In Re: Mullapudi Rangayya

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Aug 30, 1934

~1 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/817559

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/817559
Court: Chennai
Judge: Pakenham Walsh, J.
Decided On: Aug 30, 1934
Subject: Land Acquisition

Case Summary

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

Railway - Trespass--Lawful entry on one part of railway--Entry into other parts, whether lawful--Passenger with ticket--Entry on rail way line. -

Key legal issue: Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

In Re: Mullapudi Rangayya

Legal References

Cases Referred: and Kumud Kanta Chakrabarty v. Emperor
Reported In: 152Ind.Cas.615

Excerpt

railway - trespass--lawful entry on one part of railway--entry into other parts, whether lawful--passenger with ticket--entry on rail way line. - orderpakenham walsh, j.1. i have been shown no authority for the petitioner's contention that a lawful entry on to one part of the railway, as in this case of a passenger with a ticket on to the platform, entitles a person to enter on any part of the railway premises and to trespass on the line as in this case.2. none of the cases quoted emperor v. lodai : air1927 all646 , bashir ahmad v. emperor 48 ind. cas. 898 : 48 ind. cas. 896 and kumud kanta chakrabarty v. emperor 47 ind. cas. 74 : 22 cwn 575 : 19 cri. lj 878 supports this contention.3. if it were correct all ticket-holders and passengers can trespass on the line and presumably third class ticket-holder can enter 1st class compartment or 1st class waiting room while all ticket-holders can get into the signal 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.

Full Judgment

ORDER

Pakenham Walsh, J.

1. I have been shown no authority for the petitioner's contention that a lawful entry on to one part of the railway, as in this case of a passenger with a ticket on to the platform, entitles a person to enter on any part of the railway premises and to trespass on the line as in this case.

2. None of the cases quoted Emperor v. Lodai : AIR1927 All646 , Bashir Ahmad v. Emperor 48 Ind. Cas. 898 : 48 Ind. Cas. 896 and Kumud Kanta Chakrabarty v. Emperor 47 Ind. Cas. 74 : 22 CWN 575 : 19 Cri. LJ 878 supports this contention.

3. If it were correct all ticket-holders and passengers can trespass on the line and presumably third class ticket-holder can enter 1st class compartment or 1st class waiting room while all ticket-holders can get into the signal 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.

Same Parties In Re: Mullapudi Rangayya vs Same Subject Land Acquisition Same Judge Pakenham Walsh, J.

Land Acquisition

In Re: Mullapudi Rangayya

Brief this judgment before chambers

Case Summary

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Legal References

Excerpt

Full Judgment

Pakenham Walsh, J.

Continue Your Research

Brief any judgment in 18 sections.