Phul Singh and ors. Vs. Emperor

Phul Singh and ors. vs Emperor

Type Court Judgment Court Allahabad Decided Nov 22, 1912

~1 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/461368

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/461368
Court: Allahabad
Judge: Tudball, J.
Decided On: Nov 22, 1912
Subject: Land Acquisition

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Penal Code (Act XLV of 1860), Section 379 - Theft--Landlord and tenant jointly cultivating crop--Removal by landlord. - - The case is clearly not one in which the accused could possibly have been convicted of theft.

Key legal issue: Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Phul Singh and ors.

Respondent

Emperor

Legal References

Reported In: 18Ind.Cas.146a

Excerpt

penal code (act xlv of 1860), section 379 - theft--landlord and tenant jointly cultivating crop--removal by landlord. - - the case is clearly not one in which the accused could possibly have been convicted of theft.tudball, j.1. the record of this case has been submitted to this court by the sessions judge, with a recommendation that the convictions and sentences on the accused be set aside. the matter is a dispute between a landlord and a non-occupancy tenant. the tenant's case was that the landlord cut and removed his crops. the landlord's defence was that he removed the crops because he had jointly cultivated the land and was a part owner thereof. there can be very little doubt, as the sessions judge has pointed out, that the accused phul singh did share in the cultivation and, therefore, he must be deemed to have been in possession of the property alleged to have been stolen. the case is clearly not one in which the accused could possibly have been convicted of theft. i, therefore, accept the recommendation of the sessions judge and set aside the convictions and sentence. the fines, if paid, will be refunded. the order for payment of compensation to the complainant is set aside.

Full Judgment

Tudball, J.

1. The record of this case has been submitted to this Court by the Sessions Judge, with a recommendation that the convictions and sentences on the accused be set aside. The matter is a dispute between a landlord and a non-occupancy tenant. The tenant's case was that the landlord cut and removed his crops. The landlord's defence was that he removed the crops because he had jointly cultivated the land and was a part owner thereof. There can be very little doubt, as the Sessions Judge has pointed out, that the accused Phul Singh did share in the cultivation and, therefore, he must be deemed to have been in possession of the property alleged to have been stolen. The case is clearly not one in which the accused could possibly have been convicted of theft. I, therefore, accept the recommendation of the Sessions Judge and set aside the convictions and sentence. The fines, if paid, will be refunded. The order for payment of compensation to the complainant is set aside.

Same Parties Phul Singh and ors. vs Emperor Same Subject Land Acquisition Same Judge Tudball, J.

Land Acquisition