| SooperKanoon Citation | sooperkanoon.com/808775 |
| Court | Chennai |
| Decided On | Apr-20-1922 |
| Judge | Devadoss, J. |
| Reported in | AIR1923Mad237; 72Ind.Cas.892 |
| Appellant | Maruthayee and ors. |
| Respondent | Appavu Pillai |
Notice (8): Undefined variable: kword [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120]Code Contextecho "<div class='table-bordered'><b>Excerpt:</b><br/>";if (trim($desc['Judgement']['casenote'])) {echo $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['casenote']))), $query);$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Maruthayee and ors Vs Appavu Pillai - Citation 808775 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '808775', 'acts' => '', 'appealno' => '', 'appellant' => 'Maruthayee and ors.', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Maruthayee and ors. Vs. Appavu Pillai', 'casenote' => 'Criminal Procedure Code (Act V of 1898), Section 522--Breaking open loch and taking possession of house, during owner's absence--Order of restoration of possession to owner, whether proper. - - and further this order was passed so far back as the 28th January 1921, and it would not be right to upset an order more than a year, after on the mere technical grounds, even if that be a good one, that the Magistrate should not have passed an order because there was no use of criminal force.', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => '', 'counseldef' => '', 'court' => 'Chennai', 'court_type' => 'PC', 'decidedon' => '1922-04-20', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'Devadoss, J.', 'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">Devadoss, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. In this case the petitioners seek to revise the order of the Second Class Magistrate of Aruppukottai who-convicted them under Section 448 and passed an order under Section 522 of the Criminal Procedure Code. On appeal the conviction was upheld and the order under Section 522 was left undisturbed. This revision petition has been admitted only as regards the order under Section 522, Criminal Procedure Code.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Mr. Pamabhadra Ayyar for the petitioners has addressed a very elaborate argument as regards the question whether an order under Section 522 could be passed when dispossession was not caused by the use of criminal force to any person in possession of the property, and he contended that in this case the complainant was riot dispossessed of the property by the use of criminal force and, therefore, the Magistrate acted without jurisdiction in passing an order under Section 522, Criminal Procedure Code. Without expressing any opinion; on the question of law raised, it is sufficient for the disposal of this case to see what the finding is. In paragraph 6 of the appellate judgment there is a clear finding that the owner was dispossessed by the commission of criminal trespass and the use of criminal force. It is not proper that in revision ordinarily, the Court should go behind the finding of the lower Courts which in this ease is a concurrent one. Even if the contention raised by Mr. Ramabhadra Ayyar is right as regards the question of law, I am not prepared to interfere with the order of the Magistrate as I consider it to be eminently a just order.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The first petitioner who was the wife of the complainant deserted him, according to the evidence, years ago and was leading an immoral life. Taking advantage of his temporary absence from the house, she along with some others broke open the outer lock of the house and entered into unlawful possession of the house, and when the husband returned he was driven out by force. In these circumstances, I consider the order under Section 522, Criminal Procedure Code is a very, proper order to pass; and further this order was passed so far back as the 28th January 1921, and it would not be right to upset an order more than a year, after on the mere technical grounds, even if that be a good one, that the Magistrate should not have passed an order because there was no use of criminal force.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. I dismiss the petition.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => 'AIR1923Mad237; 72Ind.Cas.892', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'Appavu Pillai', 'sub' => '', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'maruthayee-ors-vs-appavu-pillai', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '808775', (int) 1 => 'maruthayee-ors-vs-appavu-pillai' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Maruthayee and ors Vs Appavu Pillai - Citation 808775 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '808775', 'acts' => '', 'appealno' => '', 'appellant' => 'Maruthayee and ors.', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Maruthayee and ors. Vs. Appavu Pillai', 'casenote' => 'Criminal Procedure Code (Act V of 1898), Section 522--Breaking open loch and taking possession of house, during owner's absence--Order of restoration of possession to owner, whether proper. - - and further this order was passed so far back as the 28th January 1921, and it would not be right to upset an order more than a year, after on the mere technical grounds, even if that be a good one, that the Magistrate should not have passed an order because there was no use of criminal force.', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => '', 'counseldef' => '', 'court' => 'Chennai', 'court_type' => 'PC', 'decidedon' => '1922-04-20', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'Devadoss, J.', 'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>Devadoss, J.</p><p>1. In this case the petitioners seek to revise the order of the Second Class Magistrate of Aruppukottai who-convicted them under Section 448 and passed an order under Section 522 of the Criminal Procedure Code. On appeal the conviction was upheld and the order under Section 522 was left undisturbed. This revision petition has been admitted only as regards the order under Section 522, Criminal Procedure Code.</p><p>2. Mr. Pamabhadra Ayyar for the petitioners has addressed a very elaborate argument as regards the question whether an order under Section 522 could be passed when dispossession was not caused by the use of criminal force to any person in possession of the property, and he contended that in this case the complainant was riot dispossessed of the property by the use of criminal force and, therefore, the Magistrate acted without jurisdiction in passing an order under Section 522, Criminal Procedure Code. Without expressing any opinion; on the question of law raised, it is sufficient for the disposal of this case to see what the finding is. In paragraph 6 of the appellate judgment there is a clear finding that the owner was dispossessed by the commission of criminal trespass and the use of criminal force. It is not proper that in revision ordinarily, the Court should go behind the finding of the lower Courts which in this ease is a concurrent one. Even if the contention raised by Mr. Ramabhadra Ayyar is right as regards the question of law, I am not prepared to interfere with the order of the Magistrate as I consider it to be eminently a just order.</p><p>3. The first petitioner who was the wife of the complainant deserted him, according to the evidence, years ago and was leading an immoral life. Taking advantage of his temporary absence from the house, she along with some others broke open the outer lock of the house and entered into unlawful possession of the house, and when the husband returned he was driven out by force. In these circumstances, I consider the order under Section 522, Criminal Procedure Code is a very, proper order to pass; and further this order was passed so far back as the 28th January 1921, and it would not be right to upset an order more than a year, after on the mere technical grounds, even if that be a good one, that the Magistrate should not have passed an order because there was no use of criminal force.</p><p>4. I dismiss the petition.<p></p><p>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => 'AIR1923Mad237; 72Ind.Cas.892', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'Appavu Pillai', 'sub' => '', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'maruthayee-ors-vs-appavu-pillai' $args = array( (int) 0 => '808775', (int) 1 => 'maruthayee-ors-vs-appavu-pillai' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/808775/maruthayee-ors-vs-appavu-pillai' $ctype = ''include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120]criminal procedure code (act v of 1898), section 522--breaking open loch and taking possession of house, during owner's absence--order of restoration of possession to owner, whether proper. - - and further this order was passed so far back as the 28th january 1921, and it would not be right to upset an order more than a year, after on the mere technical grounds, even if that be a good one, that the magistrate should not have passed an order because there was no use of criminal force.Code Contextecho "<div class='table-bordered'><b>Excerpt:</b><br/>";if (trim($desc['Judgement']['casenote'])) {echo $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['casenote']))), $query);$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Maruthayee and ors Vs Appavu Pillai - Citation 808775 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '808775', 'acts' => '', 'appealno' => '', 'appellant' => 'Maruthayee and ors.', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Maruthayee and ors. Vs. Appavu Pillai', 'casenote' => 'Criminal Procedure Code (Act V of 1898), Section 522--Breaking open loch and taking possession of house, during owner's absence--Order of restoration of possession to owner, whether proper. - - and further this order was passed so far back as the 28th January 1921, and it would not be right to upset an order more than a year, after on the mere technical grounds, even if that be a good one, that the Magistrate should not have passed an order because there was no use of criminal force.', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => '', 'counseldef' => '', 'court' => 'Chennai', 'court_type' => 'PC', 'decidedon' => '1922-04-20', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'Devadoss, J.', 'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">Devadoss, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. In this case the petitioners seek to revise the order of the Second Class Magistrate of Aruppukottai who-convicted them under Section 448 and passed an order under Section 522 of the Criminal Procedure Code. On appeal the conviction was upheld and the order under Section 522 was left undisturbed. This revision petition has been admitted only as regards the order under Section 522, Criminal Procedure Code.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Mr. Pamabhadra Ayyar for the petitioners has addressed a very elaborate argument as regards the question whether an order under Section 522 could be passed when dispossession was not caused by the use of criminal force to any person in possession of the property, and he contended that in this case the complainant was riot dispossessed of the property by the use of criminal force and, therefore, the Magistrate acted without jurisdiction in passing an order under Section 522, Criminal Procedure Code. Without expressing any opinion; on the question of law raised, it is sufficient for the disposal of this case to see what the finding is. In paragraph 6 of the appellate judgment there is a clear finding that the owner was dispossessed by the commission of criminal trespass and the use of criminal force. It is not proper that in revision ordinarily, the Court should go behind the finding of the lower Courts which in this ease is a concurrent one. Even if the contention raised by Mr. Ramabhadra Ayyar is right as regards the question of law, I am not prepared to interfere with the order of the Magistrate as I consider it to be eminently a just order.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The first petitioner who was the wife of the complainant deserted him, according to the evidence, years ago and was leading an immoral life. Taking advantage of his temporary absence from the house, she along with some others broke open the outer lock of the house and entered into unlawful possession of the house, and when the husband returned he was driven out by force. In these circumstances, I consider the order under Section 522, Criminal Procedure Code is a very, proper order to pass; and further this order was passed so far back as the 28th January 1921, and it would not be right to upset an order more than a year, after on the mere technical grounds, even if that be a good one, that the Magistrate should not have passed an order because there was no use of criminal force.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. I dismiss the petition.