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.
In Re: Narayanaswami Iyer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-06-1912
Reported in: 18Ind.Cas.662
ORDERRalph Benson, O.C.J.1. Under Section 63 of the Registration Act, 1908, the Sub-Registrar had authority to administer an oath to the petitioner and to record a note of the substance of the statement made by the petitioner before him.2. Section 82(a) enacts that 'whoever intentionally makes any false statement...before any officer acting in execution of this Act in any proceeding or inquiry under this Act', shall be punishable and so forth. It seems to me clear that the petitioner has committed an offence punishable under Section 82(a) of the Registration Act and under Section 113, Indian Penal Code.3. The case referred to Queen-Empress v. Bubaji Raghunath 1 Bom. L.R. 686 seems to me to be clearly distinguishable from the present case. As I understand the facts in that case, the Registrar, before he made the inquiry under Section 74 of the Act, had before him admissions of execution by the executants and there was, therefore, no ground for his making an inquiry under Section 74.4. I...
The Public Prosecutor Vs. Arumugam Chetty
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-06-1912
Reported in: 17Ind.Cas.64
1. The dictum of the Sessions Judge that a witness who deliberately gives false evidence, but who, when confronted with incontestable proof of its falsehood then admits it to be false, ought not to be prosecuted' for perjury, is one that cannot be approved.2. In the present case, the accused deliberately denied that his daughter was married to the son of the person in whose favour he was called as a witness. This was not a matter in regard to which he could have made any mistake. Indeed, in his statement next day he did not suggest any mistake but admitted the offence and asked to be excused. I must, therefore, set aside the acquittal by the Sessions Judge, and find the accused guilty of an offence punishable under Section 193, Indian Penal Code.3. As to sentence, it is urged on behalf of the accused that he is an elderly man of 50 years of age, and has already undergone rigorous imprisonment for 1 month and 7 days. The Public Prosecutor does not press for further imprisonment, being o...
Pedapati Durgayya Vs. Pedapati Manikyam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-06-1912
Reported in: 16Ind.Cas.808
1. This is a suit for restitution of conjugal rights instituted by the appellant. The defendant is his wife. The District Munsif passed a decree in favour of the plaintiff and directed payment by him of maintenance at Rs. 6 a month to the defendant. The Subordinate Judge has, however, dismissed the plaintiff's suit. What he finds-is substantially this: that the plaintiff, against whom an order had been made by the Magistrate in January 1908 awarding Rs. 6 a month to the defendant, tried to have it set aside and, having failed in that attempt, has instituted this suit in order to evade payment of maintenance. He, therefore, holds that the suit is not bona-fide, But, if the plaintiff is entitled to restitution of conjugal rights, it does not appear to us that the suit would be lacking in bona fide because he does not wish to pay separate maintenance to the defendant. This is practically the ground on which the Subordinate Judge has dismissed the suit. He also says incidentally that defen...
K. Subramanya Aiyar Vs. S. Subba Iyer and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-06-1912
Reported in: 16Ind.Cas.816
1. In this case, the question is whether the purchase of a debt secured by a hypothecation bond has passed any title to the plaintiff who is the purchaser of the property in Court auction. The attachment was made by the Small Cause Court which, of course, had no jurisdiction to attach immoveable property under Section 7 of the Civil Procedure Code. But the question whether the debt secured by a hypothecation, bond is immoveable property for purposes of attachment, has been recently considered in Nataraja Iyer v. The South India Bank at Tinnevelly 22 M.L.J. 15 : 13 Ind. Cas. 91 : 10 M.L.T. 503 : 2 M.W.N. 590 and there it was decided that it was not immoveable property within the meaning of the provisions relating to the attachment of immoveable property. We see no reason to differ from that decision, and if that conclusion is right, the fact that the attachment was made by a Small Cause Court can make no difference. We think; therefore, that the appeal must be allowed. The decree of the...
N. Vaidianatha Sastriar Vs. Kasivasi Somasundara Thambiran
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-04-1912
Reported in: (1913)24MLJ8
Miller, J.1. The Plaintiff a First Grade Pleader was retained by defendant to defend him in a prosecution instituted against him by the Taluq Board of Kumbakonam in December 1900. After a trial which lasted till April 1901 the defendant was acquitted, and some months later on the 8th November 1901 gave a notice to the President of the Taluq Board, threatening a suit for damages for malicious prosecution. The suit was instituted and the present plaintiff conducted it for the defendant who was then plaintiff. An account which accompanied notice of suit shewed that among the expenses of the Criminal Proceedings for which it was sought to recover compensation from the Taluq Board, was a sum of Rs. 850 paid as fees to the present plaintiff for conducting the case on 16 days on which the trial proceeded, and 7 days on which the case was set down for trial but was not actually taken up. For the 16 days the fees were entered at Rs. 40 per day and for the 7 days at Rs. 30 par day. At the trial ...
Syed Ibrahim Sahib Vs. Arumugathayee and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-04-1912
Reported in: (1915)ILR38Mad18
1. The plaintiff's suit in this case is to enforce payment of the amount due to her on two mortgages executed by the first defendant's father in July 1891. Of these the first, Exhibit C, is a usufructuary mortgage for Rs. 500. The second, Exhibit D, is a simple mortgage for Rs. 200. On the 4th September 1896 a sale-deed was executed by the first defendant's father in plaintiff's favour. The consideration Rs. 900 for the sale-deed was made up of Rs. 700, the principal amounts due on the two mortgages, Rs. 130, the interest on the simple mortgage bond, Rs. 55, the amount due to plaintiff for municipal tax which the vendor had covenanted to pay by the terms of the usufructuary mortgage-deed and certain sundry amounts which he had borrowed from the plaintiff and Rs. 15 paid in cash. The second defendant had obtained from the vendor a mortgage of the same property in 1893. He instituted a suit on it in 1905, brought the properties to sale and purchased them. The present plaintiff was the se...
The Anglo-Indian Trading Co. Ltd. Vs. Gerald Frank Brierly
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-04-1912
Reported in: 17Ind.Cas.256
1. The suit is brought by the plaintiff, the Anglo-Indian Trading Company, to recover a sum of money duo on a promissory note. The defendant pleaded that there was no consideration. The admitted facts are these; one Mr. Subba Row and the defendant had obtained a manganese concession in Mysore and they agreed to admit Mr. W.J. Eales to a share of the profits arising from this concern. In consideration thereof, Mr. Eales caused the Anglo-Indian Trading Company to undertake the management and development of the rights comprised in the said license and to finance the concern. The Company agreed to advance the monies required from time to time for working, prospecting, mining and developing the lands comprised in that license and also all monies for kist and other purposes. They promised also to maintain proper books of account, and it was further stipulated in the agreement entered into between the Anglo-Indian Trading Company on the one hand and Subba Row, Brierly and Eales on the other, ...
N. Vaidyanatha Sastrial Vs. Kasivasi Somasundra Tambiran
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-04-1912
Reported in: 16Ind.Cas.736
Miller, J.1. The plaintiff, a first grade Pleader, was retained by defendant to defend him in a prosecution instituted against him by the Taluq Board of Kumbakonam in December 1900. After a trial, which lasted till April 1901, the defendant was acquitted, and some months later, on the 8th November 1901, he gave a notice to the President of the Taluq Board, threatening a suit for damages for malicious prosecution. The suit was instituted and the present plaintiff conducted it for the defendant who was then plaintiff. An account which accompanied the notice of suit showed that, among the expenses of the criminal proceedings, for which it was sought to recover compensation from the Taluk Board, was a sum of Rs. 850 paid as fees to the present plaintiff for conducting the case on 16 days on which the trial proceeded and seven days on which the case was set down for trial but was not actually taken up. For the 16 days, the fees were entered at Rs. 40 per day and for the seven days at Rs. 30...
Gopalasawmy Chetty Vs. the Secretary of State for India in Council Rep ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-04-1912
Reported in: 16Ind.Cas.955
1. This is a suit for the declaration of the plaintiff's title to about 18 acres of land. The cause of action alleged in the plaint is that, at a survey which took place in 1909, the Survey Officer decided that it belonged to Government and not to the plaintiff. The plaintiff is the owner of a Mittah called the Gachikana Halli Mitta. The Government is the owner of an adjoining ryotwari village, Kumbarahalli. The defendant, the Secretary of State for India in Council, denied the plaintiff's title to the land. Issues were framed relating to plaintiff's title and possession and as to whether the survey order was binding on the plaintiff. The Appellate Court held that the survey order, if wrong, was liable to be set aside in a suit brought within the time fixed by the Surveys and Boundaries Act. He was clearly right in holding so. There were two previous surveys in 1862, and 1878. The land in question was, on those occasions, also demarcated as belonging to Government. At the paimash, the ...
Karnam Parthasarathy Vs. Karnam Barathamma
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-04-1912
Reported in: 16Ind.Cas.881
1. Exhibit A does not seem to be compulsorily registrable so far as the portions material for the decision of this appeal are concerned. It acknowledges the title of Parthasarathy and Rathangapani to the property in question under a prior conveyance and their possession under it for a longtime. It then contains a covenant on the part of Parthasarathy to pay Rs. 40 to the plaintiff every year and on the part of Rathangapani another sum of Rs. 40 to Lakshmamma. The property is made security for the payment of the amount; the last provision is that if the covenant to pay Rs. 40 is broken, the defaulter should relinquish his ownership in the property. The recital of the prior conveyance would not, of course, come within the terms of Section 17 of the Registration Act. The covenant to pay Rs. 40 may be enforced notwithstanding the absence of registration. The document is invalid for want of registration so far as it purports to make the property security for the payment of Rs. 40. The last ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »