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.
In Re: Santa Cruz Morais Alias Sivasangu and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-20-1915
Reported in: AIR1916Mad642(1); 30Ind.Cas.154
ORDERKumaraswami Sastri, J.1. I am of opinion that the conviction of the 1st accused under Section 2251 cannot stand. He was accused of having offered obstruction to the lawful apprehension of a person apprehended by the Police for theft. It is found that the person apprehended was a boy under seven years of age and the case was argued both by the Public Prosecutor and Counsel for the petitioners on that footing.2. Section 82 of the Penal Code enacts that nothing is an offence which is dose by a child under seven years of age. Section 4 Clause (o) of the Criminal Procedure Code defines offence to moan any act or omission made punishable by any law for the time being in force. The powers given by Section 54 of the Criminal Procedure Code to the Police Officer to arrest without a warrant are only in respect of cognizable offences. If the person arrested is a child under sever years of age, who under Section 82 of the Indian Penal Code cannot commit an offence, it is difficult to see how ...
In Re: Dorasami Aiyar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-20-1915
Reported in: AIR1916Mad1103(1); 30Ind.Cas.464
ORDER1. The only evidence as to the ownership of the property alleged to have been stolen is the 1st prosecution witness's statement as to what Ranganatha Tawkar, now deceased, said to him regarding it. 'We cannot being this statement within the terms of Section 32, Indian Evidence Act; and following Bela Rani v. Mahabir Singh 14 Ind. Cas. 116 we do not think it is admissible under Section 11. In the absence of evidence as to the ownership of the property, the conviction of an offence punishable under Section 381, Indian Penal Code, cannot stand. It is set aside and the accused must be released, if in custody....
V.V. Nagappa Chetty and ors. Vs. A.R.M.S. Ramanathan Chetty
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-20-1915
Reported in: 29Ind.Cas.422
1. This is an appeal from the decree of the Subordinate Judge of Ramnad dismissing the plaintiffs' suit to recover a certain sum of money which was advanced to the defendants Nos. 5 and 6 by the 1st defendant's father who is said to have undertaken subsequently to pay the money to the plaintiffs in case of default by defendants Nos. 5 and 6. The Subordinate Judge found that the suit against defendants Nos. 5 and 6 was barred by limitation and as far as defendants Nos. 1 and 2 are concerned, there was no consideration for their father's undertaking to pay. The date of the loan is 7th July 1901. The suit itself was instituted only on the 3rd August 1911.2. The plaintiffs' case in effect is that as the interest fell due, a sum was advanced to the debtor equivalent to that interest, which was discharged wWi that amount, and the defendants this became indebted to the plaintiffs in two principal sums which must be treated as a new loan, though it clearly represented the original amount and i...
The Public Prosecutor Vs. Narayana Nayudu Alias Narayanaswami Naidu an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-20-1915
Reported in: 29Ind.Cas.657
Kumaraswami Sastri, J.1. This is an appeal preferred against the acquittal of accused Nos. 1 and 2, who were charged with offences under Section 326, Indian Penal Code.2. The case for the prosecution is that there were disputes between the 1st and 2nd accused and P.W. No. 7, who is the brother of P.W. No. 1, in respect of the affairs of a certain fund and that on the night of 15th May 1914 the two accused and two others, who were discharged by the Magistrate without a charge being framed, caused grievous hurt to P.W. Nos. 1 and 2. It is alleged that there was a meeting of the share-holders of the fund on the day in question, that it was proposed that the first accused and P.W. No. 7 should be removed from the office and P.W. Nos, 1 and 2 shonlcTbe appointed, that 1st and 2nd accused did not consent, to this and the meeting broke up, that on the same night, as P.W. No. 7 was returning at about 11 p. M., he was waylaid by the accused, that P.W. No. 1, who is the brother of P.W. No. 7 tur...
Kothal Mammad Haji Vs. Pydal Nair and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-20-1915
Reported in: AIR1916Mad833(2); 29Ind.Cas.578
We think that the lower Appellate Court has applied the authorities rightly. We need only add to them Raja Kamodana Venlcatanarasimha Ramachandra Row Bahadur Zamindar Garu v. Raja Lakshminarasamma Bow Zamindar Gam 30 M.P 266 : 2 M.L.T. 188 : 17 M.L.J. 139 and Tara Sundari Debi v. Sarada Gharan Bandopadhya 7 Ind. Cas. 80 : 12 C.L.J. 146. We agree that the appellant's interest is not exempt from attachment under Section 60 (n) of the Code of Civil Procedure.It is also argued that the property cannot be attached because appellant's tarwad will have a right to object to its attachment The appellant cannot rely on this objection. It can be dealt with if the tarwad makes it.The appeal against appellate order is dismissed with costs....
Kalappa Kamthi and anr. Vs. Kachur Sakha Rama Rao
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-20-1915
Reported in: AIR1916Mad1074; 29Ind.Cas.898
Coutts-Trotter, J.1. The plaintiff's father and the 1st defendant's father were brothers. They divided their family property in 1879, and on that division the property in question in the suit was allotted to the share of the 1st defendant's father by a deed dated the 22nd of October 1880. The 1st defendant's father sold this property to the plaintiff's father for Rs. 400 and the document contains a provision that if Rs. 400 should be re-paid together with the value of any improvements effected, the land should be surrendered to the 1st defendant's father. The plaintiff's father died and his mother, acted as his guardian and managed his affairs. While she was so acting and while the plaintiff was still a minor, the 1st defendant's father paid the Rs. 403 referred to in the tleed of the 22nd of October 1830 and she conveyed the land back to him by a document dated the 16th of February 1905. Both the Courts below have found that this was a perfectly genuine transaction untainted by any fr...
In Re: Natesa Padayachi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-19-1915
Reported in: AIR1915Mad1143; (1915)28MLJ690
ORDERKumarasami Sastri, J.1. This is a petition to revise the order of the Sessions Judge of Trichinopoly acquitting the accused. The chief ground is that the Judge did not examine all the prosecution witnesses but made up his mind after two of them were examined.2. As both of the assessors were of the same opinion as the Sessions Judge it would require very strong grounds for the High Court to interfere even if such a power exists. It is significant that the Government has not appealed against the acquittal.3. It is very doubtful if a private party should, as a matter of right, be allowed to move the Hight Court in such cases. In Tandavan v. Periannan I.L.R. (1890) M. 363, it was held that an appeal against an acquittal by way of revision was not contemplated by the Criminal Procedure Code and their Lordships refused to hear the Petitioner's counsel. In the case Sinnu Goundan in re : (1914)26MLJ160 . (In re Sinnu Goundan) Mr. Justice Miller observes as follows: 'It seems to me that to...
T. Raman Nair (Mullapalli Tarwad Manager) Vs. Gopala Menon and Four or ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-19-1915
Reported in: (1916)ILR39Mad584
Seshagiri Ayyar, J.1. One Raman Nair brought a suit against the present appellant to remove him from the karnavanship. The first Court directed his removal. Pending the disposal of the appeal against the decree, the said Riman Nair was appointed receiver of the tarwad properties, and he gave security for his proper management. The appeal was decided in favour of the karnavan in February 1913. Raman Nair, the receiver, died in April 1913. The present application is by the successful karnavan for an order that the properties of the deceased receiver, in the hands of the respondents, should be held liable for moneys misappropriated by him. The Subordinate Judge held that although an application of this kind might be entertained against the receiver, if he were alive, it is incompetent against his legal representatives and that the proper procedure is to sue the latter in a regular suit. We think this order is wrong.2. Order XL, Rule 4, provides that where a receiver had occasioned loss to...
Mullapali Taravathil, Manager, Ittunni Raman Nair Vs. Gopala Menon and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-19-1915
Reported in: AIR1916Mad521; 30Ind.Cas.383
1. One Raman Nair brought a suit against the present appellant to remove him from the karnavanship, The first Court directed his removal. Pending the disposal of the appeal against the decree the said Raman Nair was appointed Receiver o the tarwad properties and he gave security for the proper management. The appeal was decided in favour of the karnavan in February 1913. Raman Nair, the Receiver, died in April 1913. The present application is by the successful karnavan, for an order that the properties of the deceased Receiver in the hands of the respondents should be held liable for moneys misappropriated by him. The Subordinate Judge held that although an application of this kind might be entertained against the Receiver if he were alive, it is incompetent against his legal representatives and the proper procedure is to sue the latter in a regular suit. We think this order is wrung.2. Order XL, Rule 4, provides that where a Receiver had occasioned loss to the property by his wilful d...
In Re: Choitano Ranto and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-19-1915
Reported in: AIR1916Mad788; 29Ind.Cas.78
1. The first objection to the lower Court's decision taken by Dr. Swaminadhan is that all the accused before us have been convicted of offences punishable under Section 148, Indian Penal Code, though only the 2nd accused is shown to have had a gun. The convictions were apparently based on an application of Section 149. But Sabir v. Queen-Empress 22 C.P 276 is against that view of the law; and we have been shown no reason for dissent from the opinion of the Calcutta High Court. The convictions under Section 148 of all except the 2nd accused are set aside.2. Next it is urged that the 21st accused was really engaged in rescuing the Head Constable, not in dragging or threatening him. That was not alleged at the trial and there is nothing to support it.3. Mr. Ramesam argues first that the 3rd accused is not shown to have taken any effective part in the riot and is unlikely to have done so, since he went with the Police to the search of the 1st accused's house. The evidence as to his conduct...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »