Chennai Court April 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.
Kandukuri Veera Basavaraju Pantulu and ors. Vs. Kandukuri Balasurya Pr ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-27-1914
Reported in: AIR1915Mad316; 25Ind.Cas.3
1. The question in this appeal is of the validity of the adoption of 1st plaintiff. It is denied by defendants, who would, but for the adoption, be the reversioners of K. V. Viswanada Row, the last male owner of the suit property including the valuable Uralam and Devadi estates. The effect of the adoption, if it is valid, will be to make the 1st plaintiff a nearer reversioner, as son of his adoptive father, Pedda Sanniyasi Razu, Viswanada Row's paternal uncle. The learned District Judge has held it invalid on the ground that it was not made either with the authority of Pedda Sanniyasi Razu or with a legally sufficient consent by sapindas. We are prepared to accept these findings and we, therefore, need not deal with his remaining ground of decision that in any case no adoption made by the widow of Pedda Sanniyasi Razu, after the last male member of the family of Viswanada Row had died and the estate had vested in his widow, could justify the plaintiff's claim. The learned District Judg...
Ramalinga Reddi and anr. Vs. Muthu thevan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-27-1914
Reported in: 29Ind.Cas.573
1. In these cases the lower Court has held no satisfactory trial. It has in each formulated the points for decision far too generally, and has failed to consider that the defendant in each set up a particular case in evidence, to which he had made no definite reference in his written statement. The conclusion that the debts sued for were contracted for gambling purposes is not clearly sufficient to render them irrecoverable with reference to Section 23 or 30, Indian Contract Act, since it might cover alike money lent (1) for payment to others for losses already incurred, or (2) to enable defendant to gamble in the future, or (3) even to pay the amount of loss already due to plaintiff for past play. It is not clear that money lent in each of these different sets of circumstances could be irrecoverable, vide, for instance Subbaraya v. Devandra 7 M. 301.2. It is a further objection to these decisions that they do not refer to or contain any conclusions regarding the details of the defence...
Giri Appaya and ors. Vs. Giri Kristamma and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-24-1914
Reported in: AIR1914Mad718; 24Ind.Cas.436
1. The plaintiffs alleged that Latchiah, their grandfather, died eight years before their suit. This was found by the District Munsif to be false, and his finding was not contested in the District Court This false allegation, we think, may have led the District Munsif to make the issue of limitation depend only on the question of the length of time during which the 1st defendant held possession of the property. But taking the District Judge to be right in holding that Latchiah's sons took his property as tenants-in-common, the possession of the 1st defendant is referable to his title as one of the tenants-in-common and is not of itself proof that the plaintiff was excluded or that the 1st defendant's possession was adverse to the plaintiffs, and we have been shown no other facts : and no other facts are referred to by the District Judge, from which it could be found that the possession was adverse. In these circumstances we think it is desirable to allow further evidence on the questio...
Kunhambi and ors. Vs. Kalanathar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-24-1914
Reported in: 24Ind.Cas.528
Tyabji, J.1. The question on which the parties to this appeal are at issue is whether they are governed by the Muhammadan Law or the Marumakatayam Law. They are Mappillahs of North Malabar. Both the lower Courts have decided that the Muhammadan Law is applicable. The learned District Munsif proceeded on the basis that a custom varying Muhammadan Law to be recognized as valid must satisfy the essentials of peaceableness and consistency.' These elements', he added, appear to be wanting in the case.' In appeal the Subordinate Judge came to the same conclusion, on the ground apparently that the general presumption is that the parties follow the law of their religion. He stated, however, that no authority was quoted for the proposition that Mappillahs in North Malabar follow the Marumakatayam Law. In conclusion he said : I do not think, for the reasons pointed out by the District Munsif, that the form of evidence, which the law demands to prove a custom, is present in this case.'2. It is ar...
In Re: Nalli Veera thevan and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-23-1914
Reported in: AIR1914Mad121(1); (1914)26MLJ598
ORDERAyling, J.1. The evidence certainly justifies the conviction of the 2nd accused in the alternative under Section 379 or Section 411 I.P.C. and also the conviction of the 1st accused under Section 215 I.P.C. I agree with the Sessions Judge that the evidence does not support the conviction of the 1st accused under Section 379 or Section 411 I. P.C.2. The legality of 2nd accused's conviction under Section 215 has next to be considered. It has been held in Queen Empress v. Mahammed Ali I.L.R. 1900 A 81 that the section was not intended to apply to the actual thief, but to some one, who being in league with the thief receives some gratification on account of helping the owner to recover the stolen property without at the same time using all the means in his power to cause the thief to be apprehended and convicted. Whether the principle of the ruling would apply where the receiver of the gratification was also in dishonest possession of the stolen property under Section 411, but not the...
