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.
Muruga Goundan Alias Ayyam Pettaiyan Vs. Emperor
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-04-1914
Reported in: AIR1915Mad56; 25Ind.Cas.351
Ayling, J.1. The appellant has been convicted of an offence under Section 328 of the Indian Penal Code in administering some drug in a ball of jaggery to a boy named Arimuthu, who is said to have died of the effects rather more than three days later. There is nothing to indicate the nature of the drug but the Sub-Assistant Surgeon (P. W. No. 7) is of opinion that the boy died of irritant poisoning, but after a careful scrutiny of his evidence and of the Chemical Examiner's report which shows that no trace of poison could be detected in the boy's internal organs, I cannot feel that the cause of death is free from doubt.2. However this may be, I see no reason for doubting that as deposed by the prosecution witnesses the appellant gave the boy some jaggery in the evening before he was taken ill; and if we accept the evidence of P. W. No. 5, it would appear probable (though by no means certain) that the jaggery contained something in the nature of a love-philtre, designed to secure the aff...
C.V.C.T. Chidambaram Chetty Vs. Ayyavu Alias Muthukaruppan thevan and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-03-1914
Reported in: 32Ind.Cas.919
1. In these second appeals the District Judge is apparently of opinion that Issue II covers all the lands in dispute. The defendants in the various suits have not denied the correctness of the account annexed to the plaint except with reference to the samudayam lands. For the purpose of this appeal we must take it that the dispute between the parties is confined to the samudayam karisa lands on which dry crops were raised.2. Mr. T. Rangachariar argues that as it has been found by the Sub-Collector that the samudayam lands were included in the wet ayacut and as the said finding has not been upset in appeal, it follows that when the landlord repairs the tank and makes it possible for the tenants to cultivate nanjah crops, wet assessment is payable. The decision in Lakshmanan Chetti v. Kolandaivelu Kudumban 6 M. 311 which he relies upon is no authority for this contention. In that case it was found that an original wet assessment was payable which was given up owing to the tanks not being...
Alagappan Vs. S. Kr. S. Karuppa Chetty and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-03-1914
Reported in: AIR1915Mad76; 25Ind.Cas.503
1. The Courts below have found that the plaintiff is the owner of both the varams and that the defendant is a trespasser. Issues Nos. 2 to 4 depend upon the finding on the 1st issue and the Subordinate Judge is right in holding that on his finding in this issue against the defendant, no other question arises for decision. The learned Vakil for the appellant relies on Ulagappan Ambalam v. Chidambaram, Chetty 29 M. 497 for the position that when the plaintiff does not take steps to prevent the erection of the building in time, there ought to be no mandatory injunction in his favour. In that case the defendant built upon land comprised in his holding. In the present case the defendant was a trespasser and built upon the plaint site notwithstanding objection.2. We dismiss this second appeal with costs....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›