Skip to content


Sita Ram and ors. Vs. King-emperor - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Reported inAIR1927All52
AppellantSita Ram and ors.
RespondentKing-emperor
Excerpt:
- .....the daughter, son-in-law and the daughter's son of one mt. budhia. who was one of the wives of one bhairon. 'bhairon had lent money to some one, and in execution, of the decree obtained by bhairon the house, which is the subject, of the dispute, was purchased by budhia, and her name appeared in the sale certificate. mr. todar mal and his colleague mr. j.c. kapur with reference to the dakhalnamah have said 'as the original is' not produced we need make no comment upon it. this on the face of it is ridiculous. it has been held by a bench of this court in satnarain dube v. narain bargah [1915] 13 a. l, j. 935 that a dakhalnamah is a public document and its copy is admissible without proof and that was in the year 1915. that law has not been changed since then.3. as regards the sale.....
Judgment:

Banerji, J.

1. This is pre-eminently a case for decision by the civil Court and not by the Criminal Court and although the learned Magistrate who heard the appeal, has taken upon himself the duty, of congratulating Mr. Toder Mal on the judgment', I am unable to congratulate either the District Magistrate on his judgment or the Bench of the Magistrates on their judgment.

2. The accused in this case are the daughter, son-in-law and the daughter's son of one Mt. Budhia. who was one of the wives of one Bhairon. 'Bhairon had lent money to some one, and in execution, of the decree obtained by Bhairon the house, which is the subject, of the dispute, was purchased by Budhia, and her name appeared in the sale certificate. Mr. Todar Mal and his colleague Mr. J.C. Kapur with reference to the dakhalnamah have said 'as the original is' not produced we need make no comment upon it. This on the face of it is ridiculous. It has been held by a Bench of this Court in Satnarain Dube V. Narain Bargah [1915] 13 A. L, J. 935 that a dakhalnamah is a public document and its copy is admissible without proof and that was in the year 1915. That law has not been changed since then.

3. As regards the sale certificate, which has beep ignored by the Courts below, of course, Mr. Todar Mal did not know that Sunder Section 66 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the son of Bhairon cannot be heard to say that Mt. Budhia, the certified purchaser, was not the true owner but that Bhairon had bought the property benami. The sale-deed and the Municipal paper prove nothing. The case really is one in which Jageshar Kalwar, the complainant finding that as he cannot institute a civil suit by reason of Section 66 of the Civil P. C, has attempted to use, the criminal Court as a means to get possession of the house. I am, therefore, of opinion that instead of wasting the time of the criminal Court, Jageshar Kalwar, if he has in any way been dispossessed, should go to a civil Court to get his title and possession, if any, cleared. I, therefore, set aside the conviction and, sentence. The fine, if paid will be refunded.


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