Stolen property
Tejraj
(Querist) 14 March 2015
This query is : Resolved
Dear Sir,
There a House Hold Artice that i had kept outside mu flat tied and locked by a chain and a lock.
The Same was removed and sold (I Think) by the Cleaners coming to my Society.
When we asked them why they removed the same by Breaking the same, they told us that they were told to remove the same by our Neighbour.
This Person is on Rent in the Neighbouring Flat and he is at his native Now.
Also Please clarify if i can do the same.
The Cleaners have told us to do whatever we wish.
What can we do.
The Household Article was a Stool
Guest
(Expert) 14 March 2015
Good academic query.
By the way, what were those household articles you kept outside your house and why not kept in side your house?
Sudhir Kumar, Advocate 
(Expert) 14 March 2015
if you think your neighbour has no right to remove nuisance from common space merely if someone is tenant.
You are mistaken.
Tejraj
(Querist) 14 March 2015
The Household Article was a Stool
Tejraj
(Querist) 14 March 2015
That Means i cannot take any Action.
I thought it was the Society which can take any Action
Tejraj
(Querist) 14 March 2015
The Stool was a Big One and was Being Used by Almost Every One in the Society. Whenever Someone neaade it, they would take the Key and After work was Done, they would Lock up the same and Return the Key.
Rajendra K Goyal
(Expert) 14 March 2015
You should forget the event as you were illegally occupying the common place / passage.
Biswanath Roy
(Expert) 20 March 2015
Article belongs to Society cannot be removed by any member of the society or any tenant under them without obtaining prior permission or consent from the Secretary of the Society.
Sudhir Kumar, Advocate
(Expert) 21 March 2015
@ Mr Biswajeet Roy,
the article belonged him him and not to society. He had kept it on common land. He had no such right even if every body was borrowing it from him.
Biswanath Roy
(Expert) 21 March 2015
@ Learned Mr. Sudhir Kumar,
Might be I misunderstood the query of the author but the fact remains although the neighbour tenant has limited title right over his tenancy only how he got the authority to direct cleaners of the apartment to remove the stool forever by break open the lock tied with the adjacent space of the author's flat? What is the mens-rea of such act? Does it not constitute criminal wrong and equated with the term criminal mischief U/S.426 IPC following sec 425 for causing loss to the author.? If the tenant had any lawful objection to it he could have intimated the author by a notice alarming him about it's cogent reason. Be it noted it is not a public place, because public place means any location that the local,state,or national Government maintains for the use of the public. Such as a highway,park or public building.
Guest
(Expert) 23 March 2015
Mr. Tejraj,
The question arises, why your articles were placed under lock and key at a place not being part of your flat, which could have caused inconvenience to the common public or your neighbour?
First of all, you were not the owner of any place outside your flat. So, you did not have any right to keep that place in your possession permanently by keeping your articles under lock and key.
Secondly, unauthorised possion of public land can be terrmed as an offence, as any place outside your flat was a public place and meant for common use of general public, but not to be occupied permanently or possessed unauthorisedly by you.
Thirdly, anything placed at a common place outside your flat can be termed as ownerless unclaimed property.
Fourthly, any article removed from a public place (outside your flat) by the society or anyone else cannot be stated to have been stolen. So, you cannot take any action.
But, if your neighbour has taken initiative to get your stool removed through sweeper, that clearly indicates that you are not having good relations with your neighbour. So, to avoid destruction or replacement of your property at the public place, at least you could have maintained good relations with your neighbour.
Biswanath Roy
(Expert) 23 March 2015
@Learned Dhingra ji,
I differ with your observation and views as to the following, namely,-
1.The place of occurrence is not a public place.
2. The mens-rea lying behind the incident is a clear case of mischief triable u/s/426 IPC. YOU ARE REQUESTED TO GO THROUGH MY PREVIOUS POST.
Guest
(Expert) 23 March 2015
Respected Biswanath ji,
Your reaction was quite expected on my post.
Any way, it all depends upon interpretation from individual to individual, as based on the facts (not assumptions) stated by the querist. But, it seems, your observation has been made by not keeping in mind the spirit of the question, as the query pertains to the stolen property of the querist.
However, about your observation in differening with my views, if you consider the place of event as not a public place, the fact cannot also be ignored, that did not also happen within the premises of his owned property. The place of occurence (out side his flat) was not the part of the legal holding of the querist or the part of his personal property. The event having been happened outside his property, any removal, displacement or replacement from outside his personal property cannot be equated with theft of his property having not happened within the premises of his property.
If you prefer to apply the term "mens rea," the same applies more in the case of the querist, as he was habitual of placing his big sttol outside his flat duly chained and locked without having any rightful claim to possess that place to use that permanently. So, we cannot assume with certainty that the querist would not have placed his big stool without his intention of causing mental torture for his neighbour or to create hurdles in his passage. It also denotes culpable mental state on the part of the querist to intentionally place the stool permanently by intentionally not keeping that within the premises of his own property. Had the stool been removed from his own property only in that case he would have been justified in saying that his property was stolen or theft was caused by any one, what to say of his neighbour, when he has nowhere stated that he verified the statement of the cleaners from his neighbour that only he was responsible in getting the stool removed/ broken intentionally with criminal mind set.
SORRY TO STATE, YOUR QUOTE OF SEC. 426 IS QUITE UNJUSTIFIED, AS THE EVENT DID NOT HAPPEN WITHIN THE PREMISES OF THE QUERIST, WHEN HE HAS ALSO NOT STATED ANYWHERE TO HAVE VERIFIED THE FACTS ABOUT THE STATEMENT OF THE CLEANERS TO ARRIVE AT THE CONCLUSION THAT ANY MISCHIEF WAS COMMITTED ONLY BY HIS NEIGHBOUR, NOT BY ANYONE ELSE.
There is no use of making presumptions without the facts having been stated by the querist.
However, the querist is free to file a suit u/s 426 against his neighbour by producing the cleaners as his witnesses. BUT, on his part, he must also be prepared to face suit for claim of damages by his neighbour.
Best of luck to the querist, if he follows your advice!
Biswanath Roy
(Expert) 23 March 2015
You completely misunderstood my views. Read my post again and look at Sec.425 & 426 IPC along with. I am afraid to say your views and observations are palpable.
Guest
(Expert) 23 March 2015
I have already stated, "it all depends upon interpretation from individual to individual, as based on the facts (not assumptions) stated by the querist." I don't feel any compulsion to read or re-read your post. I based my views on the spirit of the query and the contents thereof, not basing on your post or by reading between the lines, or by beieving on one-sided story, or by assuming that the querist would have been right in alleging his neighbour just on the statement of the cleaners.
When the querist knows that the act was committed by the cleaners, he can catch hold of the cleaners only, not any of his neighbour based on cleaner's statement, he can well book the cleaners under sec. 426 read with sec. 425. Of course, you are free to assume anything. But, what if the querist would have removed or caused to have removed his article, by himself, just to blame the neighbour just as a matter of revenge?
Biswanath Roy
(Expert) 23 March 2015
Thanks for your new hypothesis. But on one point I AGREE WITH YOU that the querist can book the cleaners along with the tenant u/s. 425,426,379,120 B IPC and can lodge an F.I.R in the local Police Station.
Regarding interpretation of statute I always follow the principles of interpretation of Statues by MAXWELL and Statutory Laws By CRAISE.
In this particular case I referred the views and interpretation laid down in the case of Ningomban Kula Singh vs. Union Territory, Manipur, AIR 1971, MANIPUR, PAGE - 13.
Guest
(Expert) 24 March 2015
Respected Biswanath ji,
Thanks for agreeing with me at least on one point.
