Skip to content


Emperor Vs. Gopalrao Venkatesh - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtMumbai
Decided On
Case NumberCriminal Revision No. 318 of 1907
Judge
Reported in(1908)10BOMLR285
AppellantEmperor
RespondentGopalrao Venkatesh
Excerpt:
.....code (act xlv of 1860), section 441-criminal trespase-joint owner- possession.; a joint-owner of property is entitled to have joint possession restored to him in a civil court: but he is not justified to take the law into his own hands to recover the possession, and if he does so, he becomes liable for criminal trespass. - maharashtra scheduled castes, scheduled tribes, de-notified tribes (vimukta jatis), nomadic tribes, other backward classes and special backward category (regulation of issuance and verification of) caste certificate act (23 of 2001), sections 6 & 10: [s.b. mhase, a.p. deshpande & p.b. varale, jj] caste certificate petitioner seeking appointment against the post reserved for member of schedule tribe his caste certificate was invalidated subsequently held, his..........his object was to acquire possession of the land from the complainant by insult and annoyance.2. that undoubtedly is an inference of fact which there is evidence to substantiate. we see no error of law to justify us in disturbing that finding. it may be that accused no. 5 has an interest in the property as joint owner, and that he is entitled to possession. and it may be contended on the authority of3. leigh v. jack (1879) 49 l.j.q.b. 220, that he is entitled to have that possession restored to him in a civil court. but nevertheless a person with a right is not justified in taking the law into his own hands and if he does he becomes liable for criminal trespass. 4. for these reasons we discharge the rule.
Judgment:

1. The lower Court of appeal observes that all the witnesses agree in stating that the accused 1 and 2 were not only on the land but they even rushed at the complainant to assault him in co-operation with accused 5 and 6, and that as regards accused 5, he is evidently the chief actor and aggressor. And from that evidence the Court has inferred the petitioner's guilt. That Court finds that the manner in which the petitioner entered on the land in company with eight persons disguised as his tenants or labourers and over-awed the complainant and bullied him and his workmen and tried to expel them shows, that his object was to acquire possession of the land from the complainant by insult and annoyance.

2. That undoubtedly is an inference of fact which there is evidence to substantiate. We see no error of law to justify us in disturbing that finding. It may be that accused No. 5 has an interest in the property as joint owner, and that he is entitled to possession. And it may be contended on the authority of

3. Leigh v. Jack (1879) 49 L.J.Q.B. 220, that he is entitled to have that possession restored to him in a Civil Court. But nevertheless a person with a right is not justified in taking the law into his own hands and if he does he becomes liable for criminal trespass.

4. For these reasons we discharge the rule.


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