Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1951SC247; [1951]2SCR431
Mahajan, J. 1. The dispute in this appeal is between the fishermen residing in nine villages of Killa Marichpur, a permanently settled zamindari in the Puri Collectorate (Orissa State) and the Raja of Aul, the owner of seven annas, seven pies, and ten karants share in the zamindari. The other sharers in the zamindari are defendants 19 to 29. Within the ambit of the estate flows 'Devi Nadi,' with its several branches and tributaries. Three fisheries 'Madhurdia,' 'Marichpurdia,' and 'Maladia' appertain to this estate. The controversy in this appeal concerns the fishery known as the 'Madhurdia' fishery. 2. In the year 1936, three suits, Nos. 62, 63 and 64, were brought by the Raja of Aul against defendants 1 to 18 on behalf of themselves and other fishermen residing in the nine villages of Killa Marichpur for a declaration in respect of his rights in the three above mentioned fisheries. All these suits were decided in his favour by the trial court. The defendants, preferred no appeal in s...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1951SC204; 1951CriLJ768; (1951)IMLJ612(SC); [1951]2SCR322
Fazl Ali, J.1. This appeal, which has been preferred after obtaining special leave to appeal from the Privy Council, is confined to the single question whether mens rea is necessary to constitute an offence under section 81 of Defence of India Rules. 2. The facts of the case are briefly these. The appellant is the licensee of two petrol filling stations Nos. 552 and 276 at Guntur but is a resident of Chirala, 40 miles away. He is a Presidency First Class Bench Magistrate at Chirala and Manages what has been described as a vast business at several places. Ch. Venkatarayudu and Dadda Pichayya, his employees, were respectively in charge of the aforesaid filling stations. In 1946, the appellant and his two employees were tried before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Guntur in respect of offences under the Motor Spirit Rationing Order, 1941, and were, convicted in each of the cases on the 18th July, 1946. In the first case, the charges against the appellant and the employee in charge of the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1951SC207; 1951CriLJ775; (1951)IMLJ617(SC); [1951]2SCR312
Kania, C.J.1. This is an appeal by special leave against an order of the Allahabad High Court dismissing the revision petition of the appellant against the order of the Special Magistrate refusing to quash the proceedings on the ground that the prosecution of the appellant inter alia under sections 161 and 165 of the Indian Penal Code was illegal and without jurisdiction in the absence of the sanction of the Government under section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code and section 6 of the Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947), hereafter referred to as the Act. The material facts are these. In 1947 the appellant held the office of Regional Deputy Iron and Steel Controller, Kanpur Circle, U.P., and was a public servant. The police having suspected the appellant to be guilty of the offences mentioned above applied to the Deputy Magistrate, Kanpur, for a warrant of his arrest on the 22nd of October, 1947, and the warrant was issued on the next day. The appellant was arrested on the 27th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1951SC210; [1951]2SCR370
Mukherjea, J. 1. This appeal is directed against an appellate judgment of a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court dated September 8, 1942, by which the learned Judges reversed a decree made in favour of the plaintiff by the Civil Judge of Bareilly in Original Suit No. 18 of 1934 and dismissed the suit as against defendants 1 to 4. 2. The suit out of which the appeal arises, was commenced by one Babu Ram as plaintiff and it was for a declaration that the lands in suit appertained to a village named Sikha situated in Tehsil Aonla within the district of Bareilly, of which the plaintiff was the Zemindar and Lambardar, and that the defendants had no right or title to the same. There was a claim for recovery of possession in case the plaintiff was found to have been dispossessed from the whole or a portion of the disputed lands with an ancillary prayer for mesne profits. The original plaintiff died sometime after the plaint was filed and the suit was continued by his two sons, who were ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1951SC217; [1951]2SCR344
Fazl Ali, J.1. These are six petitions which have been presented to this Court on behalf of three groups of persons in the following circumstances. 2. On the 30th October, 1948, the Military Governor of Hyderabad by virtue of the powers delegated to him by H.E.H. the Nizam enacted the Special Tribunal Regulations (No. 5 of 1358 F), which was amended by several later Regulations issued on the 22nd May, 1949, 10th July, 1949, 23rd July and 30th October, 1949. The Regulation provided among other things that the Military Governor may constitute a Special Tribunal or Tribunals, each consisting of three members appointed by him, and that he may by general or special order direct that these Tribunals shall try any offence, whether committed before or after the commencement of the Regulation, or any class of offences. Section 8 of the Regulation empowered the Military Governor to direct, by order, that in such circumstances and under such conditions, if any, as may be specified in the directio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1951SC214; [1951]2SCR332
Fazl Ali, J. 1. These appeals are directed against the judgment and decree of the High Court of Judicature at Fort William in West Bengal, confirming a decision of the President of the Calcutta Improvement Tribunal, which modified an award of the First Land Acquisition Collector of Calcutta, made under the Land Acquisition Act in respect of the acquisition of two premises, which may conveniently be referred to as Nos. 140 and 141, Cotton Street. 2. In order to understand the points of contest between the various claimants to the compensation awarded in the case, it seems necessary to refer to certain facts showing how they came to be interested in the premises which are the subject-matter of the land acquisition proceedings. These premises belonged at one time to one Sewanarayan Kalia, and afterwards they became the property of a deity, Sree Sree Iswar Gopal Jieu Thakur, installed by Sewanarayan Kalia at Chinsurah in the district of Hoogly. Sewanarayan, who had three wives, died in 183...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1951SC201; 1951CriLJ757; [1951]2SCR303
Patanjali Sastri, J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Patna dismissing a revision petition against the conviction of the appellant for an offence under s. 186 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The appellant was at all material times the General Manager of the Jagdishpur Zamindary Company (hereinafter referred to as the company) who were the lessees of a sugar factory referred to in these proceedings as the Bhita Sugar Factory. He was prosecuted for obstructing the then District Magistrate and the Special Officer-in-charge of Rationing, Patna, in the discharge of their official functions when they went to the factory on 6th December, 1947, to remove 5,000 maunds of sugar which had been seized out of the stock held by the company pursuant to an order of the Government of Bihar, dated 5th December, 1947. The case for the prosecution was as follows : The company had deliberately failed to comply with the orders for supply of sugar issued from time to time u...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1951SC189; (1951)IMLJ560(SC); [1951]2SCR292
Mukherjea, J. 1. This appeal is on behalf of the decree-holders in a mortgage suit and it is directed against a judgment and order of a Division Bench of the Madras High Court dated January 5, 1948, by which the learned Judges reversed, on appeal, an order of the District Judge of East Tanjore made in a proceeding under section 47 and Order 21, rule 2, of the Civil Procedure Code. 2. The material facts are not in controversy and may be briefly stated as follows. The appellants before us are the representatives of three original plaintiffs who, as mortgagees, instituted a suit (being O.S. No. 30 of 1934) in the Court of the District Judge, East Tanjore, for enforcement of a mortgage, against the present respondent, who was defendant No. 1 in the suit, and six other persons. The mortgage bond, upon which the suit was brought, was executed by defendant No. 1 for himself and his minor undivided brother, the defendant No. 2, and also as authorised agent on behalf of defendants 3 to 7 who we...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1951SC196; 1951CriLJ510; [1951]2SCR284
Chandrasekhara Aiyar, J.1. This Appeal comes up before us on special leave granted by His Majesty's Order in Council and it is directed against orders made by the Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sen of the High Court of Judicature at Fort William in Bengal, directing a retrial of the appellant D. Stephens, who had been acquitted by the Chief Presidency Magistrate of contravening the provisions of section 26 of the Indian Merchant Shipping Act. 2. The facts that gave rise to this prosecution are correctly set out the following two paragraphs which are quoted from the judgment of the learned Chief Presidency Magistrate :- 'The owners of the ships have an organisation known as the Calcutta Liners' Conference. The seamen have an organisation know as the Joint Supply Office. Since 1940-41 the licensed broker system for engagement of seamen had been abolished. The Calcutta Maritime Board was established as a result of a collective agreement between the owners of the ships and seamen's representatives fo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1951SC193; (1951)IMLJ556(SC); [1951]2SCR258
Chandrasekhara Aiyar, J.1. The plaintiff, Arjun Singh alias Puran, brought a suit in the court of the Subordinate Judge, Jullundur, against Inder Singh, Kartar Singh and five others, for a declaration that a will executed by the first defendant, Inder Singh, in favour of the second defendant, Kartar Singh, about 14 years ago was null and void as against the plaintiff, who was the first defendant's reversionary heir after his death. The plaint comprised a half share of land measuring 395 kanals in the village of Kadduwal another half share of land measuring 837 kanals and 11 marlas in the village of Pattar Kalan, and four houses in the latter village. In the pedigree attached to the plaint showing the relationship of the parties, the plaintiff claims Sehja Singh as his 4th ancestor. Jodha Singh and Jai Singh are shows as Sehja Singh's sons. Defendant No. 1, Inder Singh, is Jodha Singh's grandson. It is alleged that the parties are Jat agriculturists governed by the customary law in matt...
Tag this Judgment!