Chennai Court August 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.
Subbiah Servai Vs. Chokalinga thevan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-26-1914
Reported in: AIR1915Mad92; 25Ind.Cas.1004; (1914)27MLJ613
ORDERSpencer, J.1. In proceedings under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure M.R. Ry., P. Section Vasudeva Rao, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate passed a final order which included a direction that the counter-petitioner should pay the petitioner's costs. Within 3 days after the order of the 24th August 1910, two memoranda for taxing costs were put into Court by the petitioner's vakils. The Magistrate passed an order on the second of these memoranda 'check and include' but through some negligence in the Magistrate's office, costs were not actually taxed.2. Nearly 3 years later, the petitioner's son applied to the Magistrate's successor in office for costs being assessed, the petitioner having died in the interval.3. The Magistrate has rejected his application on the ground (1) that the petitioner's son had not been brought on record as legal representative of his deceased father (2) that there had been great delay in applying.4. The first objection is not good. The Code of Crimin...
Meenakshi and Three ors. Vs. Muniandi Panikkan and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-26-1914
Reported in: AIR1915Mad63; (1915)ILR38Mad1144
Oldfield, J.1. I have bad the advantage of reading the judgment which my learned brother is about to deliver, and concur in it, I shall therefore merely state shortly the negative reasons, for which I think that the appellants legal argument must be rejected,2. The case, it seems to me, must be decided on the broad ground that it is for the appellants to show that the illegitimate daughter of a woman, who lived in adultery, inherits her stridhanam, over which she had full power, in preference to her legitimate son; and that they have neither produced any direct precedent for such succession nor established any principle justifying it. As it is not alleged that direct precedent is available, I turn at once to the principles put forward.3. Firstly, the appellants contend for the application of the law of succession applicable to dancing girls to the offspring of a prostitute, such as they allege the first appellant's mother to have been. It is not necessary to decide whether she was one,...
Kanti Venkanna Vs. Sri Raja Chelikani Rama Row Garu and Two ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-26-1914
Reported in: (1915)ILR38Mad1155
Sadasiva Ayyar, J.1. We are of opinion that in construing Exhibit B as granting only the kudivaram interest in the lands to the plaintiffs' ancestor, the lower Court misconstrued that document.2. That document clearly alienates in perpetuity 125 rupees of the annual melvaram income in favour of the grantee under it and that grantee had thereafter, not to pay the 300 rupees which was 'the rent legally due upon it' (see definition of ryot in Section 3, Clause 15 of the Estates Land Act) but had to pay only the favourable kattubadi cist of Us. 175. Being the owner of a part of the melvaram right in the lands which formed part of the estate ryoti lands, he became owner of part of the estate, though the part owned by him did not itself come under the definition of 'Estate' in Section 3, Clause (2). The ratio of the decisions in Suryanarayana v. Ballayya Civil Revision Petition No. 895of 1910, Nukanna v. Sanyasi Naidu Second Appeal No. 168 of 1912, Appalanarasimhulu v. Sanyasi I.L.R. (1915) ...
Jagathamba Ammal Vs. Ramaswami Iyengar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-26-1914
Reported in: AIR1915Mad732; 25Ind.Cas.579
1. We cannot go in second appeal, behind the findings of fact in the lower Appellate Court's judgment. On those findings no question of limitation arises. As regards the contention that the purchase in Court auction by the decree-holder's agent was without obtaining the permission of the Court under Section 294 of the Civil Procedure Code and cannot, therefore, be recognised as conferring any title on the Court auction-purchaser or his principal, this question was argued before this Court in Second Appeal No. 1263 of 1911 and the above contention was overruled with the remark that ' this was an objection that could be raised only by the parties to the suit and not by a stranger like the 1st defendant' (who was the appellant in Second Appeal No. 1263 of 1911 and is also the appellant in the second appeal before us).2. The only other question of law remaining to be considered in this second appeal is whether Order II, Rule 2, Clause 3, Civil Procedure Code, (section 43 of the old Code) b...
Markapuli Reddiar Vs. Thandava Kone and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-26-1914
Reported in: AIR1915Mad356(1); 25Ind.Cas.916
1. We must take it that in 1878 when the landlord brought the tenant's interest in the land to sale for arrears of rent and purchased if himself it was ryoti land. Section 8 of the Madras Estates Land Act enacts that the occupancy and land lord's rights did not merge by the purchase and that the landlord did not acquire occupancy right. The land remained ryoti, and 2nd defendant being in possession as a ryot when the Act came into operation, must be taken to have acquired occupancy right by virtue of Section 6, if he did not possess it before.2. The suit must, therefore, fail, and is dismissed. First defendant will bear 2nd defendant's costs throughout, and 1st defendant and plaintiff will bear their own....
