Skip to content


Skaria Mathai Vs. Narayanan Nair - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtKerala High Court
Decided On
Judge
Reported in1952CriLJ939
AppellantSkaria Mathai
RespondentNarayanan Nair
Cases Referred and Jagannath Acharya v. Rajagopalachari
Excerpt:
- motor vehicles act, 1988[c.a.no.59/1988] section 147 (1)(b)(i) [as amended in 1994]; [v.k. bali, cj, m.ramachandran & s. sirijagan, jj] third party risk gratuitous passengers - liability of insurance company held, gratuitous passengers in transport vehicles, including a motor cycle, can have coverage only when a comprehensive policy or extended policy as might be possible to be issued has been availed of by the owner of the vehicle. only in such cases, the insurance company is required to compensate. payment of premium alone can cast a corresponding duty on the insurer for rendering coverage on any such group, when they are not required to be mandatorily brought under insurance protection. [oriental insurance co. ltd. v ajaykumar, 1992 (2) ker lt 886 (f.b) is no..........to the possession of the property.it was contended for the counter petitioner that tea filing of a civil suit relating to the possession of the property is no reason for staying proceedings under section 143 of the criminal procedure code and reliance was placed on the ruling reported in thohomas v. chellian nadar 1945 tlr 773; c. ramiah v. n. ramiah air (14) 1927 mad 778 and jagannath acharya v. rajagopalachari air (18) 1931 pat 411. these were cases in which the civil suit was tiled after proceedings were started in the criminal court. but, in this case, it is after the civil suit was filed that the plaintiffs moved the criminal court to start proceedings under section 143. i think that in such a case the proper course to adopt would be to move the civil court itself for appropriate.....
Judgment:
ORDER

Joseph Vithayathil, J.

1. The petitioner is the counter-petitioner in M.C. No. 23 of 1124 on the file of the First Class Magistrate's Court, Thodupuzha. The petition is for stay of trial of that case till the disposal of O.S. No. 230 of 1124 of Thodupuzha Munsiffs Court. That is a suit filed by the petitioner in M.C. No. 23 of 1124 for specific performance of a contract of sale alleging that he is in possession of the property as per the contract of sale. The petitioner here who is the defendant in that case contends that he is in possession of the property as per sale in his favour from the original owner. One of the questions to be decided in that case is as to who is in possession of the property. It is after the filing of that suit that the plaintiff moved the Magistrate's Court for taking action under Section 143 of the Travancore Criminal Procedure Code. That Court started proceedings under that section and attached the property.

The question as to who is in possession of the property will have to be finally decided by the Civil Court. When the Civil Court was already seized of the matter there was no necessity for title plaintiff to move the Criminal Court for starting proceedings under Section 143 of the Travancore Criminal Procedure Code. The plaintiff could have moved the Civil Court itself to appoint a Receiver for the property and thus avoid any likelihood of a breach of the peace relating to the possession of the property. It is unnecessary to have the separate enquiries relating to the possession of the property.

It was contended for the counter petitioner that tea filing of a civil suit relating to the possession of the property is no reason for staying proceedings under Section 143 of the Criminal Procedure Code and reliance was placed on the ruling reported in Thohomas v. Chellian Nadar 1945 TLR 773; C. Ramiah v. N. Ramiah AIR (14) 1927 Mad 778 and Jagannath Acharya v. Rajagopalachari AIR (18) 1931 Pat 411. These were cases in which the Civil Suit was tiled after proceedings were started in the Criminal Court. But, in this case, it is after the civil suit was filed that the plaintiffs moved the criminal Court to start proceedings under Section 143. I think that in such a case the proper course to adopt would be to move the civil Court itself for appropriate relief even if the disturbance of possession of property occurred after the filing of the civil suit.

I, therefore think that it is proper that the proceedings in the criminal Court are stayed till the disposal of the civil suit. It is, therefore, ordered that the proceedings in M.C. No. 23 of 1124 on the file of the First Class Magistrate's Court, Thodupuzha, be stayed till the disposal of O.S. No. 230 of 1124 of the Thodupuzha Munsiff's Court. The Receiver appointed in M.C. No. 23 of 1124 will, however, continue to be in possession of the property till the disposal of the civil suit or until otherwise ordered by the civil Court.

2. Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 306 of 1951, is thus allowed.


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