Skip to content


Ramiah and ors. Vs. Nachiappa Chettiar and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectProperty;Criminal
CourtChennai High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCri. Revn. No. 1334 of 1950 and Cri. Revn. Petn. No. 1262 of 1950
Judge
Reported inAIR1951Mad764; (1951)IIMLJ30
ActsCode of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1898 - Sections 145 and 145(4)
AppellantRamiah and ors.
RespondentNachiappa Chettiar and ors.
Appellant AdvocateK. Veeraswami and ;John Arthurs, Advs.;Public Prosecutor
Respondent AdvocateV. Ramaswami Iyer, Adv.
DispositionRevision dismissed
Cases ReferredSrinivasa Pillai v. Sathayappa Pillai
Excerpt:
- - was perfectly justified in attaching the property in dispute as he considered this case as one of emergency......whom the property was attached has no right to lease the land nor has the ct. power to lease it out pending disposal of the proceedings under section 145, cr. p. c.3. as pointed out by sankaran nair j. in srinivasa pillai v. sathayappa pillai, 14 i. c. 759 : 13 cri. l. j. 295 mad., the receiver or officer appointed under section 145 (4), cr. p. c., has not got the same powers as receiver under section 146, cr. p.c. in the latter case, he has all the powers of a receiver appointed under civil p. c. but in the former case his powers are limited & they are restricted to the taking into custody of what is on the land & disposing it of under the orders of the mag. there can, therefore, be no leases by the tahsildar appointed to attach the land. but it is open to him to take security from.....
Judgment:
ORDER

Somasundaram, J.

1. Under Section 145, Clause (4), Cr. P. C. theCt. has a right to attach the property in dispute & under Sub-clause (8) of Section 145, Cr. P. C. if the Mag. is of opinion that any crop or other produce of the property, the subject of dispute is subject to speedy natural decay, he may make an order for the proper custody or sale of such property & after the completion of the enquiry he may make such order as to the disposal of such property as he thinks fit.

2. Now, in this case the learned Mag. was perfectly justified in attaching the property in dispute as he considered this case as one of emergency. But it is contended for the petnr. that the Tahsildar through whom the property was attached has no right to lease the land nor has the Ct. power to lease it out pending disposal of the proceedings under Section 145, Cr. P. C.

3. As pointed out by Sankaran Nair J. in Srinivasa Pillai v. Sathayappa Pillai, 14 I. C. 759 : 13 Cri. L. J. 295 Mad., the Receiver or Officer appointed under Section 145 (4), cr. P. C., has not got the same powers as receiver under Section 146, Cr. P.C. In the latter case, he has all the powers of a receiver appointed under Civil P. C. but in the former case his powers are limited & they are restricted to the taking into custody of what is on the land & disposing it of under the orders of the Mag. There can, therefore, be no leases by the Tahsildar appointed to attach the land. But it is open to him to take security from those who are willing to cultivate the land & the security can be taken from those who are willing to give highest security. Whoever cultivates the land after giving such security does so under orders of Ct. & will abide by the orders of Ct.

4. With these observations, the criminal revision petn. is dismissed.


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