SONAMATI DEVI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Pursuant to the provisions of Ordinance No. XXXVIII of 1944 certain properties were attached on the allegations that they belonged to Ragho Prasad who was an accused for the commission of an offence, which is admittedly a scheduled offence, that is to say, an offence mentioned in the schedule to the said Ordinance. If these two appeals certain landed property, a house-standing thereon and a press installed therein are in question. The land and the house are claimed by Sonamati Devi, the wife of Mahabir Prasad. Sonamati is the appellant in Miscellaneous Appeal No.. 170 of 1955. The press installed therein is, however, claimed by her husband Mahabir, who is the appellant in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 171 of 1955. This Mahabir is the brother of Ragho, the accused. After the attachment, both Mahabir and his wife-preferred a claim to the properties, as provided in Section 4 of the said Ordinance, and their claim was investigated by the District Judge, as provided in Section 5 of the Ordinance. After hearing the parties, the learned District Judge held that the aforesaid properties belonged to Ragho and they were mere name-lenders. He accordingly dismissed their claim, and now they have preferred separate appeals against the decision of the learned District Judge.

(2.) These two appeals were heard analogously, and this judgment will govern both.

(3.) The learned counsel for the appellants raised two contentions, first, that the finding of the learned District Judge was erroneous, inasmuch as it ignored unreasonably the title deeds in favour of the appellants, and, second, that the attachment was no longer subsisting. Ragho has been acquitted of the charge levelled against him, and in view of this acquittal there was an automatic lifting of the attachment.