In Re: Karuthan Ambalam and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-23-1914
Reported in: (1915)ILR38Mad1088; 33Ind.Cas.308
ORDER1. The question to be decided is whether the first and second accused were rightly convicted under Sections 225 and 224 of the Penal Code for resistance or obstruction to lawful apprehension respectively.2. The second accused was the person who was being apprehended. The case against him, it is common ground, depends upon the evidence of the first witness for the prosecution. It has been read out to me and I am of opinion that it discloses no case against the second accused of his having intentionally offered any resistance or illegal obstruction to the lawful apprehension of himself.3. I am not prepared to say however that there is no evidence as his having escaped or attempted to escape from custody in which he was detained assuming that he was lawfully detained. He was in custody at the time when the first accused and others came to rescue him. Though the direct evidence is that the others 'took him away,' from that fact the inference that the second accused escaped with the as...
Tirupati Varadachariar and anr. Vs. A. Parthasarathy Iyengar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-23-1914
Reported in: AIR1915Mad319(1); 25Ind.Cas.9
1. We do not think it was within the power of the learned Judge to dispose of the case at the first hearing. See Krishnabhubati v. Ramamurti 16 M. 198.2. The summons was issued for the settlement of issues only and the Vakil who appeared before the learned Judge at the first hearing tells us (and the other side are not able to say this is not so) that he objected to the disposal of the case at the first hearing. This being so we must hold that the proviso to Order XV, Rule 3(1), does not apply. Order XIV, Rule 3(6), clearly has no application to the present case. We must, therefore, set aside the decree and direct the learned Judge to dispose of the case according to law after hearing such evidence as the parties desired to adduce and as far as possible ascertaining the wishes of the child. Costs will abide the result....
In Re : Nalliveerathevan and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-23-1914
Reported in: 24Ind.Cas.351
ORDERAyling, J.1. The evidence certainly justified the conviction of second accused in the alternative under Section 379 or Section 411, Indian Penal Code, and also the conviction of 1st accused under Section 215, Indian Penal Code. I agree- with the Sessions Judge that the evidence does not support the conviction of 1st accused lender Section 379 or Section 411, Indian Penal Code.2. The legality of 2nd accused's conviction under Section 215 has next to be considered. It has been held in Queen-Empress v. Muhammad Ali 23Aa. 81. that this section was not intended to apply to the actual thief, but to some one who, being in league with the thief, receives some gratification on account of helping the owner to recover the stolen property without at the same time using all the means in his power to cause the thief to be apprehended and convicted. Whether the principle of the ruling would apply where the receiver of the gratification was also in dishonest possession of the stolen property unde...
In Re : Abdul Rahiman Sahib
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-23-1914
Reported in: 24Ind.Cas.175
ORDERAyling, J.1. The petitioner has been convicted of rescuing one Ramasami Moopan from lawful custody. Mr. Deva Doss's arguments have been devoted to show (1) that the custody in which Ramasamy Moopan was detained was not lawful, (2) that the evidence does not show that the force used by the petitioner contributed to his escape.2. No authority has been quoted to me to support the view that the arrest was illegal because the warrant was not addressed to P.W. No. 2 by name, but only to the bailiff of the Court :' or that arrest only takes effect after the person ordered to be arrested has been given a chance of paying up the decree amount and has failed to do so. I have no hesitation in rejecting these contentions.3. It is next argued that the procedure of the peon (P.W. No. 2) was defective in that he did not notify the contents of the warrant to the first accused before arresting him. It appears from the evidence that P.W. No. 2 informed the first accused that he had a warrant for hi...
Abdul Rahim Sahib Vs. Emperor
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-23-1914
Reported in: AIR1915Mad225; 25Ind.Cas.328
ORDERAyling, J.1. The petitioner has been convicted of rescuing one Ramasami Moopan from lawful custody. Mr. Deva Doss's arguments have been devoted to show 5 C.W.N. 843 that the custody in which Ramasamy Moopan was detained was not lawful; (2) that the evidence does not show that the force used by the petitioner contributed to his escape.2. No authority has been quoted to me to support the view that the arrest was illegal because the warrant was not addressed to P.W. No. 2 by name but only to 'The Bailiff of the Court,' or that arrest only-takes effect, after the person ordered to be arrested has been given a chance of paying up the decree amount and has failed to do so. I have no. hesitation in rejecting these contentions.3. It is next argued that the procedure of the peon (P. W. No. 2) was defective in that he did not notify the contents of the warrant to the first accused before arresting him. It appears from the evidence that P. W. No. 2 informed the first accused that he had a wa...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »