Varadaraja Chettiar vs Swami Maistry and Others

Yahya Ali, J.—This is a revision against the acquittal of the accused. They were acquitted of an offence u/s 447 of the Indian Penal Code

with which they were charged for having carried away the usufruct of a tamarind tree which was in the possession and enjoyment of Varadaraja

Chetty who was examined as P.W, 1 the case. They were also acquitted of the offence u/s 426 of the Indian Penal Code for carrying away the

stones of the compound wall Varada raja Chetty filed O.S. No. 174 of 1943 in the District Munsiff''s Court, Chingleput, for a declaration of his

title to the tamarind tree in question. The suit was dismissed by the District Muhsiff but on appeal the District Judge set aside the District Munsiff''s

decree and allowed the appeal with the result that the right and title of Varadaraja Chetty to the tamarind tree was established. In acquitting the

accused the Magistrate has completely disregarded the decree of the District Judge in A.S. No. 59 of 1944 declaring Varadaraja Chetty''s right to

the tree. He has relied however on certain correspondence that went on between the first accused and the revenue authorities after the appellate

decree of the Civil Court. A Criminal Court is not entitled to disregard the decree of a Civil Court declaring rights to the identical property in

dispute in the criminal case. There is also-a complaint that the stones of a compound wall had been carried away. The evidence is fairly satisfactory

with regard to that. The acquittal of the accused u/s 447 of the Indian Penal Code by the Sub-Magistrate is set aside while the acquittal u/s 426 of

the Indian Penal Code is not disturbed. The case will be sent back to the District Magistrate, Chingleput, to be sent to a competent Magistrate for

retrial and disposal according to law, with regard to the offence u/s 447 of the Indian Penal Code relating to the carrying away of the usufruct of

the tamarind tree.