Chennai Court March 1916 Judgments
Alagappa Chetty Vs. Annamalai Chetty and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-31-1916
Reported in: 35Ind.Cas.74
Seshagiri Aiyar, J.1. Mr. Anantha, Krishna Aiyar, the learned Vakil for the petitioner, has. raised in this case some interesting1 questions of law, on which, though I do not agree with him, I am free to admit, there is a great deal to be said. The facts of the case are these. The plaintiff borrowed a large sum of money, from a. firm of Nattukottai Chetties in, Rangoon and, as security for the loan, deposited with the firm the mortgage securities obtained by him from third parties. Some time after the loan, the plaintiff settled accounts with the firm and. paid a certain sum of money in full discharge of the amount due and got the securities re-transferred to his name. The present suit is brought by the plaintiff in the, Paramakudi District Munsif's Court impeaching the settlement of account at Rangoon and claiming a certain sum of money from the defendant firm. At the time of the suit, the 1st defendant was undoubtedly residing within the jurisdiction of the District Munsif of Paramak...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Rathna Padayachi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-31-1916
Reported in: 35Ind.Cas.667
ORDERSeshagiri Aiyar, J.1. The father is the complainant in the case. The facts deposed to by the father of the girl are these: while his daughter was living with him, the accused enticed her away on the 20th of July, 1915, that the husband was aware of it, that he came in search of his wife but went away on learning of the elopement and that this complaint was filed without consulting the husband. In another place, his deposition implies that the husband was not anxious to complain.2. On these facts, which have been spoken to by the other witnesses, a charge under Section 498 of the Indian Penal Code was framed.3. Mr. Osborne asks this Court to cancel the charge. His chief argument is that as the husband has not chosen to complain, it is not competent to the father to institute proceedings. The learned Counsel lays stress on the words in his absence', in Section 199 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and contends that it is only where the husband has authorised, either expressly or im...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. a Deaf and Dumb
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-31-1916
Reported in: 37Ind.Cas.495
1. In this case the accused, a deaf and dumb man, has been convicted of theft under Section 380 of the Indian Penal Code, and the proceedings have been-submitted to this Court, under Section 341 of the Criminal Procedure Code.2. Section 341 provides that in such a case as this the High Court should pass such orders as it thinks fit. The law in England appears to be that though great caution and diligence are necessary in the trial of a deaf and dumb person, yet if it be shown that such person had sufficient intelligence to understand the character of his criminal act, he is liable to punishment: see Russell on Crimes, Volume I, page 62 : Archbold's Criminal Practice, page 11 and Rex v. Steel (1787) 1 Leach 451., Queen v. Bowka Hari 22 W.R. 35 Cr. and Queen v. Bowka 22 W.R. 72 Cr. Queen-Empress v. Reubin Samuel (1894) Rat. U 696 Rg. No. 26 of 1894. are authorities to show that the same is the law and practice in India. In this case we are satisfied from the learned Magistrate's judgment...
Tag this Judgment!S. Rudrappa Achary Vs. the Corporation of Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-31-1916
Reported in: 34Ind.Cas.735
Phillips, J.1. I have no hesitation in agreeing with the City Civil Court Judges finding that the plot marked green in the plan is a private street within the meaning of Section 3 (26) of Act HI of 1904. It is a place 40 feet wide running round the plaintiff's temple, and bordered by houses and is called Mada 'Vidhi,' which means a street, and it is certainly a pathway made by the plaintiff for the convenient use of or for access to his temple. The next question is whether the plaint-iff is entitled to put up an obstruction at the end of the street. The defendant, the Madras Corporation, acquired two houses at the end of the private street, to which the street gave access, pulled them down and this left an open way from the private street to the public street close by. No doubt this will have the effect of considerably increasing the traffic on the private street, unless the plaintiff takes strict measures to prevent trespass, and in effect (the street is likely to be turned into a tho...
Tag this Judgment!J. Krishna Rao Vs. the President of the Corporation of Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-29-1916
Reported in: (1917)32MLJ99
Ayling, J.1. In my opinion the three phrases 'kept', 'let out for hire' and 'used' in Section 150 of the Madras City Municipal Act are employed distinctively, and the word 'kept' is not qualified by the words 'for hire'. If the mere possession of a car which is never used does not bring the possession within the scope of Section 150, it is difficult to imagine what is the object of the exemption clause, Section 151(f).2. I can see no ground for holding that a car ceases to be 'kept' within the meaning of Section 150, because it is under repair and for that reason unfit for immediate use.3. I would set aside the order of the Magistrates cancelling the tax and ordering refund.Napier, J.4. I agree. Three points are argued. First that a car under repair is not a vehicle. I cannot take this argument seriously. Second that the word 'kept' must be read with the words 'for hire', and private persons who do not use for 30 days are not taxable. Section 150(f) clearly negatives this argument. Thi...
Tag this Judgment!The Secretary of State for India in Council Vs. Unde Rajaha Raje Sir R ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-29-1916
Reported in: (1916)31MLJ97
John Wallis, C.J.1. This is an appeal from a decree of the District Judge of Nellore declaring that the defendant, the Secretary of State for India in Council, is not entitled to resume or assess to public revenue inams or lakhirai lands other than village service inams enfranchised under Madras Act, II of 1894 within the Venkatagiri Zemindari, or to any reversionary right in such inams and restraining the defendant and his officers from holding any investigation into such inams and dealing with them under the Inam Rules or resuming and assessing them to public revenue. The main questions in the case* were, whether these inams were included in the grant to the plaintiff's predecessor by the sannad Exhibit C, dated 24th August 1802, whether, if so, the grant was invalid as opposed to the provisions of Regulation XXV of 1802 and lastly whether in any case the question was not res judicata in favour of the plaintiff. The circumstances which led up to the grant of the sannad Exhibit C are ...
Tag this Judgment!Mulugu Kotayya and ors. Vs. Mudigonda Chandramowli Sastri and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-29-1916
Reported in: 36Ind.Cas.407; (1916)31MLJ406
Abdur Rahim, J.1. This appeal has been preferred by defendants Nos. 4 and 5 in the suit and their alienees the defendants Nos. 24, 27 and 29 against the judgment of the Additional Temporary Subordinate Judge of Guntur by which he has held that the plaintiffs (respondents) are entitled as reversionary heirs to a two-third share of the properties which belonged to one Nayanappa, the remaining one-third being found to belong to defendants 1, 2 and 3, the other reversionary heirs. The relationship of the parties is set out in the pedigree attached to the plaint. Nayanappa was the grand-son of one Mudigonda Brahmanna Ayyavaru, who left a number of sons of whom Mallappa Ayyavaru was the great grand-father of defendants 1, 2 and 3, Visvapathi was the father of Nayanappa and Chandrayya was the grand-father of the 1st plaintiff and great grand-father of the 2nd plaintiff by adoption. Nayanappa at his death which took place some time about 1832 left two widows, Papamma who died in 1880 and Syama...
Tag this Judgment!J. Krishna Row Vs. the President Municipal Corporation
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-29-1916
Reported in: (1917)ILR40Mad545
Ayling, J.1. In my opinion the three phrases 'kept,' 'let out for hire' and 'used' in Section 150 of the Madras City Municipal Act are employed distinctively, and the word 'kept' is not qualified by the words 'for hire.' If the mere possession of a car which is never used does not bring the possessor within the scope of Section 150, it is difficult to imagine what is the object of the exemption clause, Section 151(f).2. I can see no ground for holding that a car ceases to be 'kept' within the meaning of Section 150, because it is under repair and for that reason unfit for immediate use.3. I would set aside the order of the Magistrates cancelling the tax and ordering refund.Napier, J. 4. I agree. Three points are argued. First, that a car under repair is not a vehicle. I cannot take this argument seriously. Second, that the word 'kept' must be read with the words 'for hire,' and private persons who do not use for thirty days are not taxable. Section 151(f) clearly negatives this argumen...
Tag this Judgment!Mr. J. Krishna Row Vs. the President of the Corporation of Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-29-1916
Reported in: 35Ind.Cas.581
William Ayling, J.1. In my opinion the three phrases kept', let out for hire' and used' in Section 150 of the Madras City Municipal Act are employed distinctively; and the word kept' is not qualified by the words 'for hire'. If the mere possession of a car which is never used does not bring the possessor within the scope of Section 150, it is difficult to imagine what is the object of the exemption clause, Section 151(f).2. I can see no ground for holding that a car ceases to be 'kept,' within the meaning of Section 150, because it is under repair and for that reason unfit for immediate use.3. I would set aside the order of the Magistrate, cancelling the tax and ordering refund.Napier, J.4. I agree.5. Three points are argued. First, that a car under repair is not a vehicle. I cannot take this argument seriously. Second, that the word 'kept' must be read with the words 'for hire' and private persons who do not use for 30 days are not taxable. Section 151(f) clearly negatives this argume...
Tag this Judgment!Natesa Udayan Vs. Annasami Udayan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-29-1916
Reported in: 34Ind.Cas.756
1. The judgment under appeal is in accordance with a current of decisions of this Court [Singaravelu Pillai v. Santhana Krishna Mudaliar 31 Ind. Cas. 9 Mohammad Husain Saib v. Abdul Kareem Saib 29 Ind Cas. 237 and Balaji Rao v. Harirama Chetty 21 Ind. Cas. 318 which, no doubt, are not yet included in the authorised reports, but in which we concur. The appeal against appellate order is, therefore, unsustainable and is dismissed with costs....
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »