RAM RATTAN AND ORS. versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

RAM RATTAN AND ORS. versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

Where a trespasser, even if wrongfully, has acquired effective, undisturbed, and settled possession to the knowledge of the true owner, the owner must resort to legal remedies and cannot dispossess the trespasser by force or plead right of private defence. In this case, the complainant was in settled possession, and the appellants—being aggressors—were not entitled to the plea of private defence of person or property.

Parties
Appellants: Ram Rattan and Ors.; Respondent: State of Uttar Pradesh
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
26 November 1976
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal by Special Leave From the Judgment Dated 12 4 1971 of the Allahabad High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 1909/68
Outcome
Appeal dismissed (except conviction under ss. 326/34 IPC for Ram Rattan and Ram Samujh was set aside, other convictions affirmed).
Legal Topics
Right of Private Defence, Trespass, Possession, Dispossession of Trespasser, Criminal Liability for Assault and Homicide
Criminal Law Right of Private Defence Trespass Possession Dispossession of Trespasser Criminal Liability for Assault and Homicide

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ram Rattan and Ors.

Appellants

State of Uttar Pradesh

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal by Special Leave From the Judgment Dated 12 4 1971 of the Allahabad High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 1909/68

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a true owner is entitled to dispossess a trespasser who has accomplished possession to his knowledge and plead right to private defence under Indian Penal Code
  2. 2 Whether the appellants were justified in claiming right of private defence of person and property under the facts found

Ratio Decidendi

Where a trespasser, even if wrongfully, has acquired effective, undisturbed, and settled possession to the knowledge of the true owner, the owner must resort to legal remedies and cannot dispossess the trespasser by force or plead right of private defence. In this case, the complainant was in settled possession, and the appellants—being aggressors—were not entitled to the plea of private defence of person or property.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed (except conviction under ss. 326/34 IPC for Ram Rattan and Ram Samujh was set aside, other convictions affirmed).

Orders

  • Conviction and sentence of appellant Ram Sajiwan under s. 302 IPC affirmed
  • Conviction of Ram Rattan and Ram Samujh under ss. 326/34 IPC set aside