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => 'AIR1923Mad237; 72Ind.Cas.892', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'Appavu Pillai', 'sub' => '', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'maruthayee-ors-vs-appavu-pillai', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '808775', (int) 1 => 'maruthayee-ors-vs-appavu-pillai' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Maruthayee and ors Vs Appavu Pillai - Citation 808775 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '808775', 'acts' => '', 'appealno' => '', 'appellant' => 'Maruthayee and ors.', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Maruthayee and ors. Vs. Appavu Pillai', 'casenote' => 'Criminal Procedure Code (Act V of 1898), Section 522--Breaking open loch and taking possession of house, during owner's absence--Order of restoration of possession to owner, whether proper. - - and further this order was passed so far back as the 28th January 1921, and it would not be right to upset an order more than a year, after on the mere technical grounds, even if that be a good one, that the Magistrate should not have passed an order because there was no use of criminal force.', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => '', 'counseldef' => '', 'court' => 'Chennai', 'court_type' => 'PC', 'decidedon' => '1922-04-20', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'Devadoss, J.', 'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>Devadoss, J.</p><p>1. In this case the petitioners seek to revise the order of the Second Class Magistrate of Aruppukottai who-convicted them under Section 448 and passed an order under Section 522 of the Criminal Procedure Code. On appeal the conviction was upheld and the order under Section 522 was left undisturbed. This revision petition has been admitted only as regards the order under Section 522, Criminal Procedure Code.</p><p>2. Mr. Pamabhadra Ayyar for the petitioners has addressed a very elaborate argument as regards the question whether an order under Section 522 could be passed when dispossession was not caused by the use of criminal force to any person in possession of the property, and he contended that in this case the complainant was riot dispossessed of the property by the use of criminal force and, therefore, the Magistrate acted without jurisdiction in passing an order under Section 522, Criminal Procedure Code. Without expressing any opinion; on the question of law raised, it is sufficient for the disposal of this case to see what the finding is. In paragraph 6 of the appellate judgment there is a clear finding that the owner was dispossessed by the commission of criminal trespass and the use of criminal force. It is not proper that in revision ordinarily, the Court should go behind the finding of the lower Courts which in this ease is a concurrent one. Even if the contention raised by Mr. Ramabhadra Ayyar is right as regards the question of law, I am not prepared to interfere with the order of the Magistrate as I consider it to be eminently a just order.</p><p>3. The first petitioner who was the wife of the complainant deserted him, according to the evidence, years ago and was leading an immoral life. Taking advantage of his temporary absence from the house, she along with some others broke open the outer lock of the house and entered into unlawful possession of the house, and when the husband returned he was driven out by force. In these circumstances, I consider the order under Section 522, Criminal Procedure Code is a very, proper order to pass; and further this order was passed so far back as the 28th January 1921, and it would not be right to upset an order more than a year, after on the mere technical grounds, even if that be a good one, that the Magistrate should not have passed an order because there was no use of criminal force.</p><p>4. I dismiss the petition.<p></p><p>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => 'AIR1923Mad237; 72Ind.Cas.892', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'Appavu Pillai', 'sub' => '', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'maruthayee-ors-vs-appavu-pillai' $args = array( (int) 0 => '808775', (int) 1 => 'maruthayee-ors-vs-appavu-pillai' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/808775/maruthayee-ors-vs-appavu-pillai' $ctype = ''include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
Notice (8): Undefined variable: kword [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123]Code Context}//highest occurence of word in the judgementecho $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['judgement']))), $query) . "</div>";$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Maruthayee and ors Vs Appavu Pillai - Citation 808775 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '808775', 'acts' => '', 'appealno' => '', 'appellant' => 'Maruthayee and ors.', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Maruthayee and ors. Vs. Appavu Pillai', 'casenote' => 'Criminal Procedure Code (Act V of 1898), Section 522--Breaking open loch and taking possession of house, during owner's absence--Order of restoration of possession to owner, whether proper. - - and further this order was passed so far back as the 28th January 1921, and it would not be right to upset an order more than a year, after on the mere technical grounds, even if that be a good one, that the Magistrate should not have passed an order because there was no use of criminal force.', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => '', 'counseldef' => '', 'court' => 'Chennai', 'court_type' => 'PC', 'decidedon' => '1922-04-20', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'Devadoss, J.', 'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">Devadoss, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. In this case the petitioners seek to revise the order of the Second Class Magistrate of Aruppukottai who-convicted them under Section 448 and passed an order under Section 522 of the Criminal Procedure Code. On appeal the conviction was upheld and the order under Section 522 was left undisturbed. This revision petition has been admitted only as regards the order under Section 522, Criminal Procedure Code.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Mr. Pamabhadra Ayyar for the petitioners has addressed a very elaborate argument as regards the question whether an order under Section 522 could be passed when dispossession was not caused by the use of criminal force to any person in possession of the property, and he contended that in this case the complainant was riot dispossessed of the property by the use of criminal force and, therefore, the Magistrate acted without jurisdiction in passing an order under Section 522, Criminal Procedure Code. Without expressing any opinion; on the question of law raised, it is sufficient for the disposal of this case to see what the finding is. In paragraph 6 of the appellate judgment there is a clear finding that the owner was dispossessed by the commission of criminal trespass and the use of criminal force. It is not proper that in revision ordinarily, the Court should go behind the finding of the lower Courts which in this ease is a concurrent one. Even if the contention raised by Mr. Ramabhadra Ayyar is right as regards the question of law, I am not prepared to interfere with the order of the Magistrate as I consider it to be eminently a just order.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The first petitioner who was the wife of the complainant deserted him, according to the evidence, years ago and was leading an immoral life. Taking advantage of his temporary absence from the house, she along with some others broke open the outer lock of the house and entered into unlawful possession of the house, and when the husband returned he was driven out by force. In these circumstances, I consider the order under Section 522, Criminal Procedure Code is a very, proper order to pass; and further this order was passed so far back as the 28th January 1921, and it would not be right to upset an order more than a year, after on the mere technical grounds, even if that be a good one, that the Magistrate should not have passed an order because there was no use of criminal force.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. I dismiss the petition.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => 'AIR1923Mad237; 72Ind.Cas.892', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'Appavu Pillai', 'sub' => '', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'maruthayee-ors-vs-appavu-pillai', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '808775', (int) 1 => 'maruthayee-ors-vs-appavu-pillai' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Maruthayee and ors Vs Appavu Pillai - Citation 808775 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '808775', 'acts' => '', 'appealno' => '', 'appellant' => 'Maruthayee and ors.', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Maruthayee and ors. Vs. Appavu Pillai', 'casenote' => 'Criminal Procedure Code (Act V of 1898), Section 522--Breaking open loch and taking possession of house, during owner's absence--Order of restoration of possession to owner, whether proper. - - and further this order was passed so far back as the 28th January 1921, and it would not be right to upset an order more than a year, after on the mere technical grounds, even if that be a good one, that the Magistrate should not have passed an order because there was no use of criminal force.', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => '', 'counseldef' => '', 'court' => 'Chennai', 'court_type' => 'PC', 'decidedon' => '1922-04-20', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'Devadoss, J.', 'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>Devadoss, J.</p><p>1. In this case the petitioners seek to revise the order of the Second Class Magistrate of Aruppukottai who-convicted them under Section 448 and passed an order under Section 522 of the Criminal Procedure Code. On appeal the conviction was upheld and the order under Section 522 was left undisturbed. This revision petition has been admitted only as regards the order under Section 522, Criminal Procedure Code.</p><p>2. Mr. Pamabhadra Ayyar for the petitioners has addressed a very elaborate argument as regards the question whether an order under Section 522 could be passed when dispossession was not caused by the use of criminal force to any person in possession of the property, and he contended that in this case the complainant was riot dispossessed of the property by the use of criminal force and, therefore, the Magistrate acted without jurisdiction in passing an order under Section 522, Criminal Procedure Code. Without expressing any opinion; on the question of law raised, it is sufficient for the disposal of this case to see what the finding is. In paragraph 6 of the appellate judgment there is a clear finding that the owner was dispossessed by the commission of criminal trespass and the use of criminal force. It is not proper that in revision ordinarily, the Court should go behind the finding of the lower Courts which in this ease is a concurrent one. Even if the contention raised by Mr. Ramabhadra Ayyar is right as regards the question of law, I am not prepared to interfere with the order of the Magistrate as I consider it to be eminently a just order.</p><p>3. The first petitioner who was the wife of the complainant deserted him, according to the evidence, years ago and was leading an immoral life. Taking advantage of his temporary absence from the house, she along with some others broke open the outer lock of the house and entered into unlawful possession of the house, and when the husband returned he was driven out by force. In these circumstances, I consider the order under Section 522, Criminal Procedure Code is a very, proper order to pass; and further this order was passed so far back as the 28th January 1921, and it would not be right to upset an order more than a year, after on the mere technical grounds, even if that be a good one, that the Magistrate should not have passed an order because there was no use of criminal force.</p><p>4. I dismiss the petition.<p></p><p>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => 'AIR1923Mad237; 72Ind.Cas.892', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'Appavu Pillai', 'sub' => '', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'maruthayee-ors-vs-appavu-pillai' $args = array( (int) 0 => '808775', (int) 1 => 'maruthayee-ors-vs-appavu-pillai' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/808775/maruthayee-ors-vs-appavu-pillai' $ctype = ''include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123]orderdevadoss, j.1. in this case the petitioners seek to revise the order of the second class magistrate of aruppukottai who-convicted them under section 448 and passed an order under section 522 of the criminal procedure code. on appeal the conviction was upheld and the order under section 522 was left undisturbed. this revision petition has been admitted only as regards the order under section 522, criminal procedure code.2. mr. pamabhadra ayyar for the petitioners has addressed a very elaborate argument as regards the question whether an order under section 522 could be passed when dispossession was not caused by the use of criminal force to any person in possession of the property, and he contended that in this case the complainant was riot dispossessed of the property by the use of.....Code Context}//highest occurence of word in the judgementecho $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['judgement']))), $query) . "</div>";$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Maruthayee and ors Vs Appavu Pillai - Citation 808775 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '808775', 'acts' => '', 'appealno' => '', 'appellant' => 'Maruthayee and ors.', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Maruthayee and ors. Vs. Appavu Pillai', 'casenote' => 'Criminal Procedure Code (Act V of 1898), Section 522--Breaking open loch and taking possession of house, during owner's absence--Order of restoration of possession to owner, whether proper. - - and further this order was passed so far back as the 28th January 1921, and it would not be right to upset an order more than a year, after on the mere technical grounds, even if that be a good one, that the Magistrate should not have passed an order because there was no use of criminal force.', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => '', 'counseldef' => '', 'court' => 'Chennai', 'court_type' => 'PC', 'decidedon' => '1922-04-20', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'Devadoss, J.', 'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">Devadoss, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. In this case the petitioners seek to revise the order of the Second Class Magistrate of Aruppukottai who-convicted them under Section 448 and passed an order under Section 522 of the Criminal Procedure Code. On appeal the conviction was upheld and the order under Section 522 was left undisturbed. This revision petition has been admitted only as regards the order under Section 522, Criminal Procedure Code.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Mr. Pamabhadra Ayyar for the petitioners has addressed a very elaborate argument as regards the question whether an order under Section 522 could be passed when dispossession was not caused by the use of criminal force to any person in possession of the property, and he contended that in this case the complainant was riot dispossessed of the property by the use of criminal force and, therefore, the Magistrate acted without jurisdiction in passing an order under Section 522, Criminal Procedure Code. Without expressing any opinion; on the question of law raised, it is sufficient for the disposal of this case to see what the finding is. In paragraph 6 of the appellate judgment there is a clear finding that the owner was dispossessed by the commission of criminal trespass and the use of criminal force. It is not proper that in revision ordinarily, the Court should go behind the finding of the lower Courts which in this ease is a concurrent one. Even if the contention raised by Mr. Ramabhadra Ayyar is right as regards the question of law, I am not prepared to interfere with the order of the Magistrate as I consider it to be eminently a just order.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The first petitioner who was the wife of the complainant deserted him, according to the evidence, years ago and was leading an immoral life. Taking advantage of his temporary absence from the house, she along with some others broke open the outer lock of the house and entered into unlawful possession of the house, and when the husband returned he was driven out by force. In these circumstances, I consider the order under Section 522, Criminal Procedure Code is a very, proper order to pass; and further this order was passed so far back as the 28th January 1921, and it would not be right to upset an order more than a year, after on the mere technical grounds, even if that be a good one, that the Magistrate should not have passed an order because there was no use of criminal force.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. I dismiss the petition.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => 'AIR1923Mad237; 72Ind.Cas.892', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'Appavu Pillai', 'sub' => '', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'maruthayee-ors-vs-appavu-pillai', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '808775', (int) 1 => 'maruthayee-ors-vs-appavu-pillai' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Maruthayee and ors Vs Appavu Pillai - Citation 808775 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '808775', 'acts' => '', 'appealno' => '', 'appellant' => 'Maruthayee and ors.', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Maruthayee and ors. Vs. Appavu Pillai', 'casenote' => 'Criminal Procedure Code (Act V of 1898), Section 522--Breaking open loch and taking possession of house, during owner's absence--Order of restoration of possession to owner, whether proper. - - and further this order was passed so far back as the 28th January 1921, and it would not be right to upset an order more than a year, after on the mere technical grounds, even if that be a good one, that the Magistrate should not have passed an order because there was no use of criminal force.', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => '', 'counseldef' => '', 'court' => 'Chennai', 'court_type' => 'PC', 'decidedon' => '1922-04-20', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'Devadoss, J.', 'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>Devadoss, J.</p><p>1. In this case the petitioners seek to revise the order of the Second Class Magistrate of Aruppukottai who-convicted them under Section 448 and passed an order under Section 522 of the Criminal Procedure Code. On appeal the conviction was upheld and the order under Section 522 was left undisturbed. This revision petition has been admitted only as regards the order under Section 522, Criminal Procedure Code.</p><p>2. Mr. Pamabhadra Ayyar for the petitioners has addressed a very elaborate argument as regards the question whether an order under Section 522 could be passed when dispossession was not caused by the use of criminal force to any person in possession of the property, and he contended that in this case the complainant was riot dispossessed of the property by the use of criminal force and, therefore, the Magistrate acted without jurisdiction in passing an order under Section 522, Criminal Procedure Code. Without expressing any opinion; on the question of law raised, it is sufficient for the disposal of this case to see what the finding is. In paragraph 6 of the appellate judgment there is a clear finding that the owner was dispossessed by the commission of criminal trespass and the use of criminal force. It is not proper that in revision ordinarily, the Court should go behind the finding of the lower Courts which in this ease is a concurrent one. Even if the contention raised by Mr. Ramabhadra Ayyar is right as regards the question of law, I am not prepared to interfere with the order of the Magistrate as I consider it to be eminently a just order.</p><p>3. The first petitioner who was the wife of the complainant deserted him, according to the evidence, years ago and was leading an immoral life. Taking advantage of his temporary absence from the house, she along with some others broke open the outer lock of the house and entered into unlawful possession of the house, and when the husband returned he was driven out by force. In these circumstances, I consider the order under Section 522, Criminal Procedure Code is a very, proper order to pass; and further this order was passed so far back as the 28th January 1921, and it would not be right to upset an order more than a year, after on the mere technical grounds, even if that be a good one, that the Magistrate should not have passed an order because there was no use of criminal force.</p><p>4. I dismiss the petition.<p></p><p>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => 'AIR1923Mad237; 72Ind.Cas.892', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'Appavu Pillai', 'sub' => '', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'maruthayee-ors-vs-appavu-pillai' $args = array( (int) 0 => '808775', (int) 1 => 'maruthayee-ors-vs-appavu-pillai' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/808775/maruthayee-ors-vs-appavu-pillai' $ctype = ''include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]ORDERCode Contextecho $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect');}echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Maruthayee and ors Vs Appavu Pillai - Citation 808775 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '808775', 'acts' => '', 'appealno' => '', 'appellant' => 'Maruthayee and ors.', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Maruthayee and ors. Vs. Appavu Pillai', 'casenote' => 'Criminal Procedure Code (Act V of 1898), Section 522--Breaking open loch and taking possession of house, during owner's absence--Order of restoration of possession to owner, whether proper. - - and further this order was passed so far back as the 28th January 1921, and it would not be right to upset an order more than a year, after on the mere technical grounds, even if that be a good one, that the Magistrate should not have passed an order because there was no use of criminal force.', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => '', 'counseldef' => '', 'court' => 'Chennai', 'court_type' => 'PC', 'decidedon' => '1922-04-20', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'Devadoss, J.', 'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">Devadoss, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. In this case the petitioners seek to revise the order of the Second Class Magistrate of Aruppukottai who-convicted them under Section 448 and passed an order under Section 522 of the Criminal Procedure Code. On appeal the conviction was upheld and the order under Section 522 was left undisturbed. This revision petition has been admitted only as regards the order under Section 522, Criminal Procedure Code.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Mr. Pamabhadra Ayyar for the petitioners has addressed a very elaborate argument as regards the question whether an order under Section 522 could be passed when dispossession was not caused by the use of criminal force to any person in possession of the property, and he contended that in this case the complainant was riot dispossessed of the property by the use of criminal force and, therefore, the Magistrate acted without jurisdiction in passing an order under Section 522, Criminal Procedure Code. Without expressing any opinion; on the question of law raised, it is sufficient for the disposal of this case to see what the finding is. In paragraph 6 of the appellate judgment there is a clear finding that the owner was dispossessed by the commission of criminal trespass and the use of criminal force. It is not proper that in revision ordinarily, the Court should go behind the finding of the lower Courts which in this ease is a concurrent one. Even if the contention raised by Mr. Ramabhadra Ayyar is right as regards the question of law, I am not prepared to interfere with the order of the Magistrate as I consider it to be eminently a just order.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The first petitioner who was the wife of the complainant deserted him, according to the evidence, years ago and was leading an immoral life. Taking advantage of his temporary absence from the house, she along with some others broke open the outer lock of the house and entered into unlawful possession of the house, and when the husband returned he was driven out by force. In these circumstances, I consider the order under Section 522, Criminal Procedure Code is a very, proper order to pass; and further this order was passed so far back as the 28th January 1921, and it would not be right to upset an order more than a year, after on the mere technical grounds, even if that be a good one, that the Magistrate should not have passed an order because there was no use of criminal force.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. I dismiss the petition.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => 'AIR1923Mad237; 72Ind.Cas.892', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'Appavu Pillai', 'sub' => '', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'maruthayee-ors-vs-appavu-pillai', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '808775', (int) 1 => 'maruthayee-ors-vs-appavu-pillai' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Maruthayee and ors Vs Appavu Pillai - Citation 808775 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '808775', 'acts' => '', 'appealno' => '', 'appellant' => 'Maruthayee and ors.', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Maruthayee and ors. Vs. Appavu Pillai', 'casenote' => 'Criminal Procedure Code (Act V of 1898), Section 522--Breaking open loch and taking possession of house, during owner's absence--Order of restoration of possession to owner, whether proper. - - and further this order was passed so far back as the 28th January 1921, and it would not be right to upset an order more than a year, after on the mere technical grounds, even if that be a good one, that the Magistrate should not have passed an order because there was no use of criminal force.', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => '', 'counseldef' => '', 'court' => 'Chennai', 'court_type' => 'PC', 'decidedon' => '1922-04-20', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'Devadoss, J.', 'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>Devadoss, J.</p><p>1. In this case the petitioners seek to revise the order of the Second Class Magistrate of Aruppukottai who-convicted them under Section 448 and passed an order under Section 522 of the Criminal Procedure Code. On appeal the conviction was upheld and the order under Section 522 was left undisturbed. This revision petition has been admitted only as regards the order under Section 522, Criminal Procedure Code.</p><p>2. Mr. Pamabhadra Ayyar for the petitioners has addressed a very elaborate argument as regards the question whether an order under Section 522 could be passed when dispossession was not caused by the use of criminal force to any person in possession of the property, and he contended that in this case the complainant was riot dispossessed of the property by the use of criminal force and, therefore, the Magistrate acted without jurisdiction in passing an order under Section 522, Criminal Procedure Code. Without expressing any opinion; on the question of law raised, it is sufficient for the disposal of this case to see what the finding is. In paragraph 6 of the appellate judgment there is a clear finding that the owner was dispossessed by the commission of criminal trespass and the use of criminal force. It is not proper that in revision ordinarily, the Court should go behind the finding of the lower Courts which in this ease is a concurrent one. Even if the contention raised by Mr. Ramabhadra Ayyar is right as regards the question of law, I am not prepared to interfere with the order of the Magistrate as I consider it to be eminently a just order.</p><p>3. The first petitioner who was the wife of the complainant deserted him, according to the evidence, years ago and was leading an immoral life. Taking advantage of his temporary absence from the house, she along with some others broke open the outer lock of the house and entered into unlawful possession of the house, and when the husband returned he was driven out by force. In these circumstances, I consider the order under Section 522, Criminal Procedure Code is a very, proper order to pass; and further this order was passed so far back as the 28th January 1921, and it would not be right to upset an order more than a year, after on the mere technical grounds, even if that be a good one, that the Magistrate should not have passed an order because there was no use of criminal force.</p><p>4. I dismiss the petition.<p></p><p>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => 'AIR1923Mad237; 72Ind.Cas.892', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'Appavu Pillai', 'sub' => '', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'maruthayee-ors-vs-appavu-pillai' $args = array( (int) 0 => '808775', (int) 1 => 'maruthayee-ors-vs-appavu-pillai' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/808775/maruthayee-ors-vs-appavu-pillai' $ctype = '' $content = array( (int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>Devadoss, J.', (int) 1 => '<p>1. In this case the petitioners seek to revise the order of the Second Class Magistrate of Aruppukottai who-convicted them under Section 448 and passed an order under Section 522 of the Criminal Procedure Code. On appeal the conviction was upheld and the order under Section 522 was left undisturbed. This revision petition has been admitted only as regards the order under Section 522, Criminal Procedure Code.', (int) 2 => '<p>2. Mr. Pamabhadra Ayyar for the petitioners has addressed a very elaborate argument as regards the question whether an order under Section 522 could be passed when dispossession was not caused by the use of criminal force to any person in possession of the property, and he contended that in this case the complainant was riot dispossessed of the property by the use of criminal force and, therefore, the Magistrate acted without jurisdiction in passing an order under Section 522, Criminal Procedure Code. Without expressing any opinion; on the question of law raised, it is sufficient for the disposal of this case to see what the finding is. In paragraph 6 of the appellate judgment there is a clear finding that the owner was dispossessed by the commission of criminal trespass and the use of criminal force. It is not proper that in revision ordinarily, the Court should go behind the finding of the lower Courts which in this ease is a concurrent one. Even if the contention raised by Mr. Ramabhadra Ayyar is right as regards the question of law, I am not prepared to interfere with the order of the Magistrate as I consider it to be eminently a just order.', (int) 3 => '<p>3. The first petitioner who was the wife of the complainant deserted him, according to the evidence, years ago and was leading an immoral life. Taking advantage of his temporary absence from the house, she along with some others broke open the outer lock of the house and entered into unlawful possession of the house, and when the husband returned he was driven out by force. In these circumstances, I consider the order under Section 522, Criminal Procedure Code is a very, proper order to pass; and further this order was passed so far back as the 28th January 1921, and it would not be right to upset an order more than a year, after on the mere technical grounds, even if that be a good one, that the Magistrate should not have passed an order because there was no use of criminal force.', (int) 4 => '<p>4. I dismiss the petition.<p>', (int) 5 => '<p>' ) $paragraphAfter = (int) 1 $cnt = (int) 6 $i = (int) 0include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
Devadoss, J.
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Contextecho $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect');}echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Maruthayee and ors Vs Appavu Pillai - Citation 808775 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '808775', 'acts' => '', 'appealno' => '', 'appellant' => 'Maruthayee and ors.', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Maruthayee and ors. Vs. Appavu Pillai', 'casenote' => 'Criminal Procedure Code (Act V of 1898), Section 522--Breaking open loch and taking possession of house, during owner's absence--Order of restoration of possession to owner, whether proper. - - and further this order was passed so far back as the 28th January 1921, and it would not be right to upset an order more than a year, after on the mere technical grounds, even if that be a good one, that the Magistrate should not have passed an order because there was no use of criminal force.', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => '', 'counseldef' => '', 'court' => 'Chennai', 'court_type' => 'PC', 'decidedon' => '1922-04-20', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'Devadoss, J.', 'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">Devadoss, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. In this case the petitioners seek to revise the order of the Second Class Magistrate of Aruppukottai who-convicted them under Section 448 and passed an order under Section 522 of the Criminal Procedure Code. On appeal the conviction was upheld and the order under Section 522 was left undisturbed. This revision petition has been admitted only as regards the order under Section 522, Criminal Procedure Code.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Mr. Pamabhadra Ayyar for the petitioners has addressed a very elaborate argument as regards the question whether an order under Section 522 could be passed when dispossession was not caused by the use of criminal force to any person in possession of the property, and he contended that in this case the complainant was riot dispossessed of the property by the use of criminal force and, therefore, the Magistrate acted without jurisdiction in passing an order under Section 522, Criminal Procedure Code. Without expressing any opinion; on the question of law raised, it is sufficient for the disposal of this case to see what the finding is. In paragraph 6 of the appellate judgment there is a clear finding that the owner was dispossessed by the commission of criminal trespass and the use of criminal force. It is not proper that in revision ordinarily, the Court should go behind the finding of the lower Courts which in this ease is a concurrent one. Even if the contention raised by Mr. Ramabhadra Ayyar is right as regards the question of law, I am not prepared to interfere with the order of the Magistrate as I consider it to be eminently a just order.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The first petitioner who was the wife of the complainant deserted him, according to the evidence, years ago and was leading an immoral life. Taking advantage of his temporary absence from the house, she along with some others broke open the outer lock of the house and entered into unlawful possession of the house, and when the husband returned he was driven out by force. In these circumstances, I consider the order under Section 522, Criminal Procedure Code is a very, proper order to pass; and further this order was passed so far back as the 28th January 1921, and it would not be right to upset an order more than a year, after on the mere technical grounds, even if that be a good one, that the Magistrate should not have passed an order because there was no use of criminal force.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. I dismiss the petition.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => 'AIR1923Mad237; 72Ind.Cas.892', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'Appavu Pillai', 'sub' => '', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'maruthayee-ors-vs-appavu-pillai', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '808775', (int) 1 => 'maruthayee-ors-vs-appavu-pillai' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Maruthayee and ors Vs Appavu Pillai - Citation 808775 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '808775', 'acts' => '', 'appealno' => '', 'appellant' => 'Maruthayee and ors.', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Maruthayee and ors. Vs. Appavu Pillai', 'casenote' => 'Criminal Procedure Code (Act V of 1898), Section 522--Breaking open loch and taking possession of house, during owner's absence--Order of restoration of possession to owner, whether proper. - - and further this order was passed so far back as the 28th January 1921, and it would not be right to upset an order more than a year, after on the mere technical grounds, even if that be a good one, that the Magistrate should not have passed an order because there was no use of criminal force.', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => '', 'counseldef' => '', 'court' => 'Chennai', 'court_type' => 'PC', 'decidedon' => '1922-04-20', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'Devadoss, J.', 'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>Devadoss, J.</p><p>1. In this case the petitioners seek to revise the order of the Second Class Magistrate of Aruppukottai who-convicted them under Section 448 and passed an order under Section 522 of the Criminal Procedure Code. On appeal the conviction was upheld and the order under Section 522 was left undisturbed. This revision petition has been admitted only as regards the order under Section 522, Criminal Procedure Code.</p><p>2. Mr. Pamabhadra Ayyar for the petitioners has addressed a very elaborate argument as regards the question whether an order under Section 522 could be passed when dispossession was not caused by the use of criminal force to any person in possession of the property, and he contended that in this case the complainant was riot dispossessed of the property by the use of criminal force and, therefore, the Magistrate acted without jurisdiction in passing an order under Section 522, Criminal Procedure Code. Without expressing any opinion; on the question of law raised, it is sufficient for the disposal of this case to see what the finding is. In paragraph 6 of the appellate judgment there is a clear finding that the owner was dispossessed by the commission of criminal trespass and the use of criminal force. It is not proper that in revision ordinarily, the Court should go behind the finding of the lower Courts which in this ease is a concurrent one. Even if the contention raised by Mr. Ramabhadra Ayyar is right as regards the question of law, I am not prepared to interfere with the order of the Magistrate as I consider it to be eminently a just order.</p><p>3. The first petitioner who was the wife of the complainant deserted him, according to the evidence, years ago and was leading an immoral life. Taking advantage of his temporary absence from the house, she along with some others broke open the outer lock of the house and entered into unlawful possession of the house, and when the husband returned he was driven out by force. In these circumstances, I consider the order under Section 522, Criminal Procedure Code is a very, proper order to pass; and further this order was passed so far back as the 28th January 1921, and it would not be right to upset an order more than a year, after on the mere technical grounds, even if that be a good one, that the Magistrate should not have passed an order because there was no use of criminal force.</p><p>4. I dismiss the petition.<p></p><p>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => 'AIR1923Mad237; 72Ind.Cas.892', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'Appavu Pillai', 'sub' => '', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'maruthayee-ors-vs-appavu-pillai' $args = array( (int) 0 => '808775', (int) 1 => 'maruthayee-ors-vs-appavu-pillai' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/808775/maruthayee-ors-vs-appavu-pillai' $ctype = '' $content = array( (int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>Devadoss, J.', (int) 1 => '<p>1. In this case the petitioners seek to revise the order of the Second Class Magistrate of Aruppukottai who-convicted them under Section 448 and passed an order under Section 522 of the Criminal Procedure Code. On appeal the conviction was upheld and the order under Section 522 was left undisturbed. This revision petition has been admitted only as regards the order under Section 522, Criminal Procedure Code.', (int) 2 => '<p>2. Mr. Pamabhadra Ayyar for the petitioners has addressed a very elaborate argument as regards the question whether an order under Section 522 could be passed when dispossession was not caused by the use of criminal force to any person in possession of the property, and he contended that in this case the complainant was riot dispossessed of the property by the use of criminal force and, therefore, the Magistrate acted without jurisdiction in passing an order under Section 522, Criminal Procedure Code. Without expressing any opinion; on the question of law raised, it is sufficient for the disposal of this case to see what the finding is. In paragraph 6 of the appellate judgment there is a clear finding that the owner was dispossessed by the commission of criminal trespass and the use of criminal force. It is not proper that in revision ordinarily, the Court should go behind the finding of the lower Courts which in this ease is a concurrent one. Even if the contention raised by Mr. Ramabhadra Ayyar is right as regards the question of law, I am not prepared to interfere with the order of the Magistrate as I consider it to be eminently a just order.', (int) 3 => '<p>3. The first petitioner who was the wife of the complainant deserted him, according to the evidence, years ago and was leading an immoral life. Taking advantage of his temporary absence from the house, she along with some others broke open the outer lock of the house and entered into unlawful possession of the house, and when the husband returned he was driven out by force. In these circumstances, I consider the order under Section 522, Criminal Procedure Code is a very, proper order to pass; and further this order was passed so far back as the 28th January 1921, and it would not be right to upset an order more than a year, after on the mere technical grounds, even if that be a good one, that the Magistrate should not have passed an order because there was no use of criminal force.', (int) 4 => '<p>4. I dismiss the petition.<p>', (int) 5 => '<p>' ) $paragraphAfter = (int) 1 $cnt = (int) 6 $i = (int) 1include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
1. In this case the petitioners seek to revise the order of the Second Class Magistrate of Aruppukottai who-convicted them under Section 448 and passed an order under Section 522 of the Criminal Procedure Code. On appeal the conviction was upheld and the order under Section 522 was left undisturbed. This revision petition has been admitted only as regards the order under Section 522, Criminal Procedure Code.
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Contextecho $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect');}echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Maruthayee and ors Vs Appavu Pillai - Citation 808775 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '808775', 'acts' => '', 'appealno' => '', 'appellant' => 'Maruthayee and ors.', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Maruthayee and ors. Vs. Appavu Pillai', 'casenote' => 'Criminal Procedure Code (Act V of 1898), Section 522--Breaking open loch and taking possession of house, during owner's absence--Order of restoration of possession to owner, whether proper. - - and further this order was passed so far back as the 28th January 1921, and it would not be right to upset an order more than a year, after on the mere technical grounds, even if that be a good one, that the Magistrate should not have passed an order because there was no use of criminal force.', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => '', 'counseldef' => '', 'court' => 'Chennai', 'court_type' => 'PC', 'decidedon' => '1922-04-20', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'Devadoss, J.', 'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">Devadoss, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. In this case the petitioners seek to revise the order of the Second Class Magistrate of Aruppukottai who-convicted them under Section 448 and passed an order under Section 522 of the Criminal Procedure Code. On appeal the conviction was upheld and the order under Section 522 was left undisturbed. This revision petition has been admitted only as regards the order under Section 522, Criminal Procedure Code.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Mr. Pamabhadra Ayyar for the petitioners has addressed a very elaborate argument as regards the question whether an order under Section 522 could be passed when dispossession was not caused by the use of criminal force to any person in possession of the property, and he contended that in this case the complainant was riot dispossessed of the property by the use of criminal force and, therefore, the Magistrate acted without jurisdiction in passing an order under Section 522, Criminal Procedure Code. Without expressing any opinion; on the question of law raised, it is sufficient for the disposal of this case to see what the finding is. In paragraph 6 of the appellate judgment there is a clear finding that the owner was dispossessed by the commission of criminal trespass and the use of criminal force. It is not proper that in revision ordinarily, the Court should go behind the finding of the lower Courts which in this ease is a concurrent one. Even if the contention raised by Mr. Ramabhadra Ayyar is right as regards the question of law, I am not prepared to interfere with the order of the Magistrate as I consider it to be eminently a just order.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The first petitioner who was the wife of the complainant deserted him, according to the evidence, years ago and was leading an immoral life. Taking advantage of his temporary absence from the house, she along with some others broke open the outer lock of the house and entered into unlawful possession of the house, and when the husband returned he was driven out by force. In these circumstances, I consider the order under Section 522, Criminal Procedure Code is a very, proper order to pass; and further this order was passed so far back as the 28th January 1921, and it would not be right to upset an order more than a year, after on the mere technical grounds, even if that be a good one, that the Magistrate should not have passed an order because there was no use of criminal force.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. I dismiss the petition.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => 'AIR1923Mad237; 72Ind.Cas.892', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'Appavu Pillai', 'sub' => '', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'maruthayee-ors-vs-appavu-pillai', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '808775', (int) 1 => 'maruthayee-ors-vs-appavu-pillai' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Maruthayee and ors Vs Appavu Pillai - Citation 808775 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '808775', 'acts' => '', 'appealno' => '', 'appellant' => 'Maruthayee and ors.', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Maruthayee and ors. Vs. Appavu Pillai', 'casenote' => 'Criminal Procedure Code (Act V of 1898), Section 522--Breaking open loch and taking possession of house, during owner's absence--Order of restoration of possession to owner, whether proper. - - and further this order was passed so far back as the 28th January 1921, and it would not be right to upset an order more than a year, after on the mere technical grounds, even if that be a good one, that the Magistrate should not have passed an order because there was no use of criminal force.', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => '', 'counseldef' => '', 'court' => 'Chennai', 'court_type' => 'PC', 'decidedon' => '1922-04-20', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'Devadoss, J.', 'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>Devadoss, J.</p><p>1. In this case the petitioners seek to revise the order of the Second Class Magistrate of Aruppukottai who-convicted them under Section 448 and passed an order under Section 522 of the Criminal Procedure Code. On appeal the conviction was upheld and the order under Section 522 was left undisturbed. This revision petition has been admitted only as regards the order under Section 522, Criminal Procedure Code.</p><p>2. Mr. Pamabhadra Ayyar for the petitioners has addressed a very elaborate argument as regards the question whether an order under Section 522 could be passed when dispossession was not caused by the use of criminal force to any person in possession of the property, and he contended that in this case the complainant was riot dispossessed of the property by the use of criminal force and, therefore, the Magistrate acted without jurisdiction in passing an order under Section 522, Criminal Procedure Code. Without expressing any opinion; on the question of law raised, it is sufficient for the disposal of this case to see what the finding is. In paragraph 6 of the appellate judgment there is a clear finding that the owner was dispossessed by the commission of criminal trespass and the use of criminal force. It is not proper that in revision ordinarily, the Court should go behind the finding of the lower Courts which in this ease is a concurrent one. Even if the contention raised by Mr. Ramabhadra Ayyar is right as regards the question of law, I am not prepared to interfere with the order of the Magistrate as I consider it to be eminently a just order.</p><p>3. The first petitioner who was the wife of the complainant deserted him, according to the evidence, years ago and was leading an immoral life. Taking advantage of his temporary absence from the house, she along with some others broke open the outer lock of the house and entered into unlawful possession of the house, and when the husband returned he was driven out by force. In these circumstances, I consider the order under Section 522, Criminal Procedure Code is a very, proper order to pass; and further this order was passed so far back as the 28th January 1921, and it would not be right to upset an order more than a year, after on the mere technical grounds, even if that be a good one, that the Magistrate should not have passed an order because there was no use of criminal force.</p><p>4. I dismiss the petition.<p></p><p>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => 'AIR1923Mad237; 72Ind.Cas.892', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'Appavu Pillai', 'sub' => '', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'maruthayee-ors-vs-appavu-pillai' $args = array( (int) 0 => '808775', (int) 1 => 'maruthayee-ors-vs-appavu-pillai' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/808775/maruthayee-ors-vs-appavu-pillai' $ctype = '' $content = array( (int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>Devadoss, J.', (int) 1 => '<p>1. In this case the petitioners seek to revise the order of the Second Class Magistrate of Aruppukottai who-convicted them under Section 448 and passed an order under Section 522 of the Criminal Procedure Code. On appeal the conviction was upheld and the order under Section 522 was left undisturbed. This revision petition has been admitted only as regards the order under Section 522, Criminal Procedure Code.', (int) 2 => '<p>2. Mr. Pamabhadra Ayyar for the petitioners has addressed a very elaborate argument as regards the question whether an order under Section 522 could be passed when dispossession was not caused by the use of criminal force to any person in possession of the property, and he contended that in this case the complainant was riot dispossessed of the property by the use of criminal force and, therefore, the Magistrate acted without jurisdiction in passing an order under Section 522, Criminal Procedure Code. Without expressing any opinion; on the question of law raised, it is sufficient for the disposal of this case to see what the finding is. In paragraph 6 of the appellate judgment there is a clear finding that the owner was dispossessed by the commission of criminal trespass and the use of criminal force. It is not proper that in revision ordinarily, the Court should go behind the finding of the lower Courts which in this ease is a concurrent one. Even if the contention raised by Mr. Ramabhadra Ayyar is right as regards the question of law, I am not prepared to interfere with the order of the Magistrate as I consider it to be eminently a just order.', (int) 3 => '<p>3. The first petitioner who was the wife of the complainant deserted him, according to the evidence, years ago and was leading an immoral life. Taking advantage of his temporary absence from the house, she along with some others broke open the outer lock of the house and entered into unlawful possession of the house, and when the husband returned he was driven out by force. In these circumstances, I consider the order under Section 522, Criminal Procedure Code is a very, proper order to pass; and further this order was passed so far back as the 28th January 1921, and it would not be right to upset an order more than a year, after on the mere technical grounds, even if that be a good one, that the Magistrate should not have passed an order because there was no use of criminal force.', (int) 4 => '<p>4. I dismiss the petition.<p>', (int) 5 => '<p>' ) $paragraphAfter = (int) 1 $cnt = (int) 6 $i = (int) 2include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
2. Mr. Pamabhadra Ayyar for the petitioners has addressed a very elaborate argument as regards the question whether an order under Section 522 could be passed when dispossession was not caused by the use of criminal force to any person in possession of the property, and he contended that in this case the complainant was riot dispossessed of the property by the use of criminal force and, therefore, the Magistrate acted without jurisdiction in passing an order under Section 522, Criminal Procedure Code. Without expressing any opinion; on the question of law raised, it is sufficient for the disposal of this case to see what the finding is. In paragraph 6 of the appellate judgment there is a clear finding that the owner was dispossessed by the commission of criminal trespass and the use of criminal force. It is not proper that in revision ordinarily, the Court should go behind the finding of the lower Courts which in this ease is a concurrent one. Even if the contention raised by Mr. Ramabhadra Ayyar is right as regards the question of law, I am not prepared to interfere with the order of the Magistrate as I consider it to be eminently a just order.
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Contextecho $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect');}echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Maruthayee and ors Vs Appavu Pillai - Citation 808775 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '808775', 'acts' => '', 'appealno' => '', 'appellant' => 'Maruthayee and ors.', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Maruthayee and ors. Vs. Appavu Pillai', 'casenote' => 'Criminal Procedure Code (Act V of 1898), Section 522--Breaking open loch and taking possession of house, during owner's absence--Order of restoration of possession to owner, whether proper. - - and further this order was passed so far back as the 28th January 1921, and it would not be right to upset an order more than a year, after on the mere technical grounds, even if that be a good one, that the Magistrate should not have passed an order because there was no use of criminal force.', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => '', 'counseldef' => '', 'court' => 'Chennai', 'court_type' => 'PC', 'decidedon' => '1922-04-20', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'Devadoss, J.', 'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">Devadoss, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. In this case the petitioners seek to revise the order of the Second Class Magistrate of Aruppukottai who-convicted them under Section 448 and passed an order under Section 522 of the Criminal Procedure Code. On appeal the conviction was upheld and the order under Section 522 was left undisturbed. This revision petition has been admitted only as regards the order under Section 522, Criminal Procedure Code.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Mr. Pamabhadra Ayyar for the petitioners has addressed a very elaborate argument as regards the question whether an order under Section 522 could be passed when dispossession was not caused by the use of criminal force to any person in possession of the property, and he contended that in this case the complainant was riot dispossessed of the property by the use of criminal force and, therefore, the Magistrate acted without jurisdiction in passing an order under Section 522, Criminal Procedure Code. Without expressing any opinion; on the question of law raised, it is sufficient for the disposal of this case to see what the finding is. In paragraph 6 of the appellate judgment there is a clear finding that the owner was dispossessed by the commission of criminal trespass and the use of criminal force. It is not proper that in revision ordinarily, the Court should go behind the finding of the lower Courts which in this ease is a concurrent one. Even if the contention raised by Mr. Ramabhadra Ayyar is right as regards the question of law, I am not prepared to interfere with the order of the Magistrate as I consider it to be eminently a just order.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The first petitioner who was the wife of the complainant deserted him, according to the evidence, years ago and was leading an immoral life. Taking advantage of his temporary absence from the house, she along with some others broke open the outer lock of the house and entered into unlawful possession of the house, and when the husband returned he was driven out by force. In these circumstances, I consider the order under Section 522, Criminal Procedure Code is a very, proper order to pass; and further this order was passed so far back as the 28th January 1921, and it would not be right to upset an order more than a year, after on the mere technical grounds, even if that be a good one, that the Magistrate should not have passed an order because there was no use of criminal force.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. I dismiss the petition.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => 'AIR1923Mad237; 72Ind.Cas.892', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'Appavu Pillai', 'sub' => '', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'maruthayee-ors-vs-appavu-pillai', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '808775', (int) 1 => 'maruthayee-ors-vs-appavu-pillai' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Maruthayee and ors Vs Appavu Pillai - Citation 808775 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '808775', 'acts' => '', 'appealno' => '', 'appellant' => 'Maruthayee and ors.', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Maruthayee and ors. Vs. Appavu Pillai', 'casenote' => 'Criminal Procedure Code (Act V of 1898), Section 522--Breaking open loch and taking possession of house, during owner's absence--Order of restoration of possession to owner, whether proper. - - and further this order was passed so far back as the 28th January 1921, and it would not be right to upset an order more than a year, after on the mere technical grounds, even if that be a good one, that the Magistrate should not have passed an order because there was no use of criminal force.', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => '', 'counseldef' => '', 'court' => 'Chennai', 'court_type' => 'PC', 'decidedon' => '1922-04-20', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'Devadoss, J.', 'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>Devadoss, J.</p><p>1. In this case the petitioners seek to revise the order of the Second Class Magistrate of Aruppukottai who-convicted them under Section 448 and passed an order under Section 522 of the Criminal Procedure Code. On appeal the conviction was upheld and the order under Section 522 was left undisturbed. This revision petition has been admitted only as regards the order under Section 522, Criminal Procedure Code.</p><p>2. Mr. Pamabhadra Ayyar for the petitioners has addressed a very elaborate argument as regards the question whether an order under Section 522 could be passed when dispossession was not caused by the use of criminal force to any person in possession of the property, and he contended that in this case the complainant was riot dispossessed of the property by the use of criminal force and, therefore, the Magistrate acted without jurisdiction in passing an order under Section 522, Criminal Procedure Code. Without expressing any opinion; on the question of law raised, it is sufficient for the disposal of this case to see what the finding is. In paragraph 6 of the appellate judgment there is a clear finding that the owner was dispossessed by the commission of criminal trespass and the use of criminal force. It is not proper that in revision ordinarily, the Court should go behind the finding of the lower Courts which in this ease is a concurrent one. Even if the contention raised by Mr. Ramabhadra Ayyar is right as regards the question of law, I am not prepared to interfere with the order of the Magistrate as I consider it to be eminently a just order.</p><p>3. The first petitioner who was the wife of the complainant deserted him, according to the evidence, years ago and was leading an immoral life. Taking advantage of his temporary absence from the house, she along with some others broke open the outer lock of the house and entered into unlawful possession of the house, and when the husband returned he was driven out by force. In these circumstances, I consider the order under Section 522, Criminal Procedure Code is a very, proper order to pass; and further this order was passed so far back as the 28th January 1921, and it would not be right to upset an order more than a year, after on the mere technical grounds, even if that be a good one, that the Magistrate should not have passed an order because there was no use of criminal force.</p><p>4. I dismiss the petition.<p></p><p>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => 'AIR1923Mad237; 72Ind.Cas.892', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'Appavu Pillai', 'sub' => '', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'maruthayee-ors-vs-appavu-pillai' $args = array( (int) 0 => '808775', (int) 1 => 'maruthayee-ors-vs-appavu-pillai' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/808775/maruthayee-ors-vs-appavu-pillai' $ctype = '' $content = array( (int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>Devadoss, J.', (int) 1 => '<p>1. In this case the petitioners seek to revise the order of the Second Class Magistrate of Aruppukottai who-convicted them under Section 448 and passed an order under Section 522 of the Criminal Procedure Code. On appeal the conviction was upheld and the order under Section 522 was left undisturbed. This revision petition has been admitted only as regards the order under Section 522, Criminal Procedure Code.', (int) 2 => '<p>2. Mr. Pamabhadra Ayyar for the petitioners has addressed a very elaborate argument as regards the question whether an order under Section 522 could be passed when dispossession was not caused by the use of criminal force to any person in possession of the property, and he contended that in this case the complainant was riot dispossessed of the property by the use of criminal force and, therefore, the Magistrate acted without jurisdiction in passing an order under Section 522, Criminal Procedure Code. Without expressing any opinion; on the question of law raised, it is sufficient for the disposal of this case to see what the finding is. In paragraph 6 of the appellate judgment there is a clear finding that the owner was dispossessed by the commission of criminal trespass and the use of criminal force. It is not proper that in revision ordinarily, the Court should go behind the finding of the lower Courts which in this ease is a concurrent one. Even if the contention raised by Mr. Ramabhadra Ayyar is right as regards the question of law, I am not prepared to interfere with the order of the Magistrate as I consider it to be eminently a just order.', (int) 3 => '<p>3. The first petitioner who was the wife of the complainant deserted him, according to the evidence, years ago and was leading an immoral life. Taking advantage of his temporary absence from the house, she along with some others broke open the outer lock of the house and entered into unlawful possession of the house, and when the husband returned he was driven out by force. In these circumstances, I consider the order under Section 522, Criminal Procedure Code is a very, proper order to pass; and further this order was passed so far back as the 28th January 1921, and it would not be right to upset an order more than a year, after on the mere technical grounds, even if that be a good one, that the Magistrate should not have passed an order because there was no use of criminal force.', (int) 4 => '<p>4. I dismiss the petition.<p>', (int) 5 => '<p>' ) $paragraphAfter = (int) 1 $cnt = (int) 6 $i = (int) 3include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
3. The first petitioner who was the wife of the complainant deserted him, according to the evidence, years ago and was leading an immoral life. Taking advantage of his temporary absence from the house, she along with some others broke open the outer lock of the house and entered into unlawful possession of the house, and when the husband returned he was driven out by force. In these circumstances, I consider the order under Section 522, Criminal Procedure Code is a very, proper order to pass; and further this order was passed so far back as the 28th January 1921, and it would not be right to upset an order more than a year, after on the mere technical grounds, even if that be a good one, that the Magistrate should not have passed an order because there was no use of criminal force.
