Skip to content


In Re: Shankar Sadashiv Katre - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtMumbai
Decided On
Case NumberCriminal Application for Revision No. 374 of 1912
Judge
Reported in(1913)15BOMLR329; 20Ind.Cas.224
AppellantIn Re: Shankar Sadashiv Katre
DispositionApplication dismissed
Excerpt:
.....criminal procedure code, 1898, a magistrate is to inquiring into disputed rights of the use of 'land and water, ' which expression does not include a 'privy.' - indian succession act (39 of 1925), section 63: [s.b. sinha & cyriac joseph, jj] will validity - deceased, was a very wealthy person - he floated several companies - he left behind his daughters, s and j - he was suffering from various diseases including some neurological ones - for his treatment, he used to frequently visit united states of america accompanied by his wife and daughter - by reason of a will, he is said to have bequeathed 50% of his property to s and 50% to j in a letter addressed to the 1st respondent, viz., s, he is purported to have recorded that the he had given all his shares to her - will was not only..........that section that a magistrate is restricted to inquiring into disputed rights of the use of ' land and water ', including easements etc., over the same as expressly stated in the section. we cannot read into those words any more than they naturally contain, and we cannot hold that a 'privy' is either 'land' or 'water' or that the use of it is an easement over the same. we think, therefore, that the magistrate was in error in adopting the course he did. it is a very natural error considering that the complainant sought three reliefs, two of which could properly have been granted under the section. it is a very open question whether the third relief might not have been granted under section 145, although the policy underlying this part of the law might supply objections to that.....
Judgment:

Beaman, J.

1. In our opinion the language of. 147 of the Criminal Procedure Code is plain enough. We think under that section that a Magistrate is restricted to inquiring into disputed rights of the use of ' land and water ', including easements etc., over the same as expressly stated in the section. We cannot read into those words any more than they naturally contain, and we cannot hold that a 'privy' is either 'land' or 'water' or that the use of it is an easement over the same. We think, therefore, that the Magistrate was in error in adopting the course he did. It is a very natural error considering that the complainant sought three reliefs, two of which could properly have been granted under the section. It is a very open question whether the third relief might not have been granted under Section 145, although the policy underlying this part of the law might supply objections to that course. However that may be, after thus expressing our opinion upon the state of the law, we think that this is a case in which we need not interfere in criminal revision. That is a matter entirely for the discretion of the Court, and here, we think, we should best use that discretion by leaving the Magistrate's order where it is.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //