Chennai Court November 1915 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.
Pampalli Subbareddi and ors. Vs. Chauduboyigari Kamal Saib
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-26-1915
Reported in: 31Ind.Cas.830
ORDERPhillips, J.1. The ruling in Mahomed Abdul Mention v. Panduranga Row 28 M.P 255 : 2 Weir 247 : 2 Cri. L.J. 752, is in favour of petitioners' contention that when a complaint has been dismissed under Section 203, Code of Criminal Procedure, no Magistrate can entertain the same complaint until the order of dismissal is set aside by a competent authority. This view was overruled in Emperor v. Chinna Kaliappa Gounden 3 Cri. L.J. 274 : 29 M.P 126 : 1 M.L.T. 31 : 16 M.L.J. 79 so far as entertainment of a complaint a second time by the same Magistrate is concerned, and the principle on which the case in Emperor v. Chinna Kaliappa Gounden 3 Cri. L.J. 274 : 29 M.P 126 : 1 M.L.T. 31 : 16 M.L.J. 79, was decided is applicable also to a case taken up a second time by a different Magistrate. It is clearly explained by Sir Francis W. Maclean, C.J., in Queen-Empress v. Dolegobind Das 28 C.P 211 : 5 C.W.N. 169 and I entirely agree with the reasoning.2. In this case, therefore, I hold that the Sub-...
K. Rangappa and ors. Vs. Karnam Bhimappa
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-24-1915
Reported in: 36Ind.Cas.284; (1916)31MLJ360
1. This is a suit by the plaintiff who professes to be the Dharmakartha of the Sri Anjaneyaswami Temple at Jagguparthi to eject the defendants from certain lands which are alleged to belong to the temple. The lands in question originally belonged to the Rayadrug taluq. But it appears that there was a redistribution of taluqs in 1894 and in that redistribution the lands fell within the Kalyandrug taluq in Anantapur. The Royadrug taluq is in the district of Bellary. The plaintiff has been appointed Dharmakartha by the Devasthanam Committee of Kalyandrug ; and it is contended in second appeal that the Kalyan -drug Temple Committee had no power to appoint a Dharmakartha of the institution in question. The Royadrug Temple Committee was the committee that was originally appointed at the time the Religious Endowments Act XX of 1863 came into force ; and the contention of the learned pleader for the appellants is that that committee continued to retain jurisdiction over the institution, whatev...
Rama Ayyar (Died) and anr. Vs. Krishna Patter
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-24-1915
Reported in: (1916)ILR39Mad733
ORDER OP REFERENCE, the following OPINION of the Court was delivered byJohn Wallis, C.J. 11. We think that Parry & Co. v. Appasami Pillai (1880) 2 Mad. 407 must be overruled. No authorities are cited in the judgment of the Appellate Court, but the learned Judge who decided the case on the original side referred on the point to The General Steam Navigation Company v. Guillou (1843) 11 M. & W. 877and to Schibsby v. Westenholz (1870) L.R. 6 Q.B. 155. The dicta in The General Steam Navigation Company v. Guillou (1843) 11 M. & W. 877, on which the learned Judge relied, were questioned in Schibsby v. Westenhalz (1870) L.R. 6 Q.B. 155 which is rather against the view taken by him as in that case the question on which the Court of Quean's Bench decided to express no opinion was 'as to the effect of the appearance of the defendant, where it is so far not voluntary that he only comes in to try and save some property in the hands of the foreign tribunal' rather implying that at any rate where the...
Mahalingam, Minor, by His Mother and Next Friend Vs. C. Natesa Aiyar a ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-24-1915
Reported in: 32Ind.Cas.423
John Wallis, C.J.1. In so far as this is an appeal from the order of the learned Judge refusing leave to sue under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent, we are not prepared to interfere with the exercise of the learned Judge's discretion. In so far as it can be regarded as an appeal against his further order on the same day refusing leave to amend the plaint by excluding the joint family lands outside the jurisdiction, I am of opinion that such an order is not appealable as a judgment. In Tuljaram Row v. Allagappa Chettiar 8 Ind. Cas. 340 it was held by the Full Bench that an interlocutory order refusing to frame a particular issue was not a judgment within the meaning of the Letters Patent, although the effect of the order was to shut out one of the defences relied upon, and that the refusal could only be questioned on an appeal from the final decree. That ruling appears to me to govern the present case. In Abdul Karim Sahib v. Badrudeen Sahib 28 M. 216, the facts of which were somewhat si...
Rama Aiyar and anr. Vs. Krishna Patter
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-24-1915
Reported in: 32Ind.Cas.597
1. We think that Parry & Co. v. Appasami Pillai 2 M. 407 must be overruled. No authorities are cited in the judgment of the Appellate Court, but the learned Judge who decided the case on the original side referred on the point to General Steam Navigation Co. v. Guillou 11 M. & W. 877 ; 152 E.R. 1061 and to Schibsby v. Westenholz 6 Q.B. 155. The dicta in General Steam Navigation Co. v. Guillou 11 M. & W. 877, on which the learned Judge relied, were questioned in Schibsby v. Westenholz 6 Q.B. 155 which is rather against the view taken by him, as in that case the question on which the Court of Queen's Bench decided to express no opinion was as to the effect of the appearance of the defendant, where it is so far not voluntary that he only comes in to try and save some property in the hands of the foreign Tribunal', rather implying that at any rate, where there was no property in the bands of the foreign Tribunal appearance there would amount to submission. The later English cases referred ...
A.T.S.A. Annamalai Chetty and ors. Vs. S.V. Velayudu Nadar and
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-24-1915
Reported in: 32Ind.Cas.869
ORDERSadasiva Aiyar, J.1. The plaintiffs are the petitioners in revision. They brought the suit on a promissory note, dated 4th August 1909, payable on demand. On that same date, however, a writing, Exhibit A1, was given by the drawer as follows: 'Ten months' thavanai (time for payment) from the date of the pro-note has been fixed for this note.' Thus Exhibit A was in the words of Article 73 of the First Schedule of the Limitation Act accompanied by a writing postponing the right to sue for ten months. The present suit was brought on the 30th June 1913, more than three years from the date of the promissory note, 4th August 1909, but within the limitation period of three years from the expiry of the ten months' period and within the period of the extension given by the provisions of Section 4 of the Limitation Act, which permits the plaintiff to institute a suit on the day on which the Court re-opens if the time expired during the vacation of the Court. The Subordinate Judge, relying on...
Kuyyattil Kundan Kutty Vs. Vayalpath Parkum Natukandiyilakath Tharuvai ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-23-1915
Reported in: 32Ind.Cas.107
Coutts-Trotter, J.1. I regret to differ from my brother in a matter in which he has much greater experience than myself; but I came to a definite conclusion during the argument in this case, and subsequent reflection has not altered it.2. My view is that Exhibit A was a gift to the four ladies absolutely, without the incidents of tarwad property. I do not base my opinion on the fact that there is no mention of the children of the donee in the instrument; I agree with Mr. Anantha Krishna Aiyar's argument that that consideration is irrelevant. Nor do I greatly rely on the fact that the donees in this case are not the wife, nor the wife and children of the donor, but his nieces; though I certainly think that the presumption in favour of a gift being subject to the incidents of tarwad holding is necessarily weaker when the objects of the gift are not the wife and children of the donor. I base my judgment on this; that the donor assigns to his nieces 'in full all the rights I possess in res...
Peeru Muhammad Lebbai Vs. Swaminatha Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-23-1915
Reported in: 32Ind.Cas.663
Abdur Rahim, J.1. On the materials placed before us, we do not know how it can be said that any offence under Section 224 or Section 186, Indian Penal Code, has been committed by the petitioner. The Amin says that he tried to arrest him under a warrant of a Civil Court, but the petitioner ran away. That is surely not either obstructing a public servant in the discharge of his public functions within the meaning of Section 186, Indian Penal Code, nor does it bring the matter within Section 224, Indian Penal Code, which deals with the offence of offering resistance or illegal obstruction to the lawful apprehension of a person for an offence with which he is charged. It is not suggested that there was an offence charged against the petitioner. I would set aside the order of the District Munsif, dated 23rd March 1915.Ayling, J.2. I agree. There is no basis for the District Munsif's jurisdiction. Process service report on the face of it discloses no offence....
V. Ramaswami Iyer Vs. the Madras Times Printing and Publishing Co., Lt ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-23-1915
Reported in: 32Ind.Cas.610
1. This is a reference under Section 69 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act. We regret that we cannot accept it as it stands. The section requires that the Court shall draw up a statement of the facts of the case. The reference begins with the words, 'The facts of the case are as follows' but on page 33, we find that the Judges differ on the very important question whether the plaintiff did any work after Exhibit E. They also state that as regards the kind of work done the learned Trial Judge has found that it is not proved, but the Judges express no opinion on that point themselves. We would also note that the learned Judges have extracted portions of letters in their statement, thereby introducing evidence into the findings. We must return the reference and request the Court to state the facts of the case as found by them as shortly and concisely as possible, We must further ask the Courts after having found the facts to decide on what questions of law they differ on those facts...
In Re: Kota Appadu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-23-1915
Reported in: 32Ind.Cas.673
ORDERAbdur Rahim, J.1. In this case the accused persons have been convicted under Sections 143 and 379 and 149, Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to six months' rigorous imprisonment each. Both the Joint Magistrate, who originally tried the case, and the Sessions Judge, who heard the appeal, have not considered the evidence as regards actual possession of the land and the crops with respect to which the offences are alleged to have been committed. They have apparently proceeded on the effect of the order made in a previous case between the parties. In that case, the present accused or some of them were charged by the complainant's party with offences committed in respect of the land and the Sub-Magistrate who heard that case ordered in his judgment that 'the land' in dispute 'shall be put in possession of prosecution witness No. 1.' The Sub-Magistrate was examined in this case and he says in his evidence that he did not take steps to execute the order because there was no written applic...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »