Skip to content


Kappa Puttanna Ningaiah Vs. M.S. Sreeman - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtKarnataka High Court
Decided On
Judge
Reported in1967CriLJ1726
AppellantKappa Puttanna Ningaiah
RespondentM.S. Sreeman
Excerpt:
.....settlement between the parties. hence, proceedings were quashed. - 2. the main grievance of the advocate of the petitioner is that although the magistrate has referred to the affidavits filed on behalf of the petitioner, he has neither considered nor discus, sad the same......of the advocate of the petitioner is that although the magistrate has referred to the affidavits filed on behalf of the petitioner, he has neither considered nor discus, sad the same. according to him, deponents in four affidavits filed on behalf of the petitioner were cultivators of adjacent lauds and the magistrate has not given any reason for discarding their evidence.3. it has been fairly conceded on behalf of the respondent, i think rightly, that the magistrate has not given his reasons for arriving at the conclusion with regard to the possession of the disputed land. however it is argued by the learned advocate for the respondent that it cannot be said on the basis of the order made by the magistrate, that he has not considered or applies his mind to the affidavits that had been.....
Judgment:
ORDER

Ahmed Ali Khan, J.

1. This revision petition is directed against the order of the First Class magistrate Bamanagaram dated 24th April 1967 made in Criminal Mis. case No. 77 of 1966 on the file of his Court. By that order the Magistrate held that the respondent was in possession of the disputed land at the time of the attachment and prior thereto.

2. The main grievance of the Advocate of the petitioner is that although the Magistrate has referred to the affidavits filed on behalf of the petitioner, he has neither considered nor discus, sad the same. According to him, deponents in four affidavits filed on behalf of the petitioner were cultivators of adjacent lauds and the Magistrate has not given any reason for discarding their evidence.

3. It has been fairly conceded on behalf of the respondent, I think rightly, that the Magistrate has not given his reasons for arriving at the conclusion with regard to the possession of the disputed land. However it is argued by the learned Advocate for the respondent that it cannot be said on the basis of the order made by the Magistrate, that he has not considered or applies his mind to the affidavits that had been filed in the case on behalf of the parties. It was submitted that on behalf of the respondent also affidavits have been filed by the cultivators of the neighbouring lands, and after a perusal of the affidavits filed on behalf of the parties the Magistrate has come to the conclusion that the petitioner was not in possession of the disputed land. It was contended that in these circumstances this Court should not disturb the finding arrived at by the Magistrate.

4. Conscious as I am about the nature of summary proceedings, and though I hesitated a quite deal before deciding whether I should interfere with the finding of the Magistrate in this case, having regard to the particular facts and circumstances of this case, I think I should interfere. Although the proceedings are of a summary nature, the judgment of the Magistrate mast be self-contained, so self contained that the finding with regard to possession can be sustained by a bare perusal of it. It is not sufficient if the order merely states that possession has been proved nor it is sufficient if it states that the evidence which has been let in the case was not satisfactory on that point. He should reproduce the material evidence and also state the reasons for holding the fact as not proved and the oral evidence being unsatisfactory. Evidently no reason whatsoever has been given by the Magistrate for discarding the evidence of the adjacent cultivators produced on behalf of the petitioner nor he has discussed the material portion relating to the question of possession of the parties contained in the affidavits filed on their behalf. In these circumstances, I feel myself constrained to remand the case to the lower court with a direction that on the evidence, the magistrate should dispose of the case afresh in accordance with law.

5. This revision petition is thus allowed, the order of the Magistrate is set aside and the case is remanded. Now the Magistrate should dispose of the case in accordance with law as per above observations.

6. It is stated that some amount is deposited in Court. The said amount should not be refunded to either party pending disposal of the petition.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //