Skip to content


Seth Daulatram Lakhani Vs. Chairman, Gauripur Town Committee and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtSupreme Court of India
Decided On
Judge
Reported in1980Supp(1)SCC766; 1979(11)LC410(SC)
AppellantSeth Daulatram Lakhani
RespondentChairman, Gauripur Town Committee and anr.
Excerpt:
- indian stamp act (2 of 1899), section 2(24) & articles 58& 64: [r.v. raveendran & j.m. panchal, jj] stamp duty - whether the instrument in question which answers the description of 'trust deed', will also answer the description of "settlement deed", and if so whether stamp duty is payable on the instrument, under article 58 of schedule i-b to the act? property owned by three brothers -they framed a religious and charitable trust and transferred their property to trust held, instrument would come within definition of "settlement" under section 2(24) and chargeable with stamp duty under article 58. section 2(24): settlement held, non-testamentary disposition in writing, either of moveable or immovable property made for any religious or charitable purpose is a settlement...........within the notified area of the municipality, so as to amount to an encroachment. pw 1 who is the municipal town committee overseer has not at all stated that this brick kiln feel in the notified area of the municipality. on the other hand, the witness in cross examination stated thus:we have not furnished any area of our encroached land in this case. no material also was placed in this case to show that the land encroached is within our municipality.from the statement of this witness it is manifest that the prosecution did not furnish any area of encroached land nor any material to show that the land encroached was within the municipality. in this view of the matter, the prosecution launched against the appellant was completely misconceived. we, therefore, allow the appeal, set aside.....
Judgment:

S. Murtaza Fazal Ali, J.

1. This appeal must succeed on a very short point. Apart from the question of the application of the Act or the Amended Act or Notification, it appears that no notification was produced before the Court that the Brick Kiln put up by the appellant was on a land within the notified area of the municipality, so as to amount to an encroachment. PW 1 who is the Municipal Town Committee Overseer has not at all stated that this Brick Kiln feel in the notified area of the Municipality. On the other hand, the witness in cross examination stated thus:

We have not furnished any area of our encroached land in this case. No material also was placed in this case to show that the land encroached is within our Municipality.

From the statement of this witness it is manifest that the prosecution did not furnish any area of encroached land nor any material to show that the land encroached was within the municipality. In this view of the matter, the prosecution launched against the appellant was completely misconceived. We, therefore, allow the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence passed on the appellant and acquit the appellant of the charges framed against him. The fine, if paid, be refunded.


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