Chennai Court April 1915 Judgments
The Public Prosecutor Vs. K.K. Kadiri Koya Hajee
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-30-1915
Reported in: (1916)ILR39Mad527
Oldfield, J.1. The accused has been acquitted in Calendar Case No. 4 of 1915' on a charge of an offence punishable under Section 420, Indian Penal Code, by the Additional District Magistrate of Malabar. A learned Judge thought it necessary to take up the case in the exercise of this Court's powers of revision. Whilst it was under the consideration of a Bench, Government instructed the Public Prosecutor to file the appeals, which are before us against the acquittals in Calendar Case No. 4 and Calendar Case No. 5, a connected case. I deal at present with the former.2. A preliminary objection to the hearing of both appeals has been made that they were not legally presented and that they cannot be proceeded with, because the provisions of Section 421 of the Code of Criminal Procedure have not been complied with, inasmuch as the appeals were not duly presented to this Court and they were not perused and notice was not ordered by a judge empowered for those purposes. The facts are that the B...
Tag this Judgment!The Public Prosecutor Vs. Kottaparambath Maliyakkal Kadiri Koya Haji
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-30-1915
Reported in: AIR1916Mad1110; 30Ind.Cas.145
Oldfield, J.1. The accused has been acquitted in Calendar Case No. 4 of 1915 on a charge of an offence punishable under Section 420, Indian Penal Code, 'by the Additional District Magistrate of Malabar. A learned Judge thought it necessary to take up the case in the exercise of this Court's powers of revision. Whilst it was under the consideration of a Bench, Government instructed the Public Prosecutor to tile the appeals, which are before us, against the acquittals in Calendar Case No. 4. and Calendar Case No. 5, a connected case, r deal at present with the former.2. A preliminary objection to the bearing of both appeals has bee made, that they were not legally presented and that they cannot be proceeded with, because the provisions of Section 421 of the Code of Criminal Procedure have not been complied with, inasmuch as the appeals were not duly presented to this Court and they were not perused and notice was not ordered by a Judge empowered for those purposes. The facts are that the...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: the Swadeshi Steam Navigation Co. Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-30-1915
Reported in: AIR1916Mad7; 30Ind.Cas.286
John Wallis, C.J.1. These are appeals from an order of the District Judge of Tinnevelly in Original Suit No. 307 of 1911, in the matter of the winding-up of the Swadeshi Steam Navigation Company, Limited. By an order of the 27th April 1912 made in the winding-up the District Judge had held that the charges created by a resolution of the Directors in favour of claimants 23 and 16, the Secretary and Manager of the office of the Company, were not rendered invalid by the provisions of the explanation to Section 68 of the Indian Companies Act, 1882, and that they did not amount to a fraudulent preference. The claimants then put in the petitions now under appeal for payment out of the assets of the amounts of their charges when the debenture-holders of the Company, whose rights as secured creditors had not been considered in the previous application, appeared and opposed the applications on the ground that their floating security had become fixed or crystallised and had attached on the asset...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Sri Sir Vikramadeo Maharajulu Garu Maharaja of Jeypore Vs. Hari Kr ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-30-1915
Reported in: AIR1916Mad4; 32Ind.Cas.226
ORDER1. The question for decision is whether under the law prevailing in the Vizagapatam Agency, a suit will lie for a declaration that a certain property in respect of which a claim petition has been allowed is the property of the judgment-debtor. The plaintiff is the Maharajah of Jeypore2. In execution of a decree for costs, he got attached a tope, to which the 3rd defendant advanced a claim that it was in his possession on behalf of a deity to whom it had been gifted before the attachment. The Special Assistant Agent, upon evidence recorded by the Agency Munsif of Jeypore and upon a report, ordered the attachment to be withdrawn and the execution petition to be struck off the file. Now the plaintiff has brought this suit to establish the title of defendants Nos. 1 and 2 to the said tope and to get the order on the claim petition vacated. Both the Special Assistant Agent and the Agent to the Governor have held that the suit is not maintainable.3. Rule XXVI, Clause 2, of the rules fra...
Tag this Judgment!T.V.R. Indra Talavar Vs. R. Narasimha Rau
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-30-1915
Reported in: AIR1916Mad1021; 29Ind.Cas.670a
Oldfield, J.1. The accused was charged with an offence punishable under Section 430, Indian Penal Code. The Sessions Judge dealt with his appeal against his conviction under that section by referring to the reasons given in the judgment in a connected case in which his conviction was upheld on a charge of an offence punishable under Section 379. In the latter, accused was alleged to have stolen stone from the bed of a tank, and the ownership of the tank and the bona fides of his claim to it were important. But they could not be decided in this case, iu which accused's intention to cause wrongful loss was the essential matter to be considered. The accused's case in fact was that he cut the tank Inmil in order to build a new sluice there, the existing sluice being out of order, and this would be an offence punishable under Section 430, only if the intention specified in Section 425 as well as the other roquisities of the former section were established. The learned Sessions Judge has not...
Tag this Judgment!Rangasawmi Aiyangar (Died) and anr. Vs. Sowri Aiyangar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-30-1915
Reported in: 29Ind.Cas.588
1. This is a suit to recover possession. Plaintiff's case was that he purchased survey No. 92B from the owners in April 1911 and that the defendant is wrongfully in possession of it. The defendant pleaded that the same vendors conveyed to him the property in dispute in 1908 and that although the conveyance (Exhibit II) describes the land sold as survey No. 90B, his vendors intended to sell, and he intended to purchase, only survey No. 92B. He also alleged that he was put in possession of this latter number under the sale-deed.2. The issue raised in the case was whether it was survey No. 90B or 92B that was sold to the defendant. The Munsif agreed with the defendant's contention and dismissed the suit. In appeal, the Subordinate Judge held that evidence to prove that what was actually sold was inadmissible under Section 92 of the Evidence Act and decreed the plaintiff's claim.3. We think the Subordinate Judge is wrong. The written statement clearly sets up a case of mistake in the descr...
Tag this Judgment!Narayana Annavi and Two ors. Vs. K. Ramalinga Annavi (Minor by His Gua ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-29-1915
Reported in: (1916)ILR39Mad587
Sankaran Nair, J.1. This is a suit for partition. The following pedigree will show the relationship of the parties.-----------------------------------------------| | |Subramania Raman Annavi Krishna AnnaviAnnavi (died) (died). (died)| (k) Adopted son |Ananthanarayana Ananthanarayana |Annavi (died) Annavi (died) || Natural son of |------------------ Ramalinga || | | Annavi. |Subramania Son Son (x) Married |Annavi (died) (died) (died) Ramal Ammal || (who died in 1891) |Ananthanarayana |Annavi (D.W. 4) |------------------------------------------------------| | |Muthuwvami Ramalinga LakshmivarahaAnnavi (died Annavi (died Annavi (died1898) 1901) March 1909)| |------------------------------------------- --------------| | | | | |Ananthanara- Subramania Krishna Ramakrishna Narayana Ponnuyana Annavi Annavi (died) Annavi (died Annavi (D-2) Annavi Ammal(sea x above, (wife) November | (P-1) (D-4)wife Ramal Lakshmi 1909). Wife Ramalingam |Ammal Ammal Dharini (D-3) |adopted D-2) (Defendant-5) Ammal ...
Tag this Judgment!Rajah Damara Kumara Venkatappa Nayanim Bahadur Varu (Late a Minor but ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-29-1915
Reported in: (1916)ILR39Mad772
John Wallis, C.J. 1. The plaintiff-appellant in this case bases his claim to succeed to the estate of the late Gangadbara Rama Nayanim on the ground that he was duly adopted by the junior widow with the consent of the sapindas after the senior widow had refused to adopt a boy. The District Judge has found and we agree with him, that no such refusal is proved. On the other hand the evidence shows that the senior widow who left the family house shortly after her husband's death set up almost at once that her husband had authorised her to adopt during his life time. It also appears that two days after the adoption of the plaintiff by the junior widow, and as soon as she heard of it, she went through the form of adopting the defendant purporting to act under the alleged authority from her husband. The District Judge found that this authority had not been proved, but this finding did not affect the result, as he also found that the plaintiff's adoption by the junior widow was invalid on the...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Rajendra Singh Bahu Garu Vs. Sri Sri Sri Vikrama Deo Garu, Maharaj ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-29-1915
Reported in: AIR1916Mad1137; 30Ind.Cas.76
1. The suit was instituted in the Court of the Agent, as the amount claimed was Rs. 10,000 due under a promissory note executed by the predecessor-in-title of the defendant. The suit was referred by the Agent to the Divisional Assistant. It is clear from the language of Clause 2 of Rule 10 that the Divisional Assistant is to decide the case. Under Rule 16, appeals lie from all cases disposed of by the Divisional Assistant to the Agent, There can be no doubt, on the language of Rules 10 and 16, that the Divisional Assistant did dispose of the case referred to him. It is somewhat anomalous that the Agent should hear appeals from cases which he alone has power to entertain and which are beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Divisional Assistants. The analogy of the Civil Courts Act in the Presidency is against such a procedure. But we have to interpret the rules us we find them, however much we may consider that they should have been different. We must overrule Mr. Rangascbariar's cont...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Poosapathi Ramachandra Raju Garu Vs. Sri Rajah Vachavayi Venkata S ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-29-1915
Reported in: AIR1916Mad903; 30Ind.Cas.41
Kumaraswami Sastri, J.1. This is a petition filed by the 2nd defendant to revise the order of the Subordinate Judge of Vizagapatam in Original Suit No. 10 of 1913, wherein he held that the plaintiff was entitled to claim an alternative relief not claimed in the plaint as filed and directed the defendants, after the case was closed and arguments almost over, to file an additional written statement without requiring an amendment of the plaint. Original Suit No, 10 of 1913 was filed by the widow of the Hajah of Tuni against the defendants to enforce the terms of an agreement entered into with her husband (who financed the litigation in connection with the Vizianagaram Instate), whereby the plaintiff's husband was entitled to a certain share in the decree that may be passed in the Vizianagaram suit either after contest or on compromise. The whole plaint proceeded upon the footing that there was a subsisting, valid and enforceable contract between the parties, under the terms of which the p...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »