Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Dec-02-1901
Reported in : (1902)ILR29Cal128
Prinsep and Stephen, JJ.1. This is a trial held by the District Magistrate under Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, one of the accused being an European British subject and the others, who were natives of this country, having elected to be tried with him. The District Magistrate has disagreed with the unanimous verdict of the jury on the main points of the case and has referred it to this Court under Section 307 of the Coda of Criminal Procedure.2. The prosecution and the defence have been both represented by learned Counsel, and we have therefore had the advantage of a complete argument on the case. Mr. Pugh who appears for Lyall, a tea planter and an European British subject, contends on the authority of several reported cases that we are bound to act in accordance with the unanimous verdict of the jury, unless it is shown to be perverse or clearly or manifestly wrong. Since those cases, however, the terms of Section 307 of the Code of 1882, under which the most recent of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Dec-13-1901
Reported in : (1902)12MLJ37
1. In the plaint, the plaintiff claims as owner three items of property, each, of which he describes as a plot of certain dimensions with the granite pial built thereon, immediately to the east of his dwelling house and to the west of the street and prays that a permanent injunction may be issued restraining the defendant (the Municipal Council of Madura) 'from interfering with or from causing obstruction to the plaint sites, from removing the granite pials built on the plaint sites or from taking any steps to remove the same.'2. The defendant in his written statement states that the slab-stones which the plaintiff was required to remove, have been only recently put up, that as the defendant has all along been using the drain below the slab-stone, the plaintiff cannot acquire any prescriptive right against the defendant, that the construction in question being admittedly a projection over the drain in front of plaintiff's house, the defendant has every right to remove the same under Se...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Dec-13-1901
Reported in : (1902)ILR25Mad635
Bhashyam Ayyangar, J.1. In the plaint, the plaintiff claims as owner three items of property, each of which he describes as a plot of certain dimensions with the granite pial built thereon, immediately to the east of his dwelling house and to the west of the street and prays that a permanent injunction may be issued restraining the defendant (the Municipal Council of Madura) 'from interfering with or from causing obstruction to the plaint sites, from removing the granite pials built on the plaint sites or from taking any steps to remove the same.'2. The defendant, in his written statement, states that the slab-stones, which the plaintiff was required to remove, have been only recently put up, that as the defendant has all along been using the drain below the slab-stone the plaintiff cannot acquire any prescriptive right against the defendant, that the construction in question, being admittedly a projection over the drain in front of plaintiff's house, the defendant has every right to r...
Tag this Judgment!