Chennai Court January 1915 Judgments
In Re: Mukka Muthiriyan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-27-1915
Reported in: AIR1916Mad1222(1); 31Ind.Cas.337
ORDER1. We are unable to agree with the Sub-Divisional Magistrate that the addition of Section 143, Indian Penal Code, to the charge at the hearing of the appeal did not place the appellants at any disadvantage in their defence under the second count of the charge.2. The addition of this section would have the effect of imposing a constructive responsibility for individual acts of all persons who were members at the time of the assembly, whereas it would be necessary to prove the guilt of each of the persons charged for his individual acts if the charges were only under Sections 451 and 426 of the Indian Penal Code. The Section 143 should not have been added and must now be struck out.3. As regards the first count of charge, the Magistrate has not addressed himself to a consideration whether the object of the assembly was unlawful as defined in Section 141, Indian Penal Code. Ordinarily it may be said that there would be no presumption that the mere carrying of savalai kalis would be u...
Tag this Judgment!Kodialbail Rymond Sebastian Lobo Vs. Kodialbail Devu Shetty and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-26-1915
Reported in: 32Ind.Cas.245
1. The Subordinate Judge has dismissed the suit as barred by limitation. It is argued by the appellant's Vakil that apart from the prayer for possession under the lease, which has been abandoned, the suit is substantially one for damages for breach of contract, that the proper Article applicable is Article 116 and that in that view the suit is not time-barred.2. We think this view of the nature of the suit is correct and even if the relief claimed is the allowance of mesne profits this does not affect the true nature of the suit. [Vide Ganesh Krishn v. Madhavrav Ravji 6 B.k 75, Nobocoomar Mookhopadhaya v. Siru Mullick 6 C.L.R. 679 and Ambalavana Pandaram v. Vaguran 5 M.L.J. 228.] If the suit is one for damages for breach of the lease contract it is admittedly not time-barred;3. We must, therefore, set aside the decree of the Subordinate Judge and remand the appeal for disposal on its merits. As the appellant has failed to take the point argued before us sufficiently clearly in his appe...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Adapala Venkata Narasa Reddy and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-26-1915
Reported in: AIR1916Mad1223; 29Ind.Cas.96
ORDER1. The proceedings before the Deputy Magistrate were indisputably a, criminal trial and there is clear authority in In the matter of Ramasamy Chetty 27 M.P 510 : 1 Weir 787 : 1 Cri. L.J. 1087 for holding that the order of Spencer, J., declining to interfere with the conviction was also an order in a criminal trial. It follows that no Letters Patent appeal lies.2. The Letters Patent appeal is dismissed....
Tag this Judgment!Venkatarama Aiyar and ors. Vs. Krishna Iyer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-25-1915
Reported in: AIR1915Mad940; (1915)28MLJ204
ORDERSpencer, J.1. The question raised at the hearing of the Revision Petition is whether the order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate setting aside the award of compensation to the accused by the Kumbakonum Bench of Magistrates was bad for want of notice to the accused. 2. It was argued in the first place that Chapter XXI of the Criminal Procedure Code does not apply to appeals against orders under Section 250 and therefore that Section 422 which directs that notice of appeals should merely be given to the officer appointed by Government to receive notices of appeals does not govern the case; in the second place, that in the absence of any provision for notice the maxim ' Audi alteram partem ' should govern the proceedings.3. The first argument will not in my opinion hold good, for the reason that Section 250 does not declare what the powers of an appellate Court are in disposing of appeals under Clause 3 of the section and it is necessary to invoke the aid of Section 423 for this purpo...
Tag this Judgment!Sona Alaga Kudumban Vs. N.S. Sivarama Aiyar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-25-1915
Reported in: AIR1916Mad765; 29Ind.Cas.31
1. In Second Appeal No. 506 of 1912.2. This appeal arises out of a suit under Section 77 of the Madras Estates Land Act, which was instituted before the Special Deputy Collector of Ramnad for rent for Faslis 1318 and 1319. The plaintiff claims to be the sub-lessee of the village of Peerkangurichi and alleges that the defendant is a ryot occupying lands in the said village. The defence is not quite easy to understand from the written statement and the learned Pleader who appeared for the defendants had some difficulty in interpreting it.3. The issues raise the question whether the lands are inam lands and whether the Court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The real question between the parties seems to be whether the right to receive the melvaram is now vested in the plaintiff or whether it has been acquired by a third party through whom the defendants claim to hold the lands, and the argument before us proceeded on the basis that what had to be decided was whether the plaintiff i...
Tag this Judgment!K. Guruswami Naidu Vs. K. Subba Naidu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-22-1915
Reported in: 29Ind.Cas.265
1. This appeal can only be brought under Order XLIII, Rule 1, (u) corresponding to Section 588 (28) of the old Code of Civil Procedure, which is part of Chapter XLIII, and does not apply to proceedings under the Madras Estates Laud Act (vide Section 192). The appeal does not lie and is dismissed with costs....
Tag this Judgment!C. Rangasamy Naidu Vs. Chinnasamy Iyer and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-20-1915
Reported in: (1915)28MLJ326
1. This is a suit under Section 92 of the Civil Procedure Code, in which the appellant has been joined as an alienee of the trust property and a declaration and decree for possession have been given against him. According to the recent decision in Raghava Chetty v. Pallate Sitamma : (1914)27MLJ266 it is not competent to the Court to grant these reliefs against the alienee in a suit under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The appeal must be allowed and the decree varied by dismissing the suit as against the 3rd defendant with costs throughout.2. We are not prepared to interfere with the discretion exercised by the District Judge in not removing the 2nd defendant.3. The memorandum of objections is dismissed with costs....
Tag this Judgment!T.V. Rajaram Row and ors. Vs. A.B. Venkatachela Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-20-1915
Reported in: AIR1916Mad636(2); 29Ind.Cas.997
1. In this case under Exhibit B the appellant, the lessee, was to deposit an amount equivalent to one year's rent with the lessor till the expiry of the lease or its cancellation. It was to be applied at the expiry of the lease towards the rent of the last year, if nothing was due for previous years. At the request of the lessee evidenced by Exhibits A. and C, the lessor deposited the money with Arbuthnot and Company and paid the interest to the lessee. At first the deposit was in their joint names but afterwards in the name of the lessor alone. Assuming the lessor to have been, in the position of a trustee, this was not a breach of trust as there was HO stipulation that the money should be deposited in their joint names. While the fund was in this state of investment, Arbuthnot and Company failed and the greater part of the deposit was lost. The lessor's assignee now sues to recover the rent for the last fasli. It has already been held iu T.V. Rajaram Rao v. Kundaram Aiyar 8 Ind. Cas....
Tag this Judgment!P.M. Govindan Nair Vs. M. Achutha Menon
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-19-1915
Reported in: AIR1915Mad1206; (1916)ILR39Mad433; (1915)28MLJ310
Tyabji, J.1. One Sridevi Anterjanam of Thazhakolam Illom was suspected of having committed adultery. In accordance with a custom which is referred to in some detail in Vallabha v. Madusudanan (1889) 12 Mad. 495 an enquiry was held in the matter presided by the Baja of Cochin within his own territory. The enquiry was ceremonious but hardly in accordance with natural justice inasmuch as it consisted in effect of a bare statement by the suspected woman giving the names of persons whom she charged with having committed adultery with her. On this statement without any opportunity being given to the persons named of defending themselves or rebutting the, accusation, they were declared to be excommunicated. The plaintiff was one of the persons purported to be so excommunicated.2. Subsequently an officer of the Cochin State, styled Sarvadhi Kariakar (literally general agent) addressed a letter Exhibit B to the Diwan to the effect that the woman 'was caused to be brought here after the vicharan...
Tag this Judgment!M. Karunakara Menon and anr. Vs. M. Krishna Menon and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-18-1915
Reported in: AIR1916Mad717; (1915)28MLJ262
1. It is with considerable hesitation that we have come to the conclusion that the learned Judge's order is wrong. It has to be noticed that the provision in Order XXI, Rule 89 is in the nature of an indulgence to the judgment-debtors. Before the sale takes place, he has every opportunity of avoiding it by satis-fying the decree. Practically a locus penitentiae is given him after the conclusion of the sale to retain his property if he complies with certain conditions. Consequently courts are bound to see that the provisions of law in this respect are very strictly conformed to. In this case, we are not satified that the judgment-debtors have complied with the requirements of the law. Under Rule 89, the judgment-debtor should deposit the money due under the proclamation of sale minus the amount 'which may since the date of such proclamation of sale, have been received by the decree-holder.' Mr. Ramachandra Aiyar argues that the monies deposited by the 14th defendant and the 1st defendan...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »