Chennai Court December 1923 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: Muthiah Chetty
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-11-1923
Reported in: 81Ind.Cas.44
ORDERWallace, J.1. No Magistrate or Court can refuse to allow an accused person to cross-examine prosecution witnesses, before charge is framed, and the Magistrate's procedure in refusing to allow such cross-examination was most irregular and in contravention of the law. Without going into the larger question whether that procedure has rendered illegal the charge framed on evidence so irregularly taken, I consider that the fairest course to the accused is to cancel the charge and direct that the cross-examination of the witnesses be now permitted. I direct accordingly....
In Re: Tadi Soma Naidu and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-07-1923
Reported in: (1924)ILR47Mad428
Odgers, J.1. In this case accused 1 and 3 were convicted by the first-class Magistrate of Yellamanchili, of forgery for the purpose of cheating (section 468, Indian Penal Code) and sentenced to imprisonment till the rising of the Court--also first accused was ordered to pay a fine of Rs. 300 with three months' rigorous imprisonment in default, and third accused was fined Rs. 150 with two months' rigorous imprisonment in default. On appeal, the Sessions Judge of Vizagapatam confirmed the convictions and sentences. The case was taken up in revision by Devadoss, J., on the ground that the Magistrate had no jurisdiction to try the case. The case came on for hearing on 27th September 1923 before Krishnan, J., who held that the conviction was correct but enhanced the sentences on each accused to six months' rigorous imprisonment retaining the sentences of fine. Mr. T.S. Anantaraman, Vakil for first accused stated he had no instructions and first accused did not appear in person. Third accuse...
Arumuga Goundan and ors. Vs. Periavanjiappa Goundan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-07-1923
Reported in: 78Ind.Cas.76; (1924)46MLJ348
Spencer, J.1. In O.S. 476 of 1921 it was decided that the decree in O.S. 559 of 1919 was not binding on the minors because they were not validly represented in the earlier suit, the guardian appointed by the Court not having consented to act as guardian and not having appeared for them at the trial.2. The decree in O.S. 479 simply declared that the decree in O.S. 559 was not binding on the minors, and in this respect it was in accordance with what, in the view of the Privy Council in Monohar Lal v. Jadunath Singh 28 A.586 9 : 4 C.L.J. 8 : 8 Bom. L.R. 489 : 10 C.W.N. 898 : 9 O.C. 219 : 1 M.L.T. 210 : 16 M.L. 3. 291 : 3 A.L.J. 710 : 33 I.A. 128 , was a proper decree, viz., that it would be sufficeint in such a case to remit the parties to their original rights without declaring that the earlier suit would have to be tried afresh.3. In the judgment in O.S. 479 there is an observation that O.S. 559 will have to be revived as against these minor plaintiffs, and the District Munsif has now, ...
Rukmani Ammal Vs. Narasimhachariar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-07-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Mad696; 78Ind.Cas.173; (1924)46MLJ285
Waller, J.1. The question for deoisionis as to the proper construction of a partition-deed executed by two step-sisters. They inherited the properties of their father after the death of his widow. The moveable properties they divided without a deed and the immoveable properties by the deed in question. Nine years later, one of them, Janaki by name, died leaving a Will in favour of the plaintiff. The Will is disputed by the other sister who claims the property by right of survivorship. The partition deed is Ex. A. It refers to the fact that the moveable properties had already been divided, allots a decree to one sister and an usufructuary mortgage to the other and divides the immoveable properties between them. It oloses with the sentence.Henoeforth the only relationship between us will be one Of friendship and not of property. 'The question is whether they intended by this expression to exclude the right of succession by survivorship. It is argued that their intention was merely to giv...
Kandasami Goundan and anr. Vs. Subbai Goundan and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-06-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Mad646; (1924)46MLJ345
Krishnan, J.1. The question that has been raised in this Civil Revision Petition is one of jurisdiction. The suit is brought for possession of a plot of land which forms part of a zamindari estate, by one ryot against another and the question which arose and which was tried as a preliminary point by the first Court was, ' Is the suit properly valued for purposes of Court-fee and jurisdiction? ' The District Munsif held that Section 7 (v) (d) of the Court Fees Act applied as the land formed part of an estate paying revenue to Government but was not a definite share of such an estate and was not separately assessed as mentioned in Clauses (a) to (c), and that therefore court-fee should be paid on the market value of the land. But, without fixing the market value, he directed the plaint to be amended and the ad valorem court-fee to be paid on such value. That order was not obeyed and, instead of rejecting the plaint, what he did was this. He considered that the market value of the land pl...
