Skip to content


Panaganti Parthasarathy Nayanim Garu Vs. Pallikapu Venkatasami Reddy and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1911)ILR34Mad138
AppellantPanaganti Parthasarathy Nayanim Garu
RespondentPallikapu Venkatasami Reddy and anr.
Cases Referred and Ram Dyal Mahton v. Kedarnath
Excerpt:
criminal procedure code, act v of 1898, section 145 - possession--title, proof of--evidence. - .....to do under chapter xii of the code of criminal procedure is to decide which of the parties was in actual possession at the date of his preliminary order, and this he has to decide without reference to the merits of the claims of any of the parties to aright to possess the subject of dispute, i do not doubt therefore that the magistrate may, if necessary, take and consider evidence of title to enable him to decide the question of actual possession, but proof of title is not proof of actual possession, and here the magistrate, though he says ha admits evidence of title to 'supplement' evidence of user, still does not say that he uses it to enable him to decide on which side the truth as to user lies. ota the other band, he finds that the evidence does not establish exclusive possession by.....
Judgment:
ORDER

Miller, J.

1. What the Magistrate has to do under Chapter XII of the Code of Criminal Procedure is to decide which of the parties was in actual possession at the date of his preliminary order, and this he has to decide without reference to the merits of the claims of any of the parties to aright to possess the subject of dispute, I do not doubt therefore that the Magistrate may, if necessary, take and consider evidence of title to enable him to decide the question of actual possession, but proof of title is not proof of actual possession, and here the Magistrate, though he says ha admits evidence of title to 'supplement' evidence of user, still does not say that he uses it to enable him to decide on which side the truth as to user lies. Ota the other band, he finds that the evidence does not establish exclusive possession by either party; and that both parties have been from time to time using the land; and he uses the evidence of title to supplement this evidence in this sense that he takes the User of the one party and the title to be, in some way which I do not understand, more 'actual' possession than the user of the other party. It seems to me that this is to decide the case with reference to the claims of the parties to a right to possess the subject of dispute, and that is what the Coda forbids [vide in the matter of the petition of Kali Kristo Thakur v. Golam Ali Chowdry I.L.R. (1881) Calc. 46 and Ram Dyal Mahton v. Kedarnath (1907) CRI.L.J. 182]. I must set aside the Magistrate's order and direct him to make a fresh order according to law either under Section 145 or Section 146, Criminal Procedure Code, as the case may be.


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