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Contextecho $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect');}echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Maruthayee and ors Vs Appavu Pillai - Citation 808775 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '808775', 'acts' => '', 'appealno' => '', 'appellant' => 'Maruthayee and ors.', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Maruthayee and ors. Vs. Appavu Pillai', 'casenote' => 'Criminal Procedure Code (Act V of 1898), Section 522--Breaking open loch and taking possession of house, during owner's absence--Order of restoration of possession to owner, whether proper. - - and further this order was passed so far back as the 28th January 1921, and it would not be right to upset an order more than a year, after on the mere technical grounds, even if that be a good one, that the Magistrate should not have passed an order because there was no use of criminal force.', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => '', 'counseldef' => '', 'court' => 'Chennai', 'court_type' => 'PC', 'decidedon' => '1922-04-20', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'Devadoss, J.', 'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">Devadoss, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. In this case the petitioners seek to revise the order of the Second Class Magistrate of Aruppukottai who-convicted them under Section 448 and passed an order under Section 522 of the Criminal Procedure Code. On appeal the conviction was upheld and the order under Section 522 was left undisturbed. This revision petition has been admitted only as regards the order under Section 522, Criminal Procedure Code.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Mr. Pamabhadra Ayyar for the petitioners has addressed a very elaborate argument as regards the question whether an order under Section 522 could be passed when dispossession was not caused by the use of criminal force to any person in possession of the property, and he contended that in this case the complainant was riot dispossessed of the property by the use of criminal force and, therefore, the Magistrate acted without jurisdiction in passing an order under Section 522, Criminal Procedure Code. Without expressing any opinion; on the question of law raised, it is sufficient for the disposal of this case to see what the finding is. In paragraph 6 of the appellate judgment there is a clear finding that the owner was dispossessed by the commission of criminal trespass and the use of criminal force. It is not proper that in revision ordinarily, the Court should go behind the finding of the lower Courts which in this ease is a concurrent one. Even if the contention raised by Mr. Ramabhadra Ayyar is right as regards the question of law, I am not prepared to interfere with the order of the Magistrate as I consider it to be eminently a just order.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The first petitioner who was the wife of the complainant deserted him, according to the evidence, years ago and was leading an immoral life. Taking advantage of his temporary absence from the house, she along with some others broke open the outer lock of the house and entered into unlawful possession of the house, and when the husband returned he was driven out by force. In these circumstances, I consider the order under Section 522, Criminal Procedure Code is a very, proper order to pass; and further this order was passed so far back as the 28th January 1921, and it would not be right to upset an order more than a year, after on the mere technical grounds, even if that be a good one, that the Magistrate should not have passed an order because there was no use of criminal force.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. I dismiss the petition.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => 'AIR1923Mad237; 72Ind.Cas.892', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'Appavu Pillai', 'sub' => '', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'maruthayee-ors-vs-appavu-pillai', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '808775', (int) 1 => 'maruthayee-ors-vs-appavu-pillai' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Maruthayee and ors Vs Appavu Pillai - Citation 808775 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '808775', 'acts' => '', 'appealno' => '', 'appellant' => 'Maruthayee and ors.', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Maruthayee and ors. Vs. Appavu Pillai', 'casenote' => 'Criminal Procedure Code (Act V of 1898), Section 522--Breaking open loch and taking possession of house, during owner's absence--Order of restoration of possession to owner, whether proper. - - and further this order was passed so far back as the 28th January 1921, and it would not be right to upset an order more than a year, after on the mere technical grounds, even if that be a good one, that the Magistrate should not have passed an order because there was no use of criminal force.', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => '', 'counseldef' => '', 'court' => 'Chennai', 'court_type' => 'PC', 'decidedon' => '1922-04-20', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'Devadoss, J.', 'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>Devadoss, J.</p><p>1. In this case the petitioners seek to revise the order of the Second Class Magistrate of Aruppukottai who-convicted them under Section 448 and passed an order under Section 522 of the Criminal Procedure Code. On appeal the conviction was upheld and the order under Section 522 was left undisturbed. This revision petition has been admitted only as regards the order under Section 522, Criminal Procedure Code.</p><p>2. Mr. Pamabhadra Ayyar for the petitioners has addressed a very elaborate argument as regards the question whether an order under Section 522 could be passed when dispossession was not caused by the use of criminal force to any person in possession of the property, and he contended that in this case the complainant was riot dispossessed of the property by the use of criminal force and, therefore, the Magistrate acted without jurisdiction in passing an order under Section 522, Criminal Procedure Code. Without expressing any opinion; on the question of law raised, it is sufficient for the disposal of this case to see what the finding is. In paragraph 6 of the appellate judgment there is a clear finding that the owner was dispossessed by the commission of criminal trespass and the use of criminal force. It is not proper that in revision ordinarily, the Court should go behind the finding of the lower Courts which in this ease is a concurrent one. Even if the contention raised by Mr. Ramabhadra Ayyar is right as regards the question of law, I am not prepared to interfere with the order of the Magistrate as I consider it to be eminently a just order.</p><p>3. The first petitioner who was the wife of the complainant deserted him, according to the evidence, years ago and was leading an immoral life. Taking advantage of his temporary absence from the house, she along with some others broke open the outer lock of the house and entered into unlawful possession of the house, and when the husband returned he was driven out by force. In these circumstances, I consider the order under Section 522, Criminal Procedure Code is a very, proper order to pass; and further this order was passed so far back as the 28th January 1921, and it would not be right to upset an order more than a year, after on the mere technical grounds, even if that be a good one, that the Magistrate should not have passed an order because there was no use of criminal force.</p><p>4. I dismiss the petition.<p></p><p>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => 'AIR1923Mad237; 72Ind.Cas.892', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'Appavu Pillai', 'sub' => '', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'maruthayee-ors-vs-appavu-pillai' $args = array( (int) 0 => '808775', (int) 1 => 'maruthayee-ors-vs-appavu-pillai' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/808775/maruthayee-ors-vs-appavu-pillai' $ctype = '' $content = array( (int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>Devadoss, J.', (int) 1 => '<p>1. In this case the petitioners seek to revise the order of the Second Class Magistrate of Aruppukottai who-convicted them under Section 448 and passed an order under Section 522 of the Criminal Procedure Code. On appeal the conviction was upheld and the order under Section 522 was left undisturbed. This revision petition has been admitted only as regards the order under Section 522, Criminal Procedure Code.', (int) 2 => '<p>2. Mr. Pamabhadra Ayyar for the petitioners has addressed a very elaborate argument as regards the question whether an order under Section 522 could be passed when dispossession was not caused by the use of criminal force to any person in possession of the property, and he contended that in this case the complainant was riot dispossessed of the property by the use of criminal force and, therefore, the Magistrate acted without jurisdiction in passing an order under Section 522, Criminal Procedure Code. Without expressing any opinion; on the question of law raised, it is sufficient for the disposal of this case to see what the finding is. In paragraph 6 of the appellate judgment there is a clear finding that the owner was dispossessed by the commission of criminal trespass and the use of criminal force. It is not proper that in revision ordinarily, the Court should go behind the finding of the lower Courts which in this ease is a concurrent one. Even if the contention raised by Mr. Ramabhadra Ayyar is right as regards the question of law, I am not prepared to interfere with the order of the Magistrate as I consider it to be eminently a just order.', (int) 3 => '<p>3. The first petitioner who was the wife of the complainant deserted him, according to the evidence, years ago and was leading an immoral life. Taking advantage of his temporary absence from the house, she along with some others broke open the outer lock of the house and entered into unlawful possession of the house, and when the husband returned he was driven out by force. In these circumstances, I consider the order under Section 522, Criminal Procedure Code is a very, proper order to pass; and further this order was passed so far back as the 28th January 1921, and it would not be right to upset an order more than a year, after on the mere technical grounds, even if that be a good one, that the Magistrate should not have passed an order because there was no use of criminal force.', (int) 4 => '<p>4. I dismiss the petition.<p>', (int) 5 => '<p>' ) $paragraphAfter = (int) 1 $cnt = (int) 6 $i = (int) 4include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
4. I dismiss the petition.
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Contextecho $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect');}echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Maruthayee and ors Vs Appavu Pillai - Citation 808775 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '808775', 'acts' => '', 'appealno' => '', 'appellant' => 'Maruthayee and ors.', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Maruthayee and ors. Vs. Appavu Pillai', 'casenote' => 'Criminal Procedure Code (Act V of 1898), Section 522--Breaking open loch and taking possession of house, during owner's absence--Order of restoration of possession to owner, whether proper. - - and further this order was passed so far back as the 28th January 1921, and it would not be right to upset an order more than a year, after on the mere technical grounds, even if that be a good one, that the Magistrate should not have passed an order because there was no use of criminal force.', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => '', 'counseldef' => '', 'court' => 'Chennai', 'court_type' => 'PC', 'decidedon' => '1922-04-20', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'Devadoss, J.', 'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">Devadoss, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. In this case the petitioners seek to revise the order of the Second Class Magistrate of Aruppukottai who-convicted them under Section 448 and passed an order under Section 522 of the Criminal Procedure Code. On appeal the conviction was upheld and the order under Section 522 was left undisturbed. This revision petition has been admitted only as regards the order under Section 522, Criminal Procedure Code.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Mr. Pamabhadra Ayyar for the petitioners has addressed a very elaborate argument as regards the question whether an order under Section 522 could be passed when dispossession was not caused by the use of criminal force to any person in possession of the property, and he contended that in this case the complainant was riot dispossessed of the property by the use of criminal force and, therefore, the Magistrate acted without jurisdiction in passing an order under Section 522, Criminal Procedure Code. Without expressing any opinion; on the question of law raised, it is sufficient for the disposal of this case to see what the finding is. In paragraph 6 of the appellate judgment there is a clear finding that the owner was dispossessed by the commission of criminal trespass and the use of criminal force. It is not proper that in revision ordinarily, the Court should go behind the finding of the lower Courts which in this ease is a concurrent one. Even if the contention raised by Mr. Ramabhadra Ayyar is right as regards the question of law, I am not prepared to interfere with the order of the Magistrate as I consider it to be eminently a just order.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The first petitioner who was the wife of the complainant deserted him, according to the evidence, years ago and was leading an immoral life. Taking advantage of his temporary absence from the house, she along with some others broke open the outer lock of the house and entered into unlawful possession of the house, and when the husband returned he was driven out by force. In these circumstances, I consider the order under Section 522, Criminal Procedure Code is a very, proper order to pass; and further this order was passed so far back as the 28th January 1921, and it would not be right to upset an order more than a year, after on the mere technical grounds, even if that be a good one, that the Magistrate should not have passed an order because there was no use of criminal force.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. I dismiss the petition.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => 'AIR1923Mad237; 72Ind.Cas.892', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'Appavu Pillai', 'sub' => '', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'maruthayee-ors-vs-appavu-pillai', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '808775', (int) 1 => 'maruthayee-ors-vs-appavu-pillai' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Maruthayee and ors Vs Appavu Pillai - Citation 808775 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '808775', 'acts' => '', 'appealno' => '', 'appellant' => 'Maruthayee and ors.', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Maruthayee and ors. Vs. Appavu Pillai', 'casenote' => 'Criminal Procedure Code (Act V of 1898), Section 522--Breaking open loch and taking possession of house, during owner's absence--Order of restoration of possession to owner, whether proper. - - and further this order was passed so far back as the 28th January 1921, and it would not be right to upset an order more than a year, after on the mere technical grounds, even if that be a good one, that the Magistrate should not have passed an order because there was no use of criminal force.', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => '', 'counseldef' => '', 'court' => 'Chennai', 'court_type' => 'PC', 'decidedon' => '1922-04-20', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'Devadoss, J.', 'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>Devadoss, J.</p><p>1. In this case the petitioners seek to revise the order of the Second Class Magistrate of Aruppukottai who-convicted them under Section 448 and passed an order under Section 522 of the Criminal Procedure Code. On appeal the conviction was upheld and the order under Section 522 was left undisturbed. This revision petition has been admitted only as regards the order under Section 522, Criminal Procedure Code.</p><p>2. Mr. Pamabhadra Ayyar for the petitioners has addressed a very elaborate argument as regards the question whether an order under Section 522 could be passed when dispossession was not caused by the use of criminal force to any person in possession of the property, and he contended that in this case the complainant was riot dispossessed of the property by the use of criminal force and, therefore, the Magistrate acted without jurisdiction in passing an order under Section 522, Criminal Procedure Code. Without expressing any opinion; on the question of law raised, it is sufficient for the disposal of this case to see what the finding is. In paragraph 6 of the appellate judgment there is a clear finding that the owner was dispossessed by the commission of criminal trespass and the use of criminal force. It is not proper that in revision ordinarily, the Court should go behind the finding of the lower Courts which in this ease is a concurrent one. Even if the contention raised by Mr. Ramabhadra Ayyar is right as regards the question of law, I am not prepared to interfere with the order of the Magistrate as I consider it to be eminently a just order.</p><p>3. The first petitioner who was the wife of the complainant deserted him, according to the evidence, years ago and was leading an immoral life. Taking advantage of his temporary absence from the house, she along with some others broke open the outer lock of the house and entered into unlawful possession of the house, and when the husband returned he was driven out by force. In these circumstances, I consider the order under Section 522, Criminal Procedure Code is a very, proper order to pass; and further this order was passed so far back as the 28th January 1921, and it would not be right to upset an order more than a year, after on the mere technical grounds, even if that be a good one, that the Magistrate should not have passed an order because there was no use of criminal force.</p><p>4. I dismiss the petition.<p></p><p>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => 'AIR1923Mad237; 72Ind.Cas.892', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'Appavu Pillai', 'sub' => '', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'maruthayee-ors-vs-appavu-pillai' $args = array( (int) 0 => '808775', (int) 1 => 'maruthayee-ors-vs-appavu-pillai' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/808775/maruthayee-ors-vs-appavu-pillai' $ctype = '' $content = array( (int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>Devadoss, J.', (int) 1 => '<p>1. In this case the petitioners seek to revise the order of the Second Class Magistrate of Aruppukottai who-convicted them under Section 448 and passed an order under Section 522 of the Criminal Procedure Code. On appeal the conviction was upheld and the order under Section 522 was left undisturbed. This revision petition has been admitted only as regards the order under Section 522, Criminal Procedure Code.', (int) 2 => '<p>2. Mr. Pamabhadra Ayyar for the petitioners has addressed a very elaborate argument as regards the question whether an order under Section 522 could be passed when dispossession was not caused by the use of criminal force to any person in possession of the property, and he contended that in this case the complainant was riot dispossessed of the property by the use of criminal force and, therefore, the Magistrate acted without jurisdiction in passing an order under Section 522, Criminal Procedure Code. Without expressing any opinion; on the question of law raised, it is sufficient for the disposal of this case to see what the finding is. In paragraph 6 of the appellate judgment there is a clear finding that the owner was dispossessed by the commission of criminal trespass and the use of criminal force. It is not proper that in revision ordinarily, the Court should go behind the finding of the lower Courts which in this ease is a concurrent one. Even if the contention raised by Mr. Ramabhadra Ayyar is right as regards the question of law, I am not prepared to interfere with the order of the Magistrate as I consider it to be eminently a just order.', (int) 3 => '<p>3. The first petitioner who was the wife of the complainant deserted him, according to the evidence, years ago and was leading an immoral life. Taking advantage of his temporary absence from the house, she along with some others broke open the outer lock of the house and entered into unlawful possession of the house, and when the husband returned he was driven out by force. In these circumstances, I consider the order under Section 522, Criminal Procedure Code is a very, proper order to pass; and further this order was passed so far back as the 28th January 1921, and it would not be right to upset an order more than a year, after on the mere technical grounds, even if that be a good one, that the Magistrate should not have passed an order because there was no use of criminal force.', (int) 4 => '<p>4. I dismiss the petition.<p>', (int) 5 => '<p>' ) $paragraphAfter = (int) 1 $cnt = (int) 6 $i = (int) 5include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109