Skip to content


Chaudhri Nand Lal Vs. Emperor - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Judge
Reported in112Ind.Cas.680
AppellantChaudhri Nand Lal
RespondentEmperor
Excerpt:
penal code (act xlv of 1860), sections 441, 447 - agra tenancy act (iii of 1926), sections 91, 95--decree for ejectment--execution of decree before time prescribed by law--re-entry by tenant--tenant, whether guilty of criminal trespass. - .....is not after the first day of june, and, therefore, there could have been no ejectment after the 30th day of june. in reality the ejectment of the applicant was illegal, and an illegal ejectment does not give the zemindar any right of re-entry. i do not see how the zemindar is entitled to possession of the land. as he was not entitled to the possession of the land, nand lal was legally in possession of the land on the 27th of september, 1927, when the present complaint was instituted by the zemindar. under the circumstances, neither under section 95 of the agra tenancy act nor under the general provisions of section 441 of the indian penal code is nand lal guilty of criminal trespass.3. i set aside the conviction and sentence and order the fine, if any recovered, to be refunded.
Judgment:

Dalal, J.

1. Nand Lal, a tenant, has been convicted of an offence under Section 447 of the Indian Penal Code by the trial Court by virtue of the provisions of Section 95 of the new Agra Tenancy Act III of 1926. That Act came into operation on the 7th September, 1926. The Appellate Court has gone further and held that Nand Lal re-entered the land with the intention of annoying the zemindar. Both points will, therefore, have to be considered.

2. Section 95 does not apply. It is definitely stated in that section that the provisions will apply only if a decree for ejectment has been executed under the provisions of that Act. The decree was passed on 16th of April, 1926, and was executed on the 24th November, 1926. Its execution was not in accordance with the law, as laid down in the Act. Section 94 limits the time of execution of a decree for ejectment. It is definitely laid down there that the ejectment shall not take place before the first day of April or after the 20th day of June in any year except when the order for delivery of possession is passed after the first day of June. In the present case we have seen that the order was passed on the 16th of April, that is not after the first day of June, and, therefore, there could have been no ejectment after the 30th day of June. In reality the ejectment of the applicant was illegal, and an illegal ejectment does not give the zemindar any right of re-entry. I do not see how the zemindar is entitled to possession of the land. As he was not entitled to the possession of the land, Nand Lal was legally in possession of the land on the 27th of September, 1927, when the present complaint was instituted by the zemindar. Under the circumstances, neither under Section 95 of the Agra Tenancy Act nor under the general provisions of Section 441 of the Indian Penal Code is Nand Lal guilty of criminal trespass.

3. I set aside the conviction and sentence and order the fine, if any recovered, to be refunded.


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