Chennai Court November 1919 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.
Gandi Appa Razu Vs. King-emperor
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-11-1919
Reported in: (1920)ILR43Mad330
Krishnan, J.1. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner the first accused, that the learned Sessions Judge had no jurisdiction to order his committal to the Sessions on charges under Sections 147 and 304, Indian Penal Code, and that his order to that effect must be set aside.2. As regards the charge under Section 147, Indian Penal Code, we think the contention is well-founded, as the accused was acquitted by the Sub-Magistrate on that charge, under Section 258, Criminal Procedure Code. So long as that order of acquittal stands, he cannot be again charged and tried for that offence on the same facts. Section 403, Criminal Procedure Code, is a bar to it. It was not open to the Sessions Judge to set aside that acquittal, or to treat it merely as an order of discharge as he seems to have done. His order so far as it refers to Section 147, Indian Penal Code, must therefore be set aside.3. But the charge under Section 304, Indian Penal Code, stands on a different tooting. Though the compl...
In Re: Karuppiah Pillai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-11-1919
Reported in: 54Ind.Cas.404
ORDER1. There is something more than a mere technicality in the objection raised by Mr. Richmond in the petition. Originally the case was tried by the 2nd Glass Magistrate of Madura but he, having been of opinion that the deceased should be required to execute bonds under Section 106, Criminal Procedure Code, sent the case to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Melar under Section 349, Criminal Procedure Code. The reason given by the 2nd Class Magistrate for submitting the proceedings to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate are; ' The accused have created serious disturbance by taking the law into their own hands and their object in forcibly entering into the temple is to establish their rights. I find the accused Nos. 2, 5, 6, 7 and 8 guilty of the offences under Sections 147 and 323, Indian Penal Code. I think that the accused are likely to commit further breaches of the peace and I am of opinion that they ought to be required to execute a bond for a heavy sum under Section 106, Criminal Proce...
Varanasi Subbayya and ors. Vs. Varanasi Somalingam and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-07-1919
Reported in: (1920)43MLJ491
1. The facts are not in dispute. The plaintiffs and the defendants are joint owners of a lane. The lane is 10 feet in breadth. The defendants, on that portion of it, which adjoins their house have put up two pials and steps thereby encroaching upon the common lane to the extent of one foot in breadth. The plaintiffs brought the suit for a mandatory injunction for the removal of these obstructions. The District Munsiff dismissed the suit on the ground that the lane was a public one and that the plaintiffs have no right of action. The Subordinate Judge has held that the lane is the common private property of the plaintiffs and defendants and has given a decree for demolishing the steps and pials. The learned Vakil for the appellants argues that on these facts the plaintiffs are not entitled to a mandatory injunction. He strongly relies upon the observations of Mookerjee, J., in Ananda Chandra Sen v. Parbatinath Sen (1906) Cri.L.J. 205 where the learned Judge points out that in cases wher...
Basavaraju Pitchaya Vs. the Secretary of State for India in Council, R ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-07-1919
Reported in: 58Ind.Cas.713
1. The question in this case is, whether the Government is entitled to enfranchise certain lands in a Zemindari. These lands were at the inception, Karnam service Inam lands. In 1854, when an account was taken of the properties in the Zemindari, it was not denied by the persons in possession that they appertained to the Karnam service. The lower Courts have, on these and other facts some to the conclusion that the Inam was continued by the Government within the meaning of Section 17 of Act II of 1894, in lieu of services to be rendered as Karnam. This conclusion is attacked by Mr. Ramadoss with reference to certain observations of Sundara Aiyar, J. in Secretary of State v. Chinnapragada Bhanumurty 17 Ind. Cas. 373 : 24 M.L.J. 538. We shall consider how far that dictum affects the present case. As was pointed out by the learned Government Pleader, if before a Sannad is granted under Regulation XXV of 1802, certain lands were found to appertain to village services, the Government, by vir...
Varnasi Subbayya and ors. Vs. Varnasi Somalingam and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-07-1919
Reported in: 55Ind.Cas.643
1. The facts are not in dispute. The plaintiffs and the defendants are joint owners of a lane. The lane is 10 feet in breadth. The defendants, on that portion of it which adjoins their house, have put up two pials and steps, thereby encroaching upon the common lane to the extent of one foot in breadth. The plaintiffs brought the suit for a mandatory injunction for the removal of these obstructions. The District Munsif dismissed the suit on the ground that the lane was a public one and that the plaintiffs have no right of action. The Subordinate Judge has held that the lane is the common private property of the plaintiffs and defendants and has given a decree for demolishing the steps and pials. The learned Vakil for the appellants argued that on these facts the plaintiffs are not entitled to a mandatory injunction. He strongly relies upon the observation of Mookerjee, J., in Ananda Chandra Sen v, Parbati Nath Sen 4 C.L.J. 198 where the learned Judge points out that, in cases where prop...
Mr. R.P. Gill Vs. Lingamallu Varada Raghavayya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-06-1919
Reported in: (1920)38MLJ92
1. In this case the plaintiff sues for partition of certain immoveable property of which he alleges he is in possession as a co-tenant on behalf of himself and the other co-tenants. This is not a suit to enforce a right to share in the possession of property on the ground that it is joint family property within the meaning of Section 7(IV)(b) of the Court Fees Act VII of 1870 and therefore the question of the applicability of that sub-section to suits for the partition of joint family property which was decided by a Full Bench of this Court in Rangiah Chetty v. Subramania Chetty (1910) 21 M.L.J. 21 does not arise.2. There is a long course of decisions in Calcutta that a suit such as the present for a partition by a plaintiff alleging himself to be already in joint possession is incapable of valuation within the meaning of Schedule II Article 17(6) and is not governed by Clause V of Section 7 and though the point was not expressly decided by the Full Bench in the case reported in Rangia...
R.P. Gill Vs. L. Varadaraghavayya and Twelve ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-06-1919
Reported in: (1920)ILR43Mad396
John Wallis, Kt. C.J.1. In this case the plaintiff sues for partition of certain immoveable property, of which he alleges he is in possession as a co-tenant on behalf of himself and the other co-tenants. This is not a suit to enforce a right to share in the possession of property on the ground that it is joint family property within the meaning of Section 7(iv)(6) of the Court Fees Act (VII of 1870), and therefore the question of the applicability of that sub-section to suits for the partition of joint family property, which was decided by a Full Bench of this Court in Rangiah Chetty v. Subramania Chetty : (1911)21MLJ21 , does not arise.2. There is a long course of decisions in Calcutta that a suit, such as the present, for a partition by a plaintiff alleging himself to be already in joint possession is incapable of valuation within the meaning of Schedule II, Article 17(6), and is not governed by Clause (v) of Section 7, and, though the point was not expressly decided by the Full Benc...
Ottaparakkal Thazhath Soopi Vs. Charichal Pallikkal Mariyamma and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-05-1919
Reported in: (1920)38MLJ207
1. This is a suit for redemption brought by junior members of what is termed a strisothu Tarwad, the manager of which is a woman called a Karnavathi and the members of which are governed by Marumakkathayam Law. The suit has been decreed, and the first question before us is whether the plaintiffs had a right to maintain it. As laid down in Vasudevan v. Sankaraw I.L.R.(1897) M. 129 and numerous other decisions, a Karnavan is at once the manager and the mouthpiece of the tarwad, or in the words of Mr. Justice Holloway ' a Malabar family speaks through its head the Karnavan and in Courts of Justice except in antagonism to that head can speak in no other way.'2. So although we might be prepared to hold that junior members of such a family were, generally speaking, persons having an interest in tarwad property within the meaning of Section 91, Transfer of Property Act, where the individual right of suit from the point of view of the personal law of the parties is in question, we are fully in...
Muthusami Gurukkal Vs. Meenammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-05-1919
Reported in: (1920)38MLJ291
Seshagiri Aiyar, J.1. The facts on which we have to give our decision are now undisputed. Gangadara was entitled to an Archaka service in a temple. He was sane at birth, but subsequently became insane. He had an only son, Subbiah. After the son attained majority, the father became insane and died in 1880 without recovering sanity. Subbiah, during this period was in sole possession of the Archaka Office. He predeceased his father. (It is said that he died in 1874). Subbiah left a widow Kuppammal who died in 1911. Gangadara's widow Pappammal died in 1912. Plaintiff sues as reversioner of Subbiah, the son. Defendants are the daughter and grandsons of Gangadara. They are sister and sister's sons of Subbiah. If the property belonged to Subbiah, the defendants being only the sister and sister's sons of the owner will be excluded by the plaintiff. If, on the other hand, Gangadara was the owner at the time of his death, the defendants as his daughter and daughter's sons would exclude the plain...
Velu Padayachi Alias Sadaya Padayachi Vs. Arumugam Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-05-1919
Reported in: 56Ind.Cas.481; (1920)38MLJ397
Spencer, J.1. The properties in suit were attached and brought to sale in execution of a simple money-decree After that decree was passed, the judgment-debtor (1st defendant) , executed a usufructuary mortgage over them in favour of the second defendant in this suit, who in his turn assigned his mortgage rights to the present plaintiff. When the present plaintiff sued to recover possession of the properties on the strength of the mortgage, an objection was raised by the 3rd defendant, who was the auction-purchaser at the sale a in execution of the simple money-decree, that the suit was barred by limitation.2. It appears that the plaintiff's assignor applied a few days before the sale to have the properties sold subject to his mortgage and asked the Court to have it so stated in the sale proclamation. The claim was dismissed as being made too late. The date of the order was 24th August, 1911. The present suit was not instituted till 1916 and is clearly out of time if Article 11 of the L...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »