Skip to content


Rajathammal Vs. Rajamanikkam Pillay - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported inAIR1922Mad188(1); 68Ind.Cas.38
AppellantRajathammal
RespondentRajamanikkam Pillay
Cases ReferredVile Bisweswar Singh v. Bhola Nath Pathak
Excerpt:
criminal procedure code (act v of 1898), section 522 - criminal force essential to confer jurisdiction--appellate court, finding of, that force not used--possession, order or, reversal of. - orderkumaraswami sastri, j.1. the appellate court reverted the conviction and has found that no criminal forte was used, it ought to have reversed the order directing possession to be given, as the essential ingredient, namely, the use of criminal force, is wanting to give criminal courts jurisdiction to act under section 524. i need only refer to bat(sic)kala pottiavadu, in re 12 m. l. j. 447. if possession has been given, it is the duty of the court to restore the parties to the position in which they were before possession was wrongly given. vile bisweswar singh v. bhola nath pathak 18 c. w. n. 1147.,2. the petitioner will be restored to possession.
Judgment:
ORDER

Kumaraswami Sastri, J.

1. The Appellate Court reverted the conviction and has found that no criminal forte was used, It ought to have reversed the order directing possession to be given, as the essential ingredient, namely, the use of criminal force, is wanting to give Criminal Courts jurisdiction to act under Section 524. I need only refer to Bat(sic)kala Pottiavadu, In re 12 M. L. J. 447. If possession has been given, it is the duty of the Court to restore the parties to the position in which they were before possession was wrongly given. Vile Bisweswar Singh v. Bhola Nath Pathak 18 C. W. N. 1147.,

2. The petitioner will be restored to possession.


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