1941 JTR(Mad) 6
1941 AIR(Mad) 803
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Lakshmana Rao, J.
Ponnambala Thevar
Versus
Ramaswamy Iyer
Decided On : 10.01.1941
The evidence justified the conviction under Section 447 of the Penal Code, but the eviction of the petitioner was not under Section 163A of the Madras Estates Land Act, leading to the setting aside of the conviction under Section 212(d) and (e) of the Madras Estates Land Act.
Conviction - Penal Code - Madras Estates Land Act - Summary: The court justified the conviction under Section 447 of the Penal Code but found the eviction of the petitioner not under Section 163A of the Madras Estates Land Act. The conviction under Section 212(d) and (e) of the Madras Estates Land Act was deemed unsustainable and set aside.
Fact of the Case:
The evidence justifies the conviction under Section 447, Penal Code, but the eviction of the petitioner was not under Section 163A, Madras Estates Land Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court justified the conviction under Section 447 of the Penal Code but found the eviction of the petitioner not under Section 163A of the Madras Estates Land Act. The conviction under Section 212(d) and (e), Madras Estates Land Act, is set aside and otherwise this petition is dismissed.
Issues: Conviction under Section 447, Penal Code and Section 212(d) and (e), Madras Estates Land Act
Ratio Decidendi: The evidence justified the conviction under Section 447 of the Penal Code, but the eviction of the petitioner was not under Section 163A of the Madras Estates Land Act, leading to the setting aside of the conviction under Section 212(d) and (e) of the Madras Estates Land Act.
Final Decision: Conviction under Section 447 of the Penal Code is justified, but the conviction under Section 212(d) and (e) of the Madras Estates Land Act is set aside.
Conviction - Penal Code - Madras Estates Land Act - Summary: The court justified the conviction under Section 447 of the Penal Code but found the eviction of the petitioner not under Section 163A of the Madras Estates Land Act. The conviction under Section 212(d) and (e) of the Madras Estates Land Act was deemed unsustainable and set aside.
Fact of the Case:
The evidence justifies the conviction under Section 447, Penal Code, but the eviction of the petitioner was not under Section 163A, Madras Estates Land Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court justified the conviction under Section 447 of the Penal Code but found the eviction of the petitioner not under Section 163A of the Madras Estates Land Act. The conviction under Section 212(d) and (e), Madras Estates Land Act, is set aside and otherwise this petition is dismissed.
Issues: Conviction under Section 447, Penal Code and Section 212(d) and (e), Madras Estates Land Act
Ratio Decidendi: The evidence justified the conviction under Section 447 of the Penal Code, but the eviction of the petitioner was not under Section 163A of the Madras Estates Land Act, leading to the setting aside of the conviction under Section 212(d) and (e) of the Madras Estates Land Act.
Final Decision: Conviction under Section 447 of the Penal Code is justified, but the conviction under Section 212(d) and (e) of the Madras Estates Land Act is set aside.
ORDER
Lakshmana Rao, J.
1. The evidence justifies the conviction under Section 447, Penal Code, but the eviction of the petitioner was not under Section 163A, Madras Estates Land Act, and the conviction under Section 212(d) and (e) of that Act is unsustainable. The conviction under Section 212(d) and (e), Madras Estates Land Act, is therefore set aside and otherwise this petition is dismissed.