Skip to content


(Mullapudi) Rangayya Vs. Emperor - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported inAIR1935Mad3
Appellant(Mullapudi) Rangayya
RespondentEmperor
Cases ReferredL.S. v. Kumud Kaula
Excerpt:
- .....premises and to trespass on the line, as in this case. none of the cases quoted emperor v. lodai 1927 all. 646, bashir ahmad v. emperor 1918 nag. 49 or durrel, l.s. v. kumud kaula 1919 cal. 718 supported this contention. if it were correct, all ticket-holders and passengers can trespass on the line and presumably third class ticket holders can enter first class compartments or first class waiting rooms, while all ticket-holders can get into the single boxes, engine driver's cabin and guard vans. the absurdity of these results shows that lawful entry into one part of the railway does not make entry into every part of a railway lawful. the petition is dismissed.
Judgment:
ORDER

Walsh, J.

1. I have been shown no authority for the petitioner's contention that a lawful entry into one part of the railway as in this case of a passanger with a ticket into the platform, entitles a person to enter on any part of the railway premises and to trespass on the line, as in this case. None of the cases quoted Emperor v. Lodai 1927 All. 646, Bashir Ahmad v. Emperor 1918 Nag. 49 or Durrel, L.S. v. Kumud Kaula 1919 Cal. 718 supported this contention. If it were correct, all ticket-holders and passengers can trespass on the line and presumably third class ticket holders can enter first class compartments or first class waiting rooms, while all ticket-holders can get into the single boxes, engine driver's cabin and guard vans. The absurdity of these results shows that lawful entry into one part of the railway does not make entry into every part of a railway lawful. The petition is dismissed.


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