Raja Goundan And Anr. vs Unknown on 6 April 1966
Citation- (1966) 2 MLJ 518
Date of judgement- 10/12/2003
Court- Supreme Court of India
Case type- Appeal (civil) 16757 of 1996
Appellant- R. Kuppayee & Anr.
Respondent- Raja Gounder
Bench- R.C. Lahoti & Ashok Bhan.
Referred section- Section 323 of Indian penal code, Section 403 of Criminal Procedure Code, Section 202 crpc.
Facts of the case
The appellants are their mother, the defendant-respondent, who will simply be referred to as “the respondent” throughout this discussion. The respondent hereinabove settled an extent of 12 cents of land encompassed in S. No. 113/2, Thathagapatti village, Salem district in favour of the appellants by means of a registered settlement deed, Exhibit A-1, which was dated 29 August 1985. The deed may be seen in the above-mentioned document. The respondent made the settlement out of genuine love and compassion for the appellants, as stated in the recitals of the settlement deed, and the appellants were given ownership of the property on the same day that the settlement deed was completed. According to the recitals, the settlement was made by the respondent. According to the schedule of the settlement document, the entire area of the land that belonged to the family was 3.16 acres. The amount of the gift was 12 cents, and it came with a home covered in Mangalore tiles that was built on the property that was given. In the settlement document, it was also stated that in the future, neither the responder nor any other male or female heirs would have a right to the settled property. This was declared to apply to the property in its whole.
Issues of the case
Is it permissible for a father to provide or settle for his married daughters a portion of the Joint Hindu Family property that comprises a substantial amount of immovable property?
Taking into account the entirety of the family’s holdings, whether or not a gift that was given in favour of the appellants was within permissible parameters.?
Arguments of the case
After a period of approximately 5 years, on April 22, 1990, the respondent and his colleagues demanded that the appellants abandon the land and attempted to trespass into it. In response to the fact that the respondent made an attempt to trespass onto the property, the appellants filed Original Suit No. 451 of 1990 in the Court of the District Munsif in Salem. They asked for relief that would prevent the respondent and his associates from disrupting the appellants’ peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property in any way by means of a permanent injunction, or they asked for the grant of any other relief that would be appropriate given the specifics of the situation. The respondent fought the claim, and in the written statement that he submitted, he took the position that he had not completed any settlement deed. This was his stance in the case. That his son-in-law, who is the spouse of Appellant 1, had acquired a home site, and that the respondent had been escorted to the office of the Sub-Registrar to witness the sale document. That he was used to drinking alcohol, and the appellants and their respective spouses took advantage of the fact that he was addicted to alcohol by falsely misrepresenting themselves in order to have the sale deed obtained from him. Given that the contested land was part of a Hindu joint family property that included both him and his son, it was impossible to give up the property under any circumstances.
The parties presented their evidence in support of their respective petitions before the court. Appellant 1 took his position as the first witness in the stand. She acknowledged that the land had been in the family for generations. Put her in the witness box as the first prosecution witness. She acknowledged that the land had been in the family for generations. That her father had given the land to her and her sister against his will out of pure love and devotion for them, as he had always done throughout their lives. PW 2, who was the witness who attested to the authenticity of Exhibit A-1, indicated that he was familiar with the respondent. The respondent asked him to witness the document while he was standing on the road and having a conversation with some other people at the time. He accompanied the respondent when they went to the office of the Sub-Registrar. Following his examination of the same, the respondent appended his signatures to the Exhibit A 1. Both he and Govindasamy signed Exhibit A-1 as witnesses to the transaction.
Govindasamy has died. During the cross-examination, he said that he was not familiar with the contents of the Exhibit A-1 paper. He demonstrated his lack of knowledge of the date, location, or identity of the person who purchased the stamp sheets. He denied having any awareness of the fact that the respondent engaged in the practice of drinking alcoholic beverages on a regular basis. In order to provide evidence in support of his position, the respondent testified in court as witness number 1. He claimed that the land was owned by the Hindu family as a whole since it had been acquired with the money that was gained from the sale of the ancestral property. That his daughter’s husband, who was employed by TVS, had just acquired some property, and that he had been escorted by his daughter’s husband to sign as a witness on the transaction. He denied having signed the settlement instrument that was in favour of the people who were appealing the decision. He denied having any familiarity with PW 2. It was argued that the appellants’ ownership of the property was permissive since they were permitted to remain in the house in order for them to be able to bring their children to school. This was done to facilitate the appeal. He denied signing the settlement document, the “vakalatnama” that he sent to his lawyer, and the
summons that were delivered to him by the court. He also claimed that his signature was not on the vakalatnama. It was said that he was unable to speak English.
It was also mentioned by him that his signatures were illegally collected under the pretence of signing as a witness on the document by which his son-in-law had purchased a home site. He stated this in the context of the document that his son-in-law had used to purchase the house site. The family had a total of 3.16 acres of property, making up the entirety of their holding. He acknowledged that his son had been living apart from the family for the past three to four years, but he claimed that he was backing out of the settlement deal on his son’s recommendation. That drinking was a regular part of his routine.
There was no more evidence presented by either side throughout this trial.
The evidence presented by the respondent was accepted by the trial court. It was decided that the respondent was escorted to the office of the Sub-Registrar to witness a document while a settlement deed was being completed from him. This was stated in the decision. It was decided not to accept the testimony of PW 2, the attesting witness. It was decided that the testimony given by PW 2 in his deposition supported the case that was presented by.
JUDGEMENT OF THE CASE
The learned Advocate for the accused relied on the Bench decision in Perumal v. Chithanathan 1965 M.L.J. (Crl.) 478 in support of his contention that there should be separate inquiries before the Sub-Magistrate or; the police charge-sheet and on the private complaint of Chinna Goundan as the former enquiry has to be held under Section 207-A, Criminal Procedure Code, while the latter enquiry has to be held under Section 207, Criminal Procedure Code, though they He also cited the decision of the Supreme Court in Chhadawilal Jain v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1960) S.C.J. 901: (1960) M.L.J. (Cr.) 620, in which it was stated that failure to comply with section 208 of the Criminal Procedure Code in a case that was initiated based on a private complaint would vitiate the commitment and could not be remedied using Section 537 of the Criminal Procedure Code. But in my opinion, it is absolutely unnecessary to conduct an enquiry on the private complaint made by Chinna Goundan before the Sub-Magistrate as the complaint filed before the Police had been investigated by the police, who had filed a charge-sheet, and it constitutes the subject-matter of the P.R.C. case. This is because the complaint filed before the Police had been investigated by the police, who had filed a charge-sheet. The learned Advocate for the complainant and the learned Public Prosecutor both indicated that in light of the facts of this case, it is not necessary to conduct any further investigation on the private complaint made by Chinna Goundan; nonetheless, this Court can set aside the judgement of acquittal as erroneous if the Advocate for the complainant and the learned Public Prosecutor are correct.
Due to the grounds stated above, the Criminal Revision Petition (Crl.R.C.) No. 178 of 1966 is granted, and the acquittal of the accused in Criminal Complaint (Crl.Crl.) No. 3464 of 1965, which was on the file of the Sub-Magistrate in Sankari, is reversed; nevertheless, no additional investigation is ordered due to the ongoing investigation on the police charge sheet. Crl.M.P. No.
3247 of 1965 to quash the proceedings in P.R.C. No. 22 of 1965 on the file of the Sub-Magistrate, Sankari is dismissed, but the inquiry shall be begun afresh by the re-calling and re-examination of P.W. 1 from the beginning of the investigation.
| Overview of the case-The order of the Magistrate acquitting the accused under Section 248 of the Criminal Procedure Code, like the one in this instance, was not lawful or legitimate. As a result, the High Court, in the exercise of its revisional authority sue main, set aside the order and substituted another order with the following words: As a result, the matter at hand is combined with C.R. matter No. 118 of 1961, which will be the only one further investigated from this point forward. Therefore, it is impossible to dispute whether or not this Court has the authority to vacate the decision of acquittal in Criminal Case No. 3464 of 1965. Because of the arguments presented above, the order of acquittal has been overturned. The learned Advocate for the accused argued that there should be a retrial of Public Rule of Criminal Procedure No. 22 of 1965. He based his argument on the ruling that was made in the case Raimen Ho v. State. It should be noted, however, that the wrong acquittal of the accused under Section 248 of the Criminal Procedure Code in the case cited would operate as a bar to the trial of the accused in the case taken on file on the police charge-sheet until the acquittal was set aside and therefore retrial of the case taken on file on the police charge-sheet was ordered. This is something that should be taken into consideration. However, in the matter at hand, I have unequivocally determined that the incorrect decision of acquittal of the accused in C.C. No. 3464 of 1965 on the file of the Sub-Magistrate in Sankari cannot serve as a barrier to the trial of the accused in the P.R.C. case. Because of this, it is not necessary to issue a new trial order for the P.R.C. case. There could really be no objection to the retrial of the P.R.C. case as called for by the learned Advocate for the accused, and in fact, the learned Public Prosecutor did not oppose it. However, as I have been informed that the complainant alone has been interrogated in part, there could really be no objection to the retrial of the P.R.C. case. P.R.C. No. 22 of 1965, which is now on file with the Sub-Magistrate, Sankari, has been given the go-ahead to be retried by the Sub-Magistrate. |
REFERNCES- https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1161561/
WRITTEN BY ASHITTA ARORA, OP JINDAL GLOBAL UNIVERSITY
