SURAJPAL SINGH AND OTHERS versus THE STATE

Citation: [1952] 1 S.C.R. 193 · Decided: 20-12-1951 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SIR SYED FAZL ALI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

.. 
S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
193 
(excluding the plaintiff's) for the aggregate sum due 
as above and, in default of ·payment, limiting the 
liabilities of each item of property to the sum rateably 
due on it under section 82. 
On the question of costs. The plaintiff repudiated 
section 82 in the course of the arguments before us and 
rested his case on section 43 of the Contract Act, nor 
did he clearly and unmistakably plead a case of sub-
rogation in his plaint even in the alternative. 
The 
defendants, on the other hand, set up a case which ·has 
failed on the facts. 
I would, therefore, 
direct 
each 
side to bear its own costs in this appeal. 
As regards the costs incurred in the Courts below 
and 
any 
costs which may 
be necessitated 
by a ' 
further enquiry, they will be determined according to 
the final result of the litigation and with due regard to 
all matters bearing on the question of costs. 
FAZL ALI J.-I agree. 
Case remanded. 
Agent for the appellant : M. S. K. Sastri 
Agent for the respondent: Ganpat Rai. 
SURAJPAL SINGH AND OTHERS 
ti. 
THE STATE 
[SAIYID FAZL ALI and VMAN BosE JJ.J 
Criminal Procedure Code (Act V of 1898), s. 417-Appeal again.rt 
acquittal-lnterfert:nce-Guiding principle. 
It is well' settled that in an appeal under s. 417 of the Criminal 
Procedure Code, the High Court has full 
power 
to review ·the 
evidence upon which the order of· acquittal was foonded. 
But it 
is equally well settled that the presumption of innocence of the 
accused is further reinforced by his acquittal by the trial Court 
and' the findings of the trial 'Court which had the aqvantagc of 
seeing the witnesses and hearing their evidence can be reversed 
only foc very substantial and compelling reasons • 
.. 
1951 
K1d'ar Lall !it!tlt 
11t1ti Another 
v. 
Hari Lall Si!al 
Bose I 
19$1 
Dec. 2(,, 
!951 
Surajpal Singh 
11nd Others 
v. 
The State. 
Faz/ Ali /. 
194 
S_(JPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1952] 
CRIMINAL 
APPELLATE 
JuRisDJCTION : 
Criminal 
Appeal No. 16 of 1950. 
Appeal by special leave from 
the judgment .and order dated 8th May, 1947, of the 
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (Sankar Saran 
and Akbar Hussain JJ.) in Criminal Appeal No. 80 
of 1946. 
S. P. Sinha (G. C. Mathur, with him), for the appel-
lant. 
• 
K. B. Asthana, for the respondent. 
1951. December 20. 
The Judgment of 
the Court 
was delivered by 
FAZL Au.J.-This is_an appeal against a judgment 
of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad revers-
ing the decision of the Sessions Judge of Aligarh in a 
criminal case. 
The 
appellants were tried 
by ·the 
Sessions Judge on charges under section 302 read with 
section 149, section 148, 
sections 325 and 326 read 
with section 149, and section 201 of the Indian Penal 
Code, but were acquitted. 
On 
appeal 
by 
the 
State 
Government, the High Court ,reversed the 
Sessions 
Judge's decision, and 
convicted 
the 
appellants 
and 
sentenced them to transportation for life under section 
302 read with section 149, to five yeart' rigorous im-
prisonment under sections 325 and 326 read with section 
149, and to two years', rigorous imprisonment 
under 
section 147 of the Indian Penal Code, all the sentences 
being made to run concurrently. The appellants there-
after applied to the Privy Council 
for special 
leave, 
which was granted on the 28th October, 1947. 
The facts which were put before the court on behalf 
of the prosecution may be briefly stated 
as 
follows. 
There is a plot No. 518 in Nagaria Patti Chaharum, 
village Shahgarh in the district of Aligarh which is 
about 30 bighas in area and is known as the "teesa" 
field. This plot was the "sir" land of several landlords 
including Mst. Bhagwati Kuer and Ratan Singh 
and 
had 
been 
let out 
to 
certain 
tenants. 
In 
1944, 
Mst. Bhagwati Kuer, Ratan Singh and their co-sharers 
filed a suit for the ejectment of the tenants, and the 
•
-
..,· 
J ' 
. 
S.C.R. 
&,UPREME COURT REPORTS 
195 
suit was decreed. 
On the 7th June, 1945, possession 
over the plot was delivered by the A.min to Surajpal 
Singh, the first appellant, who was the mukhtar-i-A.m 
of Mst. Bhagwati Kuer. . It was contended on 
behalf 
of Surajpal Singh that he took possession on behalf of 
all the 
co--sharers, 
but certain statements made by 
Rattan Singh in his evidence do not support this con-
tention. 
However that may be, it appears that 'on the 
17th June, 1945, Ratan Singh reported 
to 
the 
police 
that he had sent his labourers to irrigate the "teesa" 
f

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.