In Re: Thurman
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-06-1923
Reported in: 81Ind.Cas.908
1. It is clear that no reasons have been given in the judgment of the Magistrates. This is contrary to Section 263 (h) of the Criminal Procedure Code. Honorary Magistrates are constantly being reminded of their obligations in this respect and we again call their attention to the requirements of the Code. No statement has been received from the Magistrates under Section 441, Criminal Procedure Code. Honorary-Magistrates as Presidency Magistrates are governed also by Section 370 (i) in cases where imprisonment is inflicted. The omission of reasons for the conviction is, no doubt, an irregularity. The only question is whether the irregularity has prejudiced the accused. In re Dervish Hussain 71 Ind. Cas. 212 : 46 M. 253 : 17 L.W. 18 : 4 M.L.J. 84; A.I.R. (1923) (M.) 185 : 32 M.L.T. 100 : 24. Cr. L.J. 84, the judgment of one of us (Wallace, J.), it was held that a conviction passed without reasons when no evidence is recorded is very different from a case where as here evidence is recorded...
The Public Prosecutor Vs. Palathingal Valia Peekikakkal Mahamad
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-06-1923
Reported in: 84Ind.Cas.547
1. We agree with the Sessions Judge in thinking it doubtful and arguable whether the part taken by the accused amounted to waging war under a, 121, Indian Penal Code. We have purposely not entered into the merits of the case on the evidence, but the Sessions Judge finds that the accused had only a stick, he was not otherwise armed or dressed in uniform. We do not for a moment suppose that he was as alleged, innocently walking along the road, but the Police after killing or wounding other Mappillas forced the mob to retire, and the mob then dropped their weapons and 38 of them were arrested. This is admittedly the first incident in the rebellion and we do not express an opinion that it was or was not an act of war. We think it doubtful, and we think the accused is entitled to the benefit of that doubt Further the accused was summarily convicted by a Magistrate having no jurisdiction on 6th September 1921 under Section 149 as far as we can make out from the vague judgment of the Magistra...
The Public Prosecutor Vs. Palathingal Valia Peedikakkal Muhamad
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-06-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Mad768
Odgers, J.1. We agree with the Sessions Judge in thinking it doubtful and arguable whether the part taken by the accused amounted to waging war, under Section 121, Indian Penal Code. We hare purposely not entered into the merits of the case on the evidence; but the Sessions Judge finds that the accused had only a stick; he was not otherwise armed or dressed in uniform. We do not for a moment suppose that he was as alleged innocently walking along the the road; but the police after killing or wounding other Moppilas forced the mob to retire and the mob then dropped their weapons and 38 of them were arrested. This is admittedly the first incident in the rebellion and we do not express an opinion that it was or was not an act of war. We think it doubtful, and we think the accused is entitled to the benefit of that doubt. Further the accused was summarily convicted by a magistrate having no jurisdiction on 6th September, 1921,under Section 149, as far as we can make out, from the vague jud...
W.H. Nurse Vs. Rustomji Dorabji
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-05-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Mad670(1); (1924)46MLJ353
Walter Salis Schwabe, K.C., C.J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment of Coutts Trotter, J., in an action for malicious prosecution. He found for the plaintiff with Rs. 35,000 damages. The defences set up were that there was no malice and that there was reasonable and probable cause for the prosecution. As regards the latter point, I entirely agree with what was said by the learned Judge that there was no reasonable and probable cause for this prosecution. In considering that, I consider what the position was of the plaintiff in respect of the charge made against him in the Criminal Court, and I am quite satisfied that there was no ground at all for even suggesting that he had been guilty of any criminal offence. No criminal offence, in fact, had been committed, and I can see no reason at all for suggesting that Mr. Nurse, the defendant, really had any reasonable ground for thinking that a criminal offence had been committed.2. On the other part of the case, namely, whether there was ma...
Kanna Panikkar and ors. Vs. Nanchan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-05-1923
Reported in: (1924)46MLJ340
Phillips, J.1. It has been held in Chandu v. Kambi (1885) I.L.R. 9 M 308 , Unni v. Kunchiamba ILR(1890) M 26 and followed in Chappan v. Paru ILR (1912) M 420 that the members of a tarwad need not sue to set aside an alienation by the Karnavan but can sue to recover possession on the strength of title. In the latter case one ground for the decision was that the alienation though not binding on the tarwad might be binding on the karnavan. In this view Article 91 of the Indian Limitation Act would not be applicable to the present case, but it is argued that in as much as the karnavathi purported to execute the document not only as karnavathi, but also as guardian of the minor plaintiffs, consequently the minors are parties to the document, and as such are bound to set it aside before recovering the property. But can it be said that minors are parties in that sense? It has been held in the case of Hindu Mitakshara families that sons when minors are represented in a document through their g...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »