Chennai Court March 1916 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: Maddela Ramanujamma
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-28-1916
Reported in: (1916)ILR39Mad977
Ayling, J.1. Petitioner has been convicted on an alternative charge of perjury in connection with two contradictory statements made on affirmation (Exhibits A and D). The conviction was confirmed in appeal and the sole ground argued before us on petitioner's behalf is that Exhibit A recorded by the Sub-Magistrate of Ongole under Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code is inadmissible, in evidence.2. It is urged that this statement is of a confessional nature, that it was not recorded in the manner provided in Section 364 of the Criminal Procedure Code and that for this reason it is inadmissible in evidence: vide, Queen Empress v. Viran I.L.R. (1896) Mad. 224.3. It appears that Exhibit A was recorded in the course of an investigation by the police of a charge under Section 373 of the Indian Penal Code against one M. Subba Rao. This man was said to have practically purchased a certain minor girl, Venkamma, for purposes of prostitution and to have had her kannarikam ceremony performed,...
Swaminatha Mudaly and ors. Vs. Velu Mudaly and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-28-1916
Reported in: 35Ind.Cas.749
John Wallis, C.J.1. There is not much difference, if any, between the facts as found by the learned Judge and by my learned brother whose judgment I have had the advantage of reading, and the only question is as to the proper inference arising from these facts with reference to the plaintiffs' claim to the tank water by prescription as pleaded in paragraphs 16 and 17 of the plaint. If we take into account only the fact that the water has been brought from tank B, which is on land purchased by the defendants' ancestors to A, which consists of plots purchased by the ancestors of the plaintiffs and defendants and the fact that all the plots were cultivated jointly, it may be said that the fact that the defendants used their water from tank B in raising betel jointly with the plaintiffs sometimes on portions of A purchased by the defendants' ancestors and sometimes on portions purchased by the plaintiffs' ancestors only amounts to a user by the defendants of their own water for their own p...
In Re: Maddela Ramaniyamma
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-28-1916
Reported in: 34Ind.Cas.307
ORDERWilliam Ayling, J.1. Petitioner has been convicted on an alternative charge of perjury in connection with two contradictory statements made on affirmation, Exhibits A and D. The conviction was confirmed in appeal and the sole ground argued before us on petitioner's behalf is, that Exhibit A recorded by the Sub-Magistrate of Ongole under Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code is inadmissible in evidence.2. It is urged that this statement is of a confessional nature, that it was not recorded in the manner provided in Section 364 of the Criminal Procedure Code: and that, for this reason, it is inadmissible in evidence [vide Queen Empress v. Viran 2 Weir 125,3. It appears that Exhibit A was recorded in the course of an investigation by the Police of a charge under Section 373 of the Indian Penal Code against one M. Subba Rao. This man was said to have practically purchased a certain minor girl, Venkamma, for purposes of prostitution and to have had her kannarikam ceremony performe...
Duraiswami Reddiar Vs. Rajagopala Reddiar and Govinda Reddiar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-28-1916
Reported in: 34Ind.Cas.712
1. The elaborate argument addressed to us by Mr. Venkatarama Sastriar may be shortly disposed of. The partition-deed is silent regarding the paddy which is now sought to be divided. Consequently evidence is admissible under Clause (2) of Section 92 of the Indian Evidence Act. We do not accede to the contention that the use of the expression moveables in connection with live stock makes it clear that even paddy was divided.2. As regards the argument that the document is registered and contains a clause of mutual release between the parties and that, therefore, oral evidence is not admissible to add to its terms, it is enough to say that it is well settled that notwithstanding the apparent tenor of a deed of partition, it is open to parties to prove either that the partition was incomplete or that certain properties were left out for future division.3. The decisions in Fathuma Bivi Ammal v. Hanumantha Row 17 M.L.J. 296 and Lachmi Chand Jhawar v. Hemendra Prosad Ghosh 18 C.W.N. 1260, to w...
Nallapparaju Yenkataramaraju Vs. Medisetti Achayya and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-28-1916
Reported in: 33Ind.Cas.824
Oldfield, J.1. Following Rama Iyer v. Venkatachala Padayachi 30 M.S 311 we must treat these proceedings under Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as of a criminal, not of a civil, nature and apply to them the criminal law of procedure. The Code of Criminal Procedure does not authorise an order for payment of costs in this connection, and it is not possible to justify one with reference to any inherent power of the Court. The Lower Court's order for payment of costs is, therefore, unsustainable and is set aside.Sadasiva Aiyar, J.2. I agree and only wish to add that this petition itself should, in my opinion, have been filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and not under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. I' respectfully dissent from the dictum in In re Chennanagoud 26 M.A 139....
Subbai Goundan Vs. Palani Goundan and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-24-1916
Reported in: 34Ind.Cas.825; (1916)30MLJ607
1. The facts which have given rise to this appeal may be shortly stated. The appellant who had obtained a subsequent possessory mortgage from 2nd defendant sued to redeem a prior possessory mortgage Ex. I dated, 7th April 1903 for Rs. 1,000, in favour of the 1st defendant (1st respondent). The document provided that the principal amount was payable on 7th April 1910, and 'that in default of payment within the prescribed time the amount was repayable with interest at 4 annas per Rs. 100 per mensem from the date of expiry.'2. On 28th May 1910 the appellant deposited Rs. 1,004-2-0 in Court under Section 83 of the Transfer of Property Act. 1st respondent was served with notice of the deposit but he did not appear and admittedly the money was not drawn from Court; the petition under Section 83 of the Transfer of Property Act was dismissed on 21-6-10.3. On 17th September 1912 the appellant instituted the present suit in which he claimed Rs. 600, as mesne profits for two years, (May 1910 to M...
Penugonda Rattam and anr. Vs. Korasika Thatha and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-24-1916
Reported in: 35Ind.Cas.237; (1916)31MLJ90
1. The question for decision in this appeal is whether the execution applications E.P. No. 776 of 1912 and 800 of 1913 were made to the proper Court so as to save limitation. The decree in the suit was passed by the District Munsif's Court of Rajamundry on September 22nd 1903. In 1905 the jurisdiction over the village Tadimella where the plaint property was situated was transferred to the Tanuku Munsif's Court. The decree so far as the delivery of the property was concerned was executed in 1908 in the Tanuku Munsif's Court. On 4th May 1912 the jurisdiction was again transferred from the Tanuku Court to the Kovvur Munsif's Court. 'The original decree holder presented the application (E.P. No. of 1912) and his heirs presented the application (E.P. No. 800 of 1913) in respect of the unsatisfied portion of the decree for mesne profits and costs to the Rajamundry Munsif's Court on 20-9-12 and 1-8-1913 respectively. In the first petition, the decree holder merely asked for transmission of th...
Sri Ravu Seshayya Garu Vs. the Rajah of Pittappur, Sri Raja Ravu Venka ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-24-1916
Reported in: 34Ind.Cas.730; (1916)31MLJ214
Sadasiva Aiyar, J.1. The defendant is the appellant. The suit was brought by his landlord (the Rajah of Pittapuram) for recovering the plaint land which had been enjoyed by the defendent as pasture land from 1877. The plaintiff did not state in his plaint whether the land was (a) Private home-farm land of the Zamindar, or (b) old waste being ryoti land, or (c) old waste which was not ryoti land, or (d) other non-ryoti land. Nor did he say whether the defendant was a ryot. He contended himself with saying that the land was pas-ture land and that the defendant obtained the land every year on cowle for that year for the purpose of grazing cattle.2. The defendant contended that the land was ryoti land that the defendant has been enjoying the land ' as it suited him ' and not merely as pasture land and that the defendant had therefore occupancy right in the land. The defendant did not expressly state that he was a ' ryot' within the definition of the term in the Estates Land Act.3. On the a...
Balusu Veeraraghavalu and ors. Vs. Boppna Manikyam and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-23-1916
Reported in: 35Ind.Cas.92; (1916)31MLJ380
Seshagiri Aiyar, J.1. The facts of the case are practically undisputed. The father-in-law of the 1st defendant purchased from a Hindu widow certain properties. He gave them in exchange for some other properties to the brother of the 1st plaintiff. A reversioner of the Hindu widow sued to set aside the original alienation. After some contest, the plaintiffs entered into a compromise with him by which they retained a portion of the properties exchanged on payment of a further consideration to the reversioner. There is no question of want of honesty or of diligence on the part of the plaintiffs in entering into this compromise. The Subordinate Judge has found that point in favour of the plaintiffs.2. The suit is brought in the alternative either for the restoration of the lands which the 1st plaintiff's brother gave in exchange or for compensation for breach of warranty of title. In this second appeal we are only concerned with the second relief. The exchange is evidenced by an unregister...
Chundury Krishnayya, Having Died His Wife and Legal Representative Chu ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-22-1916
Reported in: 35Ind.Cas.154; (1916)31MLJ39
Moore, J.1. The facts which have given rise to these appeals are as follows. In execution of the decree in O.S. No. 759 of 1905 in the District Munsiff's Court of Tanuku obtained by one Gade Somanna against two minors named Venkamma and Nagamma and one Kotayya, the husband of the minor Nagamma on a pronote executed by Kotayya, the first defendant in the suit and the guardian of the minors, certain properties were sold and purchased in court auction by the appellant. The decree in O.S. 759 of 1905 was passed on 20-4-06. On 30-8-06 the defendants preferred a joint appeal A.S. No. 291 of 1906 to the Sub-Court, Ellore. At the time of the presentation of the appeal the minors were represented by their maternal grand-mother Satamma as guardian ad litem. Satamma, it appears died on 24-9-06 but this fact was not brought to the notice of the Court. On 6-3-07 the Subordinate Judge of Ellore directed that the evidence of a witness named Sitaramayya who had been summoned by the defendants but had ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »