Skip to content


ismail Ghami Ammal Vs. Katinna Rowther and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported in(1912)22MLJ154
Appellantismail Ghami Ammal
RespondentKatinna Rowther and ors.
Cases Referred and Jayanti Kumar Mookerjee v. Middleton I.L.R.
Excerpt:
- .....who should ultimately be found by the magistrate to be in possession immediately before the 4th april just as for purposes of limitation the possession of the receiver is held to be the possession of the patty entitled to possession-raja of venkatagiri v. isakapalli subbiah i.l.r. (1902) m. 410 and jayanti kumar mookerjee v. middleton i.l.r. (1900) c. 785.2. to hold otherwise would be to hold that neither of the parties nor the receiver is in possession and this would lead to the very scramble for possession and probable breach of the peace which it is the purpose of the law to prevent. we must, therefore, dismiss the petition.
Judgment:
ORDER

1. We think that in the state of facts which are found in this case the possession of the Receiver appointed on the 4th April 1909 may, for the purpose of Section 145 of the Cr. P. C, be properly regarded as possession on behalf of the party who should ultimately be found by the Magistrate to be in possession immediately before the 4th April just as for purposes of limitation the possession of the Receiver is held to be the possession of the patty entitled to possession-Raja of Venkatagiri v. Isakapalli Subbiah I.L.R. (1902) M. 410 and Jayanti Kumar Mookerjee v. Middleton I.L.R. (1900) C. 785.

2. To hold otherwise would be to hold that neither of the parties nor the Receiver is in possession and this would lead to the very scramble for possession and probable breach of the peace which it is the purpose of the law to prevent. We must, therefore, dismiss the petition.


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