Skip to content


Varadaraja Chettiar Vs. Swami Maistry and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported in(1947)2MLJ179
AppellantVaradaraja Chettiar
RespondentSwami Maistry and ors.
Excerpt:
- .....the acquittal of the accused. they were acquitted of an offence under section 447 of the indian penal code with which they were charged for having carried away the usufruct of a tamarind tree which was in the possession and enjoyment of varadaraja chetty who was examined as p.w, 1 the case. they were also acquitted of the offence under section 426 of the indian penal code for carrying away the stones of the compound wall varada raja chetty filed o.s. no. 174 of 1943 in the district munsiff's court, chingleput, for a declaration of his title to the tamarind tree in question. the suit was dismissed by the district muhsiff but on appeal the district judge set aside the district munsiff's decree and allowed the appeal with the result that the right and title of varadaraja chetty to the.....
Judgment:
ORDER

Yahya Ali, J.

1. This is a revision against the acquittal of the accused. They were acquitted of an offence under Section 447 of the Indian Penal Code with which they were charged for having carried away the usufruct of a tamarind tree which was in the possession and enjoyment of Varadaraja Chetty who was examined as P.W, 1 the case. They were also acquitted of the offence under Section 426 of the Indian Penal Code for carrying away the stones of the compound wall Varada raja Chetty filed O.S. No. 174 of 1943 in the District Munsiff's Court, Chingleput, for a declaration of his title to the tamarind tree in question. The suit was dismissed by the District Muhsiff but on appeal the District Judge set aside the District Munsiff's decree and allowed the appeal with the result that the right and title of Varadaraja Chetty to the tamarind tree was established. In acquitting the accused the Magistrate has completely disregarded the decree of the District Judge in A.S. No. 59 of 1944 declaring Varadaraja Chetty's right to the tree. He has relied however on certain correspondence that went on between the first accused and the revenue authorities after the appellate decree of the Civil Court. A Criminal Court is not entitled to disregard the decree of a Civil Court declaring rights to the identical property in dispute in the criminal case. There is also-a complaint that the stones of a compound wall had been carried away. The evidence is fairly satisfactory with regard to that. The acquittal of the accused under Section 447 of the Indian Penal Code by the Sub-Magistrate is set aside while the acquittal under Section 426 of the Indian Penal Code is not disturbed. The case will be sent back to the District Magistrate, Chingleput, to be sent to a competent Magistrate for retrial and disposal according to law, with regard to the offence under Section 447 of the Indian Penal Code relating to the carrying away of the usufruct of the tamarind tree.


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