to did not form 'part of the house, manufactory or building' within the meaning of the section. Against that decision, the claimant appeals and the preliminary objection is taken on behalf of the Government that no appeal lies. The Question turns on the construction of Section 54 of the Act, and to make out a case for appeal, it must be shown that the decision of the Court under Section 4) is 'the award or any part of the award of the Court in any proceedings under this Act.' Before disposing of the question whether this is an award, it is well to dispose of the argument on the words 'any part of the award.' It was suggested that these words would include any proceeding prior to the final award; but it is obvious that this language is used in exactly t...
Karray Mangiah Chetty Vs. Kanachi Ramiah Chetty and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-16-1912
Reported in: 17Ind.Cas.164
1. Ramiah Chetty filed his insolvency petition and schedule of the 21st July 1897 and a vesting order was passed the same day. He obtained his personal discharge on the 23th September alleging that he had paid all his creditors. He applied in 1906 to have his petition dismissed, when Mangiah Chetty, the appellant before us, came forward to prove his claim, which was rejected by the Official Assignee. He applied to Mr. Justice Boddam, who rejected his application with costs to be paid to the insolvent on the 21st January 1907. This order was reversed by the Appellate Court and the case was remanded to the Commissioner in Insolvency for a re-hearing. The costs incurred up to the date of the appellate order were also to be dealt with by him. Wallis, J., again dismissed the application on the 16th November 1908 and ordered Mangiah Chetty to pay the costs of the application and the appeal to the insolvent's attorney.2. It was argued before us, on behalf of Mangiah Chetty, that Mr. Justice B...
Syed Gaffur Saheb and ors. Vs. Syed Moosa Saheb and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-16-1912
Reported in: 17Ind.Cas.124
1. The suit relates to the possession and management of the Darga of Hazarath Syed Moosa Qadiri, situated in Mount Road, Madras. The plaintiff's case is that his father, Syed Ismail, and one Galam Dastagir, the father of the defendants, had been in possession and management with equal rights during their life-time, performing the duties of the office of Superintendent of the said Darga and enjoying the emoluments and gifts pertaining to it by inheritance. He contends that he is entitled to succeed his father Ismail Sahib in the management with the rights that he had and that defendants Nos. 1 and 2 are only entitled to the interest which their father Gulam Dastagir had. The contention of the defendants is that, all of them being the descendants of a common ancestor, the succession is per capita and that each of them, the plaintiffs and defendants, is entitled to one-third share in the management and in the emoluments pertaining to the Darga, Wallis, J., upheld the plaintiff's contentio...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »