Chennai Court April 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.
Senchurama Naidu Minor by Next Friend, Chengama Naidu Vs. Annapurani A ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-26-1915
Reported in: 30Ind.Cas.79
1. Mr. Hamachandra Aiyar on behalf of the 7th defendant, the appellant before us, contends that the plaintiff is net entitled to the possession of the properties which she claims under an alienation by the 2nd defendant, the appellant's father. He argues that the plaintiff is only entitled to bring a suit for partition of all the properties which belong to the family of the 2nd defendant, and if the properties in suit are allotted to the 2nd defendant, she might be entitled to get them or she might be entitled to properties equal in value to the plaint properties out of the properties which might be allotted to the 2nd defendant. In reply it is contended on behalf of the respondent, the plaintiff, that as the 7th defendant, the appellant before us, was made a party only as the representative of the 2nd defendant, it is not open to the 7th defendant to raise any defence which is not appropriate to his representative character under Order XXII, Rule 4, Civil Procedure Code, and as the 2n...
G. Doraiswamy Pillai and anr. Vs. Sandanathammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-26-1915
Reported in: 30Ind.Cas.225
John Wallis, C.J.1. This is a suit by the plaintiffs claiming as trustees under two deeds of trust, Exhibits A and B, executed in the years 1851 and 1853 by the deceased Selvanayagam Pillai, a Roman Catholic Christian, to recover from the defendants possession of the suit properties, which are alleged to be the subject of the trust. The Subordinate Judge has found that it was not the intention of Selvanayagam to create any trust by these instruments, and that if it was otherwise, the trust was merely for the maintenance of the institution therein referred to, a chattram on the Tanjore Road in Trichinopoly alleged to have been built by the settlor, that this purpose failed as ' the institution never came into existence and that, as no general charitable intention can be gathered from the deeds, there is no occasion for applying the cypres doctrine and the gifts must be held to have failed and a resulting trust to have arisen for the settlor and his heir.2. According to the translation o...
Yella Hanumayya Alias Hanuman-thappa Vs. Mullangi Chinna Doddappa
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-26-1915
Reported in: AIR1916Mad963; 29Ind.Cas.512
1. The preliminary objection must be upheld, namely, that under Schedule II, paragraph 16, Clause (2), Civil Procedure Code, no appeal lies from the decree framed on a judgment pronounced by the Court according to the award of arbitrators, after the Court had refused an application to set aside that award as invalid.2. The appeal must, therefore, be dismissed with costs.3. We are asked by the appellant's learned Counsel to set aside the award treating the appeal as a petition in revision under Section 115, Civil Procedure Code. His contention is that the District Court had no jurisdiction to refer the matters in dispute to arbitration even by the consent of parties. He relies in support of this contention on the case in Ghellabhai Atmaram v. Nandu Bai 21 B.P 335.4. In the first place, we are not clear that the observations relied on from the judgment in Ghellabhai Atmaram v. Nandu Bai 21 B.P 335 which appear to be obiter dicta, have not been couched by that Court in too wide terms. In ...
In Re: P. Marakkar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-23-1915
Reported in: 30Ind.Cas.159
ORDER1. The question is whether the act of the distrainer in this case was legal, so as to make resistance to his act an offence. Br. Pandalai's main contention is hat the only person who can be classed as the defaulter within the meaning of Section 8 of the Madras Act TI of 1864 is the person registered as palladar, and that the sevice on the patladar, whether present or absent, of a demand in writing is a condition precedent to making distraint under that Act. Taking for granted the first part of this contention to be correct, the difficulty as to the second is that the Act does not contain any provision requiring, in cases where the defaulter is absent at the time of distraining, that the demand in writing described in Section 8 should be delivered to the defaulter before the distress. But it is argued that such a procedure must be assumed to have been intended from the fact that the person liable to pay the arrear is the paltadar and that a production of the demand in his absence w...
In Re: Ranga Gownden and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-22-1915
Reported in: AIR1916Mad1035(1); 30Ind.Cas.748
ORDERSpencer, J.1. It is contended that because the lower Appellate Court observed in the judgment, 'with regard to possession the balance of evidence appears to be in favour of the appellants,' this was tantamount to a finding that the appellants were in possession at the date of the offence. I think the Deputy Magistrate was possibly referring only to the probability of the crop having been grown by the appellants.2. It is unquestionable that when the appellants came in an armed body and attempted to prevent the respondents' party from cutting and carrying away the produce, actual possession must have been with the respondents' party. In this respect the facts differ form those to which the law as to the right of persons in possession to maintain their actual enjoyment undisturbed was applied int the decisions reported as Ram Khelawan Singh v. Emperor 3 Ind. Cas. 96 : 13 C.W.N. 827 and Silajit Mahoto v. Emperor 4 Ind. Cas. 19. The view taken by the Sub-Magistrate in paragraph No. 10 ...
In Re: Sennimalai Goundan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-22-1915
Reported in: 30Ind.Cas.1005a
1. The accused have been tried by a Jury for an offence punishable under Section 395, Indian Penal Code, and by the Additional Sessions Judge with the aid of the Jurors as Assessors for offences punishable under Sections 396 and 397. First, 2nd, 4th, 9th and 11th accused have been convicted of these offences and appeal.2. Mr. Osborne on their behalf takes exception to the conduct of the trial in that they have been prejudiced by the simultaneous disposal of a charge triable by a Jury and of charges triable with the aid of Assessors and by the Judge's refusal to allow one of the Assessors to consult the others before giving his opinion as to the charges under Sections 396 and 397. The Judge, no doubt, as appears from his judgment, would have preferred to hold two trials; and we may observe with reference to Sections 226, 233 and 235, Code of Criminal Procedure, that he was fully competent to do so. But the course, which he followed, of trying all the offences charged together is contemp...
In Re: Kuttiath Odayoth Veetil Komar Nambiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-22-1915
Reported in: AIR1916Mad1071(1); 29Ind.Cas.672
ORDERSpencer, J.1. The illustration (a) to Section 378, Indian Penal Code, shows that if a tree is cut with the intention of dishonestly taking it out of the possession of the person in possession, the offence of theft is complete as soon as the tree is severed in order to such taking.2. Here the Appellate Court found that the accused cut the trees 'to annoy P.W. No. 1 and to get the better of him.' The conviction for theft is accordingly set aside. That for mischief will stand.3. The sentence is reduced to the amount of rigorous imprisonment already undergone by the accused and to fines of Rs. 10 each and in default of payment to three weeks rigorous imprisonment. The order to pay Rs. 20 as compensation to complainant out of the fines, if collected, will stand....
idubilly Siyyadi Garu and ors. Vs. Sree Raja Visweswara Nissanka Bahad ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-21-1915
Reported in: AIR1916Mad826; 30Ind.Cas.416
1. These appeals relate to certain gadaba tiradu' lands held by tenants for discharging personal services, such as carrying the zemindar's palanquin on condition of paying an annual kattubadi or favourable rent of Rs. 10. The 1st plaintiff is the zemindar of Sangamvalasa and the relief claimed in the plaints was a declaration that these service inam lands are resumable and a decree for possession, with mesne profits for 1912 and costs and subsequent profits till delivery of possession. The District Munsif granted the plaintiffs decrees accordingly and the District Judge confirmed them on appeal. The question is whether they were right in doing so. Accepting the findings of both the lower Courts that these inams are 'darmil a' inams, in other words, inams granted subsequent to the Permanent Settlement and that they were granted for doing personal service to the zemindar in lieu of wages, which, being findings of fact, are binding on us in second appeal, the question still remains whethe...
Utharankat Purakkal Eazuvan Raman alias Kuttan's Wife, Kalliani and An ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-21-1915
Reported in: AIR1916Mad1210; 30Ind.Cas.897
1. The lower Appellate Court ought not to have allowed the defendants to raise the contention that the 1st plaintiff has got other means of support and is, therefore, not entitled to claim maintenance at all out of her husband's joint family property. See also on this point Darbha Lingayya v. Darbha Kanakamma 28 Ind. Cas. 200.2. We modify the decree of the lower Appellate Court by allowing Rs. 270 to the 1st plaintiff in her own right besides the Rs. 250 allowed to the minor 2nd plaintiff represented by the 1st plaintiff. The defendants will pay 3/4ths of the plaintiff's costs here and in the lower Appellate Court and bear their own costs. The decree of the first Court as to costs in that Court will stand....
Vellayanambalam Vs. Solai Servai and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-20-1915
Reported in: (1915)28MLJ692
ORDER1. This is an application to revise the order of the joint 1st class Magistrate of Dindigul Division reversing the conviction and sentence passed by the Stationary second class Magistrate of Nelakottai in Calender Case No. 144 of. 1914.2. The complainant filed a complaint against the two accused who are the present counter-petitioners, charging them with offences under Sections 352 and 426 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 24 of Act 1 of 1871 (Cattle Trespass Act). The Stationary Sub-magistrate fined each of the accused Rs. 15 for each of the offences and directed them to pay Rs. 5-4-0 as costs to. the complainant. An appeal was preferred and Mr. Glasson the Joint Magistrate of Dindigul Division, reversed the conviction after going through the evidence and material, papers, as he was of opinion that the case was not proved.3. A preliminary objection has been taken by Mr. Jayarama Aiyar for the Respondents that no Criminal Revision Petition lies to set aside an order of acquitta...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »