Skip to content


Kamalammal Vs. Meenakshi Ammal - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtChennai High Court
Decided On
Judge
Reported in1971CriLJ1483
AppellantKamalammal
RespondentMeenakshi Ammal
Excerpt:
- - 1 admitted that she had failed in the civil court......of the immoveable property covered by the suit. the prayer on the part of the accused in the civil suit is for possession of the disputed property. assuming that the facts are proved against the accused that she broke open the lock and got into the upstairs portion, 'even then the trial magistrate erred in not finding that the accused entered into or upon property in the possession of the complainant with intent to commit an offence or to intimidate, insult or annoy any person in possession of such property. such a finding is totally absent. that apart, the undoubted civil right vested in the accused would negative the mens rea which is the essential ingredient of the offence under section 448, ipc the essential ingredient is not proved by the evidence on record. the accused is.....
Judgment:
ORDER

K.N. Mudaliyar, J.

1. It is seen from the judgment that the complainant is the illegitimate daughter of Dhanabagyam. The accused Kamalammal and the complainant Meenakshiammal have litigated in Civil Courts for the title to and possession of the disputed property. The learned Ninth Presidency Magistrate notices in the judgment that P.W. 1 admitted that she had failed in the Civil Court. It is also seen from Ex. D. 1 the suit filed by the accused for the recovery of possession of the property in the occupation of the complainant was decreed in her favour on 28-18-1968. The learned Presidency Magistrate notices that although Civil Courts has given a finding in favour of the accused, it cannot be straightway held that the accused has come into occupation of the immoveable property unless she could show by evidence that after taking necessary legal process in execution of the decree following the judgment of the Civil Court, she had been inducted into possession of the immoveable property covered by the suit. The prayer on the part of the accused in the Civil suit is for possession of the disputed property. Assuming that the facts are proved against the accused that she broke open the lock and got into the upstairs portion, 'even then the trial magistrate erred in not finding that the accused entered into or upon property in the possession of the complainant with intent to commit an offence or to intimidate, insult or annoy any person in possession of such property. Such a finding is totally absent. That apart, the undoubted civil right vested in the accused would negative the mens rea which is the essential ingredient of the offence Under Section 448, IPC The essential ingredient is not proved by the evidence on record. The accused is acquitted. The fine, if paid by the accused, is directed to be refunded to the petitioner.


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