Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1915Mad229; (1915)ILR38Mad1044
..... bench ruling in queen-empress v. sheik beari i.l.r. (1887) mad 232 the sanctioning of the prosecution of a man for an offence is a judicial act and that act must be performed after forming a judgment upon legal evidence. in that case it was held, as i understand the points on which all the learned judges were agreed ..... order on that ground. i might, however, be permitted to gay that in my opinion section 195 of the criminal procedure code does not stats that the 'authority giving sanction should act only upon legal evidence. so far as the madras cases go, while they say that if the authority giving sanction is a judicial authority it should not grant sanction unless ..... coming to a conclusion whether the complaint was prima facie false, the finding in the connected case will not be evidence under section 11, clause 2, of the evidence act, though it may not be evidence in, the case instituted on that sanction. i do not think that we should be astute to impose more restrictions on the discretion .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 24Ind.Cas.153
Sadasiva Aiyar, J.1. These are appeals by the 2nd and 1st accused respectively against the convictions and sentences passed upon them in Sessions Case No. 57 of 1913 on the file of the Sessions Court of South Malabar. The first accused P.S. Narayana Aiyar was the Head Clerk of the Stationary Sub-Magistrate's Court of Manjeri and the 2nd accused was an attender in that Court between November 1911 and June 1912. They were charged, the 1st accused with having fabricated and forged the bail bond, Exhibit A, and the 2nd accused with the fabrication and forgery and also with abetment of those offences.2. The facts are a little complicated. There was a Calendar Case No. 562 of 1911 in that Court in which the prosecution witness No. 6, Unni Mamu, was the accused and in which prosecution witness No. 7, Kutti Rayan, had stood surety for the 6th witness, Unni Mamu. On the 4th November 1911 this Kutti Rayan, P.W. No. 7, executed the genuine bail bond, Exhibit B, to produce the accused Unni Mamu on...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1914Mad635; (1914)26MLJ429
..... nothing more than a glorifying of himself and of his own professional powers, i may be of opinion that the letter though not in good taste, did not constitute an act of professional misconduct. to my mind, however, the letter is something a great deal more than a statement that it was not true that the relations between the vakil and ..... influence the magistrate by indirect and improper means. if that is the right view of the letter, no one can contend for one moment that it does not constitute an act of professional misconduct on the part of the vakil.5. having arrived at the conclusion that the vakil was guilty of an ..... act of professional misconduct we have considered whether we can accede to the request put forward by mr. parthasarathi iyenger that a caution to the vakil would meet the requirements of .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1915Mad711; (1914)27MLJ156
..... the sovereign, to transmit the custom into positive law'; and concludes that the policy leading to such enactments as the charters of the high court, or the civil courts acts '' proceeded upon the broad, easily recognisable basis of allowing the newly conquered people to retain their domestic usages.' 'the main object was to retain to the whole people ..... furnished by logan's malabar volume i, page 273 to which the judge was entitled to refer in accordance with sections 49, 57 and 32(4) of the evidence act. taking these three facts, subramania aiyar, j. by a process of reasoning in which he also included considerations of principle and of equity and justice came to the ..... cannot review his finding, i think the alleged custom, if it were proved would be reasonable, and certainly it would not be so unreasonable that it could not be acted upon. there can be very few cases, where a custom had been sufficiently proved, in which a court could hold that it was unreasonable; for that it must .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1914)26MLJ600
..... .(c) that the said period consists of a period.i. after 1908 or,ii. partly before and partly after 1908 or,iii within 20 years before the passing of the act i.e. since9. it is the last: requirement of the clause (iii) as stated above that is fatal to the land now in question being considered waste. for though the ..... feel difficulty in understanding under what other description it could have been held to fall.5. another ground taken in argument was that section 6 of the madras estates land act, cannot apply. for this purpose it was contended first that the grantor of exhibit a was not a landholder as defined in section 3(15). the grantor was the 1st ..... to eject him; that there is no ground on which the 2nd defendant could have been held to be a ryot under section 3(15) of the madras estates land act; that assuming that the second defendant could have acquired the status of ryot, he was not admitted as such by the landholder under section 1631) and that in the event .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 24Ind.Cas.822
1. The question in this appeal is whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover from the 19th and 21st defendants the lands referred to in Exhibits II and III and if so, on , what terms. The learned District Munsif held that the plaintiff could recover them but only on re-payment of the consideration for which the sales to the said defendants were respectively made. The learned Subordinate Judge held that the plaintiff was not entitled to recover the lands at all, and the ground on which he proceeded was that the said defendants had made out their title to the lands under Exhibit IV. Exhibit IV refers to a sale on 11th November 1870. This sale was not by the widow but by the previous male owner. Each of these defendants in his written statement alleged that his pre decessor-in-title derived his title from the widow. If Exhibit IV is genuine. (as held by the learned Judge and we are bound by that finding) the question still is whether it refers to the land in question. That it may not re...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 25Ind.Cas.664
..... ;(c) that the said period consists of a period(i) after 1908, or(ii) partly before and partly after 1908, or(iii) within 20 years before, the passing of the act, i.e., since 1888.9. it is the last requirement of the clause (iii) as stated above that is fatal to the land now in question being considered waste. for ..... feel difficulty in understanding under what other description it could have been held to fall.5. another ground taken in argument was that section 6 of the madras estates land act cannot apply. for this purpose it was contended, first, that the grantor of exhibit a was not a landholder as defined in section 3 (15). the grantor was the first ..... to eject him that there is no ground on which the 2nd, defendant could have been held to be a ryot under section 3 (15) of the madras estates land act that assuming that the second defendant could have acquired the status of ryot, he has not been admitted as such by the landholder under section 163 (1), and that in .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1914Mad88; 24Ind.Cas.895; (1914)26MLJ567
..... the amount of such fee is calculated where practicable according to the value of the suit and the amount fixed by the scale of fees framed under the legal practitioners' act, 1879, for the same reason that a second counsel's fee is not always allowed, it is only reasonable that when counsel appears instructed by a vakil the counsel's ..... fee should not be allowed as a matter of course. a vakil can conduct the case alone. he can act and appear and plead, and therefore there is no necessity for him to engage a counsel. he can do the work which an attorney and counsel together can do when ..... .' reading it with the rules 30 to 40 of the appellate side rules, i have no doubt that it only means that a vakil cannot claim anything more for appearing, acting or pleading up to the date of the decree. it may also be pointed out that if rule 41 of the appellate side rules applies it can only operate when .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1915Mad217; (1915)28MLJ669
..... is not a statement relating to the existence of any relationship by blood, marriage or adoption and consequently it is not covered by section 32 clause (5) of the evidence act. illustration (d) to section 32 suggests that a letter containing the date of birth will be receivable in evidence. the words 'relationship by blood, marriage or adoption' ..... learned vakil for the appellant is that that suit was not between the same parties or their representatives in interest under the proviso to section 33 of the evidence act and consequently the depositions given in that case should not be read as evidence in the present case. in that suit the third defendant contested the right of ..... the stanam and i am not inclined to place much reliance upon them. moreover, all of them were made after controversy had begun and it is not safe to act on the statements contained in them. nor am 1 prepared to believe the depositions given by the plaintiff's first, fourth and fifth witnesses. as regards exhibit fff, .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 24Ind.Cas.519
..... is not a statement relating to the existence of any relationship by blood marriage or adoption and consequently it is not covered by section 32 clause (5), of the evidence act. illustration (l) to section 32 suggests that a letter containing the date of birth will be receivable in evidence. the words ' relationship by blood, marriage or adoption' ..... vakil for the appellant is that, that suit was not between the same parties or their representatives in interest under the proviso to section 33 of the evidence act and consequently the depositions given in that case should not be read as evidence in the present case. in that suit the third defendant contested the right of ..... the station and i am not inclined to place much reliance upon them. moreover, all of them were made after controversy had began and it is not safe to act on the statements contained in them. nor am i prepared to believe the depositions given by the plaintiff's first, fourth, and fifth witnesses. as regards exhibit fff, .....
Tag this Judgment!