Chennai Court March 1914 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.
Manjitnathaya and Subaraya Bhatta Vs. Emperor
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-04-1914
Reported in: AIR1914Mad61(2); 24Ind.Cas.845
ORDERSadasiva Aiyer, J.1. Criminal Revision Petition No. 568 has been filed by the second accused, Manjunathaya and Criminal Revision Petition No. 582 by the first accused, Subaraya Bhatta. They were convicted under Sections 461. and 380 of the Indian Penal Code on the finding that they broke open a closed copper dabbi burried in the store room of the Kamalashili temple situated in a village in the Coondapur Taluk. I may at once say as regards the second accused that there is no evidence worth the name that he committed theft of any coins from the dabbi of the temple which contained the cash and metal plate offering's made by the temple devotees. His confessional statement, if it is admissible in evidence at all, merely shows that he received some coins from the first accused. This may be evidence of his having received stolen property, but not of his having committed theft. His conviction and sentence must be set aside and his bail bond discharged.2. Coming to the case of the 1st accu...
Ragava Appadu Vs. Ragava Appamma
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-03-1914
Reported in: (1915)28MLJ483
1. A preliminary objection has been taken that no appeal lies, as an order under Section 488, Criminal Procedure Code awarding maintenance is an order passed in a criminal trial. We think the objection is good. 'Clause 7 describes the person against whom proceedings are taken as ' accused' and provides that he may give evidence on his own behalf a right which would exist without being conferred by Statute if the proceedings were civil.2. Clause 6 provides that the evidence shall be recorded in the manner prescribed for the trial of summons cases, and Clause 3 provides that a person neglecting to comply with the order may be imprisoned.3. The Bombay High Court in Reg. v. Thahu Bin Ira (1865) 5 Bom. H.C.R. 81 took the view that maintenance proceedings were under the Code of Criminal Procedure then in force a ' Judicial proceeding of a Criminal Court ' from which no appeal lay.4. We dismiss the appeal with costs....
Muniappa Reddi Vs. Subba Rao and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-03-1914
Reported in: AIR1915Mad355(1); 25Ind.Cas.8
1. Section 3 (2) (d) of the Madras Estates Land Act includes in the definition of estate any village of which the land revenue alone has been granted in inam to a person not owning the kudivaram provided that the grant has been made, confirmed or recognized by the British Government, or any separated part of such village. The latter words must be taken to mean a separated part of a village of which village the land revenue alone has been granted in inam to a person not owning the kudivaram right. In this case the land revenue of the whole village has not been granted in inam, but only the land revenue of a portion. Therefore the inam does not come within the terms of the definitions-Section 3 (2) (d) which must be strictly construed. The District Munsif, therefore, had jurisdiction. This petition is dismissed with costs....
Vengidusawant Aiyar and ors. Vs. Narayanasawmy Aiyar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-03-1914
Reported in: 24Ind.Cas.880
1. According to the finding of the Subordinate Judge the property vested in Vaidyanatha Aiyar as the last surviving member of the joint family of himself and his two brothers. His brothers' widows and their mother-in-law enjoyed the property on his behalf for many years during his absence. In 1864, after the mother-in-law's death, one of the widows sued the other claiming the whole property as heir to Vaidyanatha who had not been hoard of for many years and (sic) oresumably dead. It was held, though that is not now the law, that the two widows were entitled to succeed as heirs to the property of Vaidyanatha, the last male owner. On the death of one of the widows the properties which fell to her share passed to the reversioners of Vaidyanatha. On the death of the surviving widow, the claim of the reversioners is contested by the (laughter's sons of her husband by a previous wife : and the plaintiffs have sued as reversioners to establish their title. The Subordinate Judge has held corre...
Abbttri Venkatasawmy and ors. Vs. Nalluri Krtstnamma and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-03-1914
Reported in: 24Ind.Cas.803
Tyabji, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit in which the plaintiffs claim possession of certain lands on the basis of a cowle, Exhibit B, granted to them or to their pre-decessor-in-title--whom. I shall include in the term 'plaintiffs'--on the 1.6th July, 1883, by one P. Venkatappayya who was then owner of the land. The 1st, 2nd and 3rd defendants contend that they are entitled to continue in possession of the land.2. The first contention of the defendants before us was that the cowle, Exhibit B, was in fact benami, that the person who, in accordance with the true intent and purpose of Exhibit B, had in fact the right to the possession of the lands was Chinna Subbayya, the father of 1st, 2nd and 3rd defendants, and that after him the 1st, 2nd and 3rd defendants were so entitled. That contention has not found favour with the lower Court : and on the evidence adduced before us, it seems to me to be impossible to come to any other conclusion. For it is admitted that the defendants (in w...
Chamarti Suryaprakasarayudu Vs. Arardhi Lakshminarasimha Charlu and or ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-02-1914
Reported in: AIR1914Mad462; (1914)26MLJ518
Sadasiva Aiyar, J. 1. Plaintiff is the appellant in this Second appeal. He brought the suit for specific performance of the agreement dated 4th November 1914, Exhibit A, executed in his favour by the 1st defendant.2. Under Exhibit A the 1st defendant agreed to execute a sale deed for Rs. 400 in favour of the plaintiff within a month and to receive Rs. 360 out of the Rs. 400 (purchase money) after so executing the sale-deed, the remaining Rs. 40 having been received by the 1st defendant in advance.3. The suit was brought on 2nd December 1907 just within three years from the expiry of the one month's time fixed by the agreement for the execution of the sale deed by the 1st defendant. The learned District Munsif gave a decree in plaintiff's favour. The learned Subordinate Judge on appeal, reversed the Munsif's decision and dismissed the plaintiffs suit with costs on the following findings and reasonings:(a) though the plaintiff made more than one statement that he was always ready to pay ...
Vaddadi Jagannatha Bhupathi Deo Garu Vs. Padala Appalaswamy and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-02-1914
Reported in: (1915)28MLJ75
Sadasiva Aiyar, J.1. The defendant is the appellant in these 10 Second Appeals Nos. 356 to 365 of 1913. These second appeals have arisen out of five suits brought by five tenants against their common landlord the defendant. As there were five appeals by the plaintiff and five appeals by the defendant in the lower appellate Court presented against the decisions of the Sub-Collector in the five suits, ten second appeals have been preferred to us against the 10 decrees passed by the lower appellate Court. The suits were brought by the tenants to have the terms of the patta for fasli 1319 ascertained and for directing the defendant to tender proper pattahs for that fasli. The suite have been decreed in favour of the plaintiffs by the lower appellate Court after making certain modifications in the terms of the cadapas tendered to the plaintiff by the defendant's officials in fasli 1319 and which terms the defendant insisted on plaintiff's accepting without any modification or omission.2. Co...
The South Indian Export Co. Ltd. Vs. T.N. Viswanatha Iyer and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-02-1914
Reported in: AIR1914Mad678(2); 24Ind.Cas.398
Wallis, J.1. This is a suit brought by the South Indian Export Company on certain mortgages one of which was executed by one T. Krishna Iyer, who carried on business in Trichinopoly, in favour of Best & Co., and was after wards transferred to the plaintiff Company and the others in favour of the plaintiff, Company. The plaintiff also sues upon a mortgage created by Krishna Iyer's widow Pattammal after his decease by a deposit of title-deeds.2. These transactions with the exemption of the last are set out at great length in the plaint, and form the subject of issues 1 to 5. There is no real dispute about these issues. The plaintiffs case has been proved as to them, and those issues must be found for the plaintiffs.3. The real questions in the case are as to what was done after the death of T. Krishna Iyer in March 1909. The first issue which 1 propose to deal with is No. 8 : 'Had Pattammal attained her majority prior to 19th March 1911 and, if so, on what date'? The allegation made by t...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›