LLOYD LAW COLLEGE

NAME : Kashish Gupta

BATCH :2021-26

SECTION : B

TITLE OF ASSIGNMENT : Munshi Ram v. Delhi Administration

AIR 1968 SC 702, A CASE COMMENT

SUBMITTED TO: Prof Anil K Thakur

 MUNSHI RAM VS DEHLI ADMINISTRATION
AIR 1968 SC 702
DATE OF JUDGMENT:27/11/1967
(BEFORE K.S. HEGDE, S.M. SIKRI AND J.M. SHELAT, JJ.)
Appeal (crl.) 124 of 1965
THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

FACTS AT HAND:
The case involved a dispute over the ownership of an evacuee property in
Kilokri, Delhi. The property was sold by the Central Government to Ashwani
Kumar Dutt, who obtained provisional delivery on October 10, 1961. The
sale certificate was issued on February 8, 1962, and actual delivery was given
on June 22, 1962.
On July 1, 1962, Dutt went to the property with his father and other people
to level the land using a tractor. The appellants, who were claiming to be the
owners of the property, came armed with spears and lathis and attacked Dutt's
party. Dutt and his father were injured in the attack. The appellants were
charged with offenses under Sections 307 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code.
They pleaded the right of private defence, claiming that they had acted in
self-defence because Dutt's party was trying to trespass on their property.

PARTIES INVOLVED:
MUNSHI RAM AND OTHERS … Appellants;
DELHI ADMINISTRATION … Respondent.

ISSUES INVOLVED
1) whether the appellants have established satisfactorily the right of private
defence pleaded by them ?
(2) if they had that right, have they exceeded the same ?

OBITER DICTUM (OBSERVATION OF THE COURT):

The Supreme Court in the case of Munshi Ram v. Delhi Administration (AIR
1968 SC 702) made the following observations:

On the right of private defence: The Court held that the right of private
defence is a fundamental right of every person and that it is not limited to the
defence of one's own person or property, but also extends to the defence of
the person or property of another. The Court further held that the right of
private defence can be exercised even against a public servant acting in the
discharge of his official duties, if the public servant is acting in excess of his
jurisdiction or is using illegal force.
On the limits of the right of private defence: The Court held that the right of
private defence is not unlimited and that it can be exercised only to the extent
necessary to repel the attack. The Court further held that if the person
exercising the right of private defence uses more force than is necessary, he
will be guilty of an offense.
In the specific case of Munshi Ram, the Court held that the appellants had
established the right of private defence as they were acting in self-defence
and in defence of their property. The Court further held that the appellants
had not exceeded the limits of the right of private defence as they had used
only the amount of force necessary to repel the attack.

The following are some of the specific observations made by the Court in
the case of Munshi Ram:
"The right of private defines is a fundamental right of every person and it is
not limited to the defence of one's own person or property, but also extends
to the defence of the person or property of another." (Para 10)
"The right of private defence can be exercised even against a public servant
acting in the discharge of his official duties, if the public servant is acting in
excess of his jurisdiction or is using illegal force." (Para 11)
"The right of private defence is not unlimited and it can be exercised only to
the extent necessary to repel the attack. If the person exercising the right of
private defence uses more force than is necessary, he will be guilty of an
offense."
In determining whether the accused has exceeded the limits of the right of
private defence, the court has to consider all the circumstances of the case,
including the nature of the attack, the means of defence available to the
accused, and the force used by the accused." (Para 13).

Right of personal defence serves social purpose and therefore the right
should be liberally construed. Such a right won’t only be a restraining
influence on bad characters but also will encourage manly spirit during a
law-abiding citizen.

Rationale
Jamuna was in effective possession of the sector on the date of the
occurrence. But it had been urged on behalf of the prosecution that rightly
or wrongly that PW 17 had taken possession of the property on June 22,
1962, and therefore, if Jamuna had any grievances, he should have agitated
an equivalent during a court of law, which his relations had no right to
require law into their own hands.
This contention is predicated on a misconception of the law. If by the
alleged delivery PW 17 couldn’t be held to possess been put in possession
of the sector, he couldn’t be said to possess been in possession of an
equivalent . the very fact that some formalities were skilled in pursuance of
an unauthorised order issued by PW 5 is not any ground for holding that
possession of the sector had passed into the hands of PW 17 Steps taken by
PW 17 et al. who accompanied him on June 22, 1962 were unauthorised
acts. it’s true that nobody including truth owner features a right to
dispossess the trespasser by force if the trespasser is in settled possession of
the land and in such a case unless he’s evicted in due course of law, he’s
entitled to defend his possession even against the rightful owner.
But stray ,or even intermittent acts of trespass don’t give such a right
against truth owner. The possession which a trespasser is entitled to defend
against the rightful owner must be a settled possession extending over a
sufficiently long period and acquiesced in by truth owner. an off-the-cuff
act of possession wouldn’t have the effect of interrupting the possession of
the rightful owner.
The rightful owner may re-enter and reinstate himself provided he doesn’t
use more force than necessary.
Judgement
On the idea of the proved facts, it can’t be said that the appellants had
exceeded their right of personal defence. within the result, this appeal is
allowed, the conviction of the appellants is about aside and that they are
acquitted. R.K.P.S.
The court also said that right of personal defence is social purpose

Conclusion
The law concerning defence of property is, began in s. 97 IPC, which says
that each person features a right, subject to the restrictions contained in s.
99, to defend-First-his own body, and therefore the body of the other
person, against any offence affecting the human body,
Secondly. -the property, whether movable or immovable, of himself or of
the other person, against any act which is an offence falling under the
definition of theft, robbery, mischief. or criminal trespass, or which is an
effort to commit theft, robbery, mischief or criminal trespass.

Section 99 of the Code lays down that there’s no right of personal defence
in cases during which there’s time to possess recourse to the protection of
the general public authorities. It further lays down that the proper of
personal defence in no case extends to the inflicting of more harm than it’s
necessary to inflict for the aim of defence.