Rama Kavunden and ors. Vs. Kuruthasawmy Naick and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-26-1914
Reported in: AIR1915Mad821(2); 25Ind.Cas.951
1. In this case the consent of the next reversioner to the alienation has been found not to have been given in good faith. It is argued that as the alienation covered the entire property which the widow succeeded to after the death of her husband, the question of bona fides has no bearing upon the matter. No authority has been quoted for the proposition that where the widow alienates her entire property, the question that the consent of the reversioner to this alienation was obtained mala fide is not an element to be considered. We are unable to see on what principle a distinction between partial and total alienation can be sustained in this respect. We agree with the statement of the law contained in Mayne's Hindu Law, paragraph 639, that the consent should have been given bona fide in either case. See also Rangappa Naik v. Kamti Naik 31 M. 366 : 3 M.L.T. 355 : 18 M.L.J. 309. This is the only point argued before us. The District Judge is right in rejecting this contention. We dismiss ...
Tangaturi Sriramulu and Nalam Krishna Rao, and ors. Vs. K. Veerasaling ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-25-1914
Reported in: (1914)27MLJ589
ORDERAyling, J.1. We are asked to revise an order of the District Magistrate of Godavari which directs under Section 437 of the Criminal Procedure Code further inquiry into the case of defamation in which the Joint Magistrate of Rajahmundry, Mr. Stewart, had passed what purports to be an order of discharge under Section 253 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.2. Mr. Rozario on behalf of Petitioners argues that Mr. Stewart's order was, in effect, an order of acquittal under Section 258 of the Criminal Procedure Code. If this is so, the District Magistrate undoubtedly had no power to order further inquiry under Section 437 and his order must be set aside as ultra vires.3. The facts are these. The case against Petitioners was first heard by Mr. Bardswell, Mr. Stewart's predecessor in office. He heard the Prosecution witnesses and framed a charge under Section 254 of the Criminal Procedure Code to which Petitioners pleaded not guilty. He was then transferred. Mr. Stewart recommenced the inqu...
C. Raghunatha Row Sahib Vs. Vellamoonji Goundan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-25-1914
Reported in: AIR1915Mad86; (1914)27MLJ597
Oldfield, J.1. The learned Judge confirmed the decree setting aside the distraint on the ground that it was for an excessive amount. It is contended here with reference to Section 53(2) Estates Land Act, that the amount in respect of which the distraint was excessive, should have been ascertained, and that the distraint should have been set aside in respect of that amount only and sustained in respect of the remainder of the demand.2. Section 53(2) is general in its wording, It refers to the patta as enforceable without qualification to the extent, to which it is found to be correct. On its merits appellant's contention would appear to be in accordance with convenience and justice. Contra it is argued first that a patta found incorrect to the amount of the demand is not partially correct but totally incorrect, a partially incorrect patta being for instance found correct as to some only of the items of the holding covered by it. No authority has been shown for this contention; and it do...
T. Sriramulu and Three ors. Vs. K. Veerasalingam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-25-1914
Reported in: (1915)ILR38Mad585
Ayling, J.1. We are asked to revise an order of the District Magistrate of Godavari which directs, under Section 437 of the Criminal Procedure Code further enquiry into a case of defamation in which the joint Magistrate of Rajahmundry, Mr. Stewart, had passed what purports to be an order of discharge under Section 253 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Mr. Rosario on behalf of petitioners argues that Mr. Stewart's order was, in effect, an order of acquittal under Section 258 of the Criminal Procedure Code. If this is so, the District Magistrate undoubtedly had no power to order further enquiry under Section 437 and his order must be set aside as ultra vires.2. The facts are these. The case against petitioners was first heard by Mr. Bardswell, Mr, Stewart's predecessor in office. He heard the prosecution witnesses and framed a charge under Section 254 of the Criminal Procedure Code, to which petitioners pleaded not guilty. He was then transferred. Mr. Stewart recommenced the enquiry under ...
Tanguturi Sriramitlu and ors. Vs. Nalam Krishna Row and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-25-1914
Reported in: 25Ind.Cas.1001
ORDERAyling, J.1. We are asked to revise an order of the District Magistrate of Grodaveri, which directs under Section 437 of the Criminal Procedure Code further inquiry into a case of defamation in which the Joint Magistrate of Rajahmundry, Mr. Stewart, had passed what 'purports to be an order of discharge under Section 253 of the Criminal Procedure Code.2. Mr. Rosario, on behalf of the petitioners, argues that Mr. Stewart's order was, in effect, an order of acquittal under Section 258 of the Criminal Procedure Code. If this is so, the District Magistrate undoubtedly had no power to order farther inquiry under Section 437 and his order must be set aside as ultra vires. The facts are these. The case against petitioners was first heard by Mr. Bardswell, Mr. Stewart's predecessor-in-office. He heard the prosecution witnesses and framed a charge under Section 254 of the Criminal Procedure Code, to which petitioners pleaded not guilty. He was then transferred. Mr. Stewart re-commenced the ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »