text stringlengths 5 5.67k |
|---|
He may please be asked to complete this formality without any loss of time FAC |
In reply the Appellant states in his letter Ex FAC |
P. 12 dated the 10th April FAC |
The matter has already been discussed with you and finalised FAC |
No further action is required to be taken FAC |
It can be seen from the above that the appellant is reluctant to reply in writing as to what he is asking the contractor to do under verbal orders while the contractor for safeguarding his position is insisting on having it in writing Ratio |
The Trial Court as well as the High Court are in our view, justified in holding that crops of Sarson, gram and lusan were standing on the land acquired by the Military for extension of the Aerodrome Ratio |
It will also justify the conclusion that they were there at any rate till the 20th March 1963 and according to the letter of the contractor (P.W. 8) on 23-3-63 they were completely cut Ratio |
In so far as handing over of the possession of the land to the Contractor (P.W. 8) is concerned, the Trial Court and the High Court are equally justified in coming to the conclusion that the accused had not delivered the possession of the land to the contractor till quite late as would appear from the letter of P.W. 8 ... |
We are aware of the argument addressed before us that some of the witnesses had said that the water channels had been closed in February 1963 and therefore no crop could thereafter have been standing on the land and must have been destroyed Ratio |
There is also the further argument that some of the statements recorded by the Military authorities were not taken into account, as the High Court had thought that since the deponents denied the contents the officers who recorded the statement might have been called to show that they were properly recorded Ratio |
The learned advocate for the respondent also tried to support the stand taken by the High Court Ratio |
It 1is true that when a witness has admitted having signed his previous statements that is enough to prove that some statement of his was recorded and he had appended his signature thereto Ratio |
The only question is, what use can be made of such statements even where the witness admits having signed the statements made before the Military Authorities Ratio |
They can at best be used to contradict in the cross-examination of such a witness when he gives evidence at the Trial Court of the accused in the manner provided under Section 145 of 'the Evidence Act STA |
If it is intended to 'contradict the'- witness by the writing, the attention of the witness should be called before the writing can be proved to those parts of it which are to be used for the purpose of contradicting him Ratio |
If this is not done, the evidence of the witnesses cannot be assailed in respect of those statements by merely proving that the witness had signed the document Ratio |
When the witnesses are contradicted by their previous statements in the manner aforesaid, then that part of the statements which has been put to the witness will be considered along with the evidence to assess the worth of the witness in determining his veracity Ratio |
The whole of the previous statement however cannot be treated as substantive evidence Ratio |
We do not find that the assessment of the evidence by the Trial Court and the High Court even in the light of such of those previous statements that have been put to the witnesses in the manner stated above is in any way unjustified Ratio |
It is said that some of the documents i.e. Ex. 8, 10 and 11 have not been put to the witnesses even though the Court relied upon them Ratio |
P.8 Ratio |
as already noticed is the letter of Telu Ram Jain to the Assistant Garrison Engineer and P. 10 is the letter of Telu Ram Jain to the Garrison Engineer Ratio |
Both these related to possession of the acquired land not being given to him Ratio |
In the examination of the accused under Section 342 the Special Judge in our view did put all the circumstances against the accused which formed the basis of the conviction Ratio |
He was asked about the symbolic delivery of possession, the handing over of the actual possession of the land on 13-2-63 and the existence of crops on the date when possession was delivered on 16-2- 63 Ratio |
He was asked about Telu Ram's evidence and also that he had given possession of the land RD 1200 to RD 00 to the contractor after the crop had been cut Ratio |
The letter Ex. P. 13 was also put to him and he was asked about the existence of the crops Ratio |
It cannot, therefore be said that circumstances appearing against the accused which have formed the basis of the conviction had not been put to him Ratio |
The appellant has denied that there was any standing crop on the land acquired on any date after 13-2-63 Ratio |
On the other hand, he emphatically asserted that at the time when the possession was delivered to him on 13-2-63 there was also no crops standing on the acquired land Ratio |
This statement is clearly false as it is against credible documentary evidence at a time when there was no possibility of any charge being levied against the appellant Ratio |
It is also incorrect because the ,contractor did not work on the acquired land since 1-2- 63 that position is reflected in the review report initiated by the A.G.E. on 9-2-63 (vide Ex. DQ Ratio |
The appellant's statement is therefore belied by the documentary evidence which shows unmistakably that there was on 13-2-63 bumper crops of different varieties standing,on the land which was valued thereafter and compensation assessed Ratio |
We do not therefore think that there is any justification in the criticism that circumstances appearing in the several documents have not been put to him Ratio |
It is lastly contended that certain witnesses who would be necessary to unfold the prosecution story have not been called and.in spite of the Court directing the production, of the usufruct register it was not produced ARG |
These omissions it is submitted by the learned advocate has prejudiced the accused ARG |
As the learned advocate for the respondent rightly pointed out with reference to each one of the persons who, it was claimed, should have been called, that there was already evidence relating to the particular matter about which the person specified was sought to be called Ratio |
For instance, it is said that Gamkhar, Military Estate officer was not produced to prove the receipt Ex Ratio |
P. 24 Ratio |
But this was not necessary because Gamkhar was not present nor did he sign the receipt Ratio |
The person who had signed the receipt is Sukhchain Lal Jain and he was examined as P.W. 11 Ratio |
Similarly, it is said that the Tehsildar N. L. Handa has not been produced Ratio |
But when the prosecution relies upon the proof of Ex Ratio |
P. 24 as also to establish that there was standing crops on the land when the possession was delivered on 13-2-63 on certain witnesses who were present on the respective occasions Ratio |
the nonexamination of other witnesses without anything more cannot be treated as defect in the prosecution Ratio |
Before the High Court also this grievance was aired but that Court also likewise found no justification in it Ratio |
We are therefore not impressed with this argument Ratio |
On' a careful consideration of the evidence both oral and documentary it is established that the Appellant who was in charge of the expansion work on the air-strip was given possession of the land acquired for that purpose on 13-2-63, that there was standing thereon, a bumper crop of Sarson, gram and Lusan on that day,... |
The fact that otwithstanding overwhelming evidence particularly of his own admission at the time he denies that there were ever any crops when delivery of possession of the land acquired was taken by him, further reinforces the conclusion that he allowed the crops to be cut away with dishonest or fraudulent motive RPC |
We do not think in these circumstances there is any justification whatever for interfering with the concurrent findings of the Trial Court and the High Court that the Appellant is guilty of an offence under Section 5(1)(c) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and consequently the appeal is dismiss... |
Appeal dismissed RPC |
This appeal is by special leave against the judgment and decree of the High Court of Kerala which dismissed an appeal against the judgment and decree of the Subordinate Court of Havelikkara FAC |
The appellant had filed a suit on October 24, 1942, for the recovery of Rs FAC |
2 lakhs and interest thereon from the date of suit and for costs originally against the State of Travancore now the State of Kerala-the respondent-and three others who however were not made parties in the appeal before the High Court FAC |
It has alleged in the plaint that the plaintiff (appellant) was wrongfully dispossessed from 160 acres of land along with the improvements which had been effected by him and as the State had appropriated those improvements without any right or title thereto he claimed the value of those improvements FAC |
It was the appellant's case that he had been in occupation of the said 160 acres of Cherikkal land (unregistered dry lands in hilly tracts) about which and the adjoining lands there was a dispute as to whether the same belonged to a jenmi family known as Koodalvalli Illom--hereinafter called 'the Illom or to the Govern... |
The appellant's father and the appellant had occupied these lands, made improvement thereon by planting coconut trees, arecanut palms, peppervines, rubber-trees, jack trees, other trees, and by constructing bungalow, huts, wells etc FAC |
in the bona fide belief that the lands belonged to the Illom FAC |
It was stated that according to the practice prevailing in the erstwhile State of Travancore the cultivators could enter into unoccupied waste lands belonging to the janmies with the object of cultivating and improving them, and as they held the lands under them by paying rent, the consent of the Jemies to such occupat... |
This practice it seems, was also current in respect of lands belonging to the, Government before the Travancore Land Conservancy Act 4 of 1091 (24-7-1916) (hereinafter called 'the Act STA |
It is the case of the appellant that even, after the Act was passed, unauthorised occupants of land belonging to the Government who had made improvements therein had, under the rules made both under the Act and the Land Assignment Act a preferential claim over others for getting kuthakapattom or assignment of the prope... |
It may be mentioned that in respect of the 160 acres of land of' the Illom which were occupied by the appellant's father and the appellant, there was a dispute between the Illom and the Travancore State from about 1848 FAC |
While this dispute was pending it appears the appellant applied to the Conservator of Forests for registration of the lands in his name, but the application was rejected on June 14, 1919 stating that the land applied for cannot be registered (Ext. A FAC |
While the application for registration was pending, the dispute between the Illom and the State of Travancore had reached a stage when the Illom had to institute a suit O. S. No FAC |
No ARG |
126 of 1096 FAC |
January 1918) in the District Court at Quilon for a declaration of its title to those properties FAC |
In that suit the appellant, after his application for registration was rejected, sought to get himself impleaded, but that application also was rejected FAC |
Thereafter the suit filed by the Illom was dismissed on 28-6-1109 (February 10, 1934 FAC |
An appeal against it was dismissed on September 27, 1943 FAC |
It may here be mentioned that while the suit of the Illom i.e. O.S. No. 126 of 1096 M.E. was pending in the District Court, Quilon, the Government of Travancore had initiated proceedings in ejectment against the appellant by L. C. Case FAC |
112 of 1100; (1925 A.D FAC |
As the suit of the illom had been finally disposed of and the title of' the Illom to the lands was not established, the appellant apprehending that he might be ejected in the above L.C. Case filed a suit FAC |
O.S. 156 of 1103 M.E. (1927-28 A.D.) in the District Court at Quilon against the respondent to establish his right and title to the said 160 acres and in the adjoining Cherikkal lands in his possession FAC |
In that suit an injunction was prayed for in respect of 100 acres of the property involved in the suit, but the prayer was rejected FAC |
Against that order a Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 206 of 1110 M.E. (1934-35 A.D.) was filed in the High Court of Travancore FAC |
The High Court issued a commission for inspecting the properties and the Commissioner in his report part 13 of Ext FAC |
CC set out the improvements made by the appellant on the lands which comprised of a bungalow in which the appellant was residing, a number of small houses FAC |
a rubbers state, and a large number of other valuable trees like jack trees, mango trees, coconut trees etc FAC |
It appears that as there was no injunction restraining his dispossession in L.C. Case FAC |
112 of 11, 00 M.E. an order was passed for dispossessing the appellant on July 24 FAC |
1939, Ext FAC |
VI FAC |
The appellant, pursuant to this order, was dispossessed from the lands and possession of these lands was given to the second defendant Nair Service Society Ltd. in August 1939 FAC |
Thereafter the suit out of which this appeal arises was filed against the Government on October 24, 1942 FAC |
The respondent-State contended that the appellant encroached on the suit lands, that proceedings were taken against him in L.C. Case ARG |
112 of 11 00 M. E ARG |
and he was evicted in due course, that the trespass by the appellant was of recent origin, that the allegation that the entry was made in the belief that the land belonged to the Illom was false, that the Revenue and Forest Departments did not harass the appellant but they took steps for dispossessing him only in accor... |
112 of 1100 M.E. and the appellant was therefore not entitled to claim any value for improvements as it was his duty to remove any building before he was evicted ARG |
The respondent also averred that it had not taken possession of any crops or movables as stated in the, plaint and that the movables found in the building were attached for the realisation of arrears of fine etc ARG |
There were other allegations also but it is unnecessary for purposes of this appeal to refer to them Ratio |
Several issues were framed, but it is not necessary to refer to: them except to say that the suit was decreed only for Rs Ratio |
3000/being the value of the appellant's bungalow taken possession of by the respondent Ratio |
The rest of the claim was dismissed FAC |
it was observed by the Trial Court that though there is no specific evidence to show when exactly the possession of the appellant had commenced, the evidence however indicated that it must have started close to the year I 100 M. E. and that in any case the claim of the appellant that possession was from 1030 M.E. was n... |
The Trial Court also held that all through these long years there had been a dispute as to the title between the Illom and the State and after the suit of the Illom was dismissed and the Illom's title was not sustained, the allegation that the improvements were effected cannot be stated to be bona fide RLC |
It pointed out that the plaintiff (appellant) had applied to get himself impleaded on 0.S. No. 126 of 109,6 M. E. but his application was rejected, and after that suit was dismissed the appellant again applied for registry, but that was also rejected RLC |
All this, according to the Trial Court, would show that the appellant was aware that he was remaining on Government lands without title RLC |
It was further held that the greater part of the improvements were affected by the appellant after the proceedings in the L.C. Case No RLC |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.