Skip to content


Palaniappa Chetti and ors. Vs. Dorasami Ayyar and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1895)ILR18Mad402
AppellantPalaniappa Chetti and ors.
RespondentDorasami Ayyar and ors.
Cases ReferredCode of Criminal Procedure. Cf. Ramanuja Jeeyarsvami v. Ramanuja Jeeyar I.L.R.
Excerpt:
criminal procedure code - act x of 1882, sections 144, 435--disputed possession--revision by high court. - 1. we are clearly of opinion that the deputy magistrate acted within his jurisdiction in passing the order complained of under section 144 of the code of criminal procedure. cf. ramanuja jeeyarsvami v. ramanuja jeeyar i.l.r. 3 mad. 354.2. it was not necessary for him to decide the question as to possession before passing such order and his finding that counter-petitioners were in possession is merely incidental and in the absence of any necessity in his opinion for the passing of an order under section 145, we cannot say that the order passed by him was improper. moreover, under section 435 of the code we have no power to interfere with an order passed with jurisdiction under section 144.3. this petition is dismissed.
Judgment:

1. We are clearly of opinion that the Deputy Magistrate acted within his jurisdiction in passing the order complained of under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Cf. Ramanuja Jeeyarsvami v. Ramanuja Jeeyar I.L.R. 3 Mad. 354.

2. It was not necessary for him to decide the question as to possession before passing such order and his finding that counter-petitioners were in possession is merely incidental and in the absence of any necessity in his opinion for the passing of an order under Section 145, we cannot say that the order passed by him was improper. Moreover, under Section 435 of the Code we have no power to interfere with an order passed with jurisdiction under Section 144.

3. This petition is dismissed.


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