Chennai Court July 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: Kotaigadu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-26-1915
Reported in: 30Ind.Cas.439
1. The appellants have been convicted of offences under Sections 326 and 397, Indian Penal Code. They are said to have waylaid a Revenue Inspector, Prosecution Witness No. 1, and to have wounded and robbed him of his property, causing injuries amounting to grievous hurt. The main offence is, of course, under Section 397, Indian Penal Code.2. The grievous hurt which constitutes the offence under Section 326, is an integral part of the offence under Section 397, Indian Penal Code, and need not have been made the subject of a separate charge. The first clause of Section 71, Indian Penal Code, precludes the imposition of separate sentences for the two offences and if we were able to uphold the conviction, we should have to consider what reduction should be made in the joint sentences which the Sessions Judge has imposed for the two offences.3. We are, however, unable to uphold the conviction. On the one hand, the procedure of the learned Sessions Judge is illegal as regards the evidence of...
The Secretary of State for India in Council Through the Collector of T ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-26-1915
Reported in: AIR1916Mad505; 30Ind.Cas.605
1. This is a suit by the plaintiff: to recover water-cess levied by Government on the amount of wet cultivation in the plaintiff's inam village of Oochikulam, which is in excess of the amount mentioned for that village in the inam title-deed, Exhibit O. Admittedly the inam title-deed constitutes an engagement with Government within the meaning of Act VII of 1865 to supply water free of charge for the area of wet cultivation in the village mentioned therein, but the Subordinate Judge has held that the plaintiff is entitled to irrigate free of charge in respect of a much larger area, and if this be so, it must be by virtue of some engagement with Government other than the inam title-deed. The plaintiff's case is that he has been all along since the paimash in 1802 cultivating about double this quantity of wet and that the amount entered in the title-deed is a mistake. Exhibit I, on the other hand, shows that the wet cultivation at the time of the paimaslb was only 41k. 4m. 23/4p. In supp...
Sri Rajah Kakarlapudi Ramachandra Raju Bahadur Garu and ors. Vs. Cheep ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-26-1915
Reported in: AIR1916Mad943; 30Ind.Cas.895
ORDER1. In none of these cases admittedly is the amount or value of the subject-matter of the suit in the Court of first instance ten thousand rupees or upwards, nor does the decree in any of these suits directly or indirectly involve some claim of like amount or value. The fact that a common judgment was pronounced in all the suits and that the aggregate value of all the suits exceeds Rs. 10,000, in our opinion, makes no difference. This appears to us to be the plain meaning of the section and is in accordance with the ruling of a Full Bench of the Calcutta High Court in Royal Insurance Co. v. Akhoy Coomar Dutt 6 C.W.N. 41. It is not clear that in Deonarain Singh v. Guni Singh 34 C.K 400 the leave granted was under Section 596 corresponding to Section 110, and not under Section 595(c) corresponding to Section 109(c). As to Raja Jagaveera, Rama Venkateswara v. Suppanasarri 22 Ind. Cas. 290 : (1914) M.W.N. 162 the case referred to by the learned JuJges does not support their conclusion....
Raja Damara Kumara Thimmayinim Bahadur Varu, Rajah of Kalahasti Vs. Sw ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-26-1915
Reported in: 31Ind.Cas.214
1. This appeal arises out of the assertion on the part of the zemindar of Kalahasti of. a claim to levy certain meras and russums which the respondent agarharamdars have denied their liability to pay, as being in their view unauthorized exactions.2. The first argument is that the matter is res judicata between the parties by reason of the decision in a previous suit of 1902.3. But it is clear that in 1905 when this suit was instituted that decision, according to the then prevailing law, which was settled by the Pull Bench decision in Avanasi Gounden v. Nachammal 1 M.L.T. 25 : 16 M.L.J. 41, being one in which no second appeal lay, could not operate as a bar to a fresh decision on the same point in a subsequent suit between the parties.4. After the decision in that suit the law was altered by the introduction of the Civil Procedure Code of 1908, in which the Explanation II to Section 11 of that Code provided for the first time that the competence of a Court should be determined without r...
Abdul Rahim Sahib Vs. Kullappa Gownden
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-23-1915
Reported in: AIR1916Mad740(2); 30Ind.Cas.845
Kumaraswami Sastri, J.1. This is a petition filed under Section 115, Civil Procedure Code, and Section 15 of the Charter Act to revise the order of the District Munsif of Tirupathur, dated the 24th April 1915, wherein he held that the property in dispute fell under Section 7, Clause V(b), of the Court Fees Act (Act VII of 1870) and that the suit was rightly valued and was within the pecuniary limits of his jurisdiction.2. The plaintiff, claiming to be the purchaser of the properties mentioned in the plaint for Rs. 7,000, sued for a declaration of title, for an injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with his enjoyment of the plaint properties and for possession of the properties if the Court was of opinion that the plaintiff was not in possession. The plaintiff valued the suit at Rs. 1,000, the details of the valuation being Rs. 5 for the injunction asked for, Rs. 364-11-0 for possession, Rs. 115 value of three wells, Rs. 500 value of cocoanut trees and Rs. 27 value of p...
In Re: Sengoda Goundan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-22-1915
Reported in: AIR1916Mad651; 30Ind.Cas.438
1. We see no reason to doubt the substantial truth of the prosecution story as to the dacoity, the manner in which deceased Karuppa Goundan met his death, or the complicity of appellants.2. We do not, however, think that the act of the accused Nos. 1 and 2 amounts to murder. It seems clear that they stuffed a cloth into deceased's mouth in order to silence him, not with any idea of killing him, and the most that can be said is that they must be presumed to have known that they were likely in so doing to cause his death: (Vide last clause of Section 299, Indian Penal Code). We alter the sections under which appellants have been convicted from Sections 302 and 396, Indian Penal Code, to Sections 304 and 395, Indian Penal Code. We reduce the sentences on accused Nos. 1 and 2 to seven years' rigorous imprisonment and confirm the sentences on the other appellants....
Tirumalai Tirupati Kovil Kandadai Appan Sriranga Chariar and anr. Vs. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-21-1915
Reported in: 30Ind.Cas.74
1. This is a suit instituted by the plaintiffs under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure against defendants Nos. 1 to 4, in whose family the office of Acharyapurusha in the Tirumalai Tirupati temples is hereditary, and against their alienees, and prays for the removal of the defendants Nos. 1 to 4 from the office of trustees of the suit properties, for the appointment of new trustees, a declaration that the alienations of the suit properties by the defendants are void, and an order vesting them in the, new trustees. The suit properties are inams confirmed to the defendants' family at the time of the Inam Settlement, and the original grant appears to have included the land itself as well as the revenue thereon. The inam registers state that they had been granted for service as Acharyapurusha in the Tirumalai Tirupati Devastanam so long as the service should be rendered, and the title-deed. Exhibit B, acknowledges the title of the grantee to a devadayam or pagoda service inam 'for ...
In Re: Nalli Narasigadu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-21-1915
Reported in: AIR1916Mad1168; 30Ind.Cas.135
1. The appellants have been convicted of the murder of one Mala Durgadu on the night of October 27th. The body-was fished out of the Godaveri river on November 2nd after three days' search within half a mile of the garden where the deceased was employed and where he was last seen alive on the afternoon of October 27th. We see no reason to doubt the identity of the corpse. The deceased undoubtedly met his end by violence: and the circumstance of the 3 survey stones found tied to the body leaves little doubt that it was at or near the garden referred to.2. We have very carefully considered the evidence of P.Ws. Nos. 6' and 9, on which the prosecution must mainly rely. If this is accepted it proves beyond doubt that the appellants murdered Durgadu, and with the help of P.W. No. 9 took his body in a boat into the middle of the river and sank it there weighted by the survey stones which were procured from the garden.3. As regards P.W. No. 9, it seems pretty clear that he was, at least in a ...
P.C. Muthu Chettiar Vs. Muthusami Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-21-1915
Reported in: AIR1916Mad1054(1); 30Ind.Cas.486
1. Following Sattappa Pillai v. Raman Chetti 17 M.k 1 and Suppa Pillai v. Nagayasami Thumbichi Naicker 31 M.k 19 we hold that a custom to pay enhanced rent if wet crops are cultivated on dry lands (provided that the wet crops are not raised with the help of the improvements effected at the tenants' sole expense) is not illegal. In the present case, the help of the water of the Periyar Channel cannot be said to be the help due to the tenants' improvements, even though the tenant might pay water rate to the Circar. There was no permanent work done by the tenant which improved the holding.2. We shall, therefore, request the District Court to submit a finding on the evidence on record on the question whether by custom, the plaintiff is entitled to charge the wet rate claimed if wet crops are raised on dry lands by the tenant with the help of water not obtained by any improvements effected by the tenant himself.'3. The findings should be submitted in four weeks from receipt of records and t...
Muhammad HusaIn and anr. Vs. Muthu Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-20-1915
Reported in: AIR1916Mad786(2); 30Ind.Cas.280
Oldfield, J.1. I have felt some hesitation in adopting the liberal construction of the decree before us for which the respondent contends, because he has already on one occasion executed it by attachment inconsistently with its alleged mortgage character and is now after great delay contending for that character in order to evade the bar of limitation, to which, considered as an ordinary money-decree, it would be subject.2. In the cases cited for the respondent, Anna Pillai v. Thangathammal 20 M.k 78 and Lal Behary Singh v. Habibur Rahman 166 C.W.N. 8 the mortgage character of decrees which were not in formal conformity with the requirements of the Transfer of Property Act, was relied on by judgment-debtors and the former was statedly decided with reference to the novelty of the provisions in the Transfer of Property Act as to the form of decrees. But in Fazil Howladar v. Krishna Bundhoo Roy 22 C.W.N. 118 the mortgage character of the decree was relied on by the decree-holder and effec...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »