Skip to content


Havildar Venkatachallam Vs. Sappar Palayam and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtChennai High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCriminal Revn. Case Nos. 647 and 648 and Cr. Revn. Petn. Nos. 641 and 642 of 1951
Judge
Reported inAIR1953Mad594; (1953)IMLJ336
ActsCode of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1898 - Sections 145
AppellantHavildar Venkatachallam
RespondentSappar Palayam and anr.
Appellant AdvocateA. Dorairaj, Adv.
Respondent AdvocatePublic Prosecutor for State
DispositionPetitions allowed
Excerpt:
- - having failed in their attempts the counter-petitioners clandestinely in league with the village munsif, who happened to he on their side, obtained patta for the land. it is the duty of the magistrate in cases like this to support the decisions of the civil courts and see, as far as possible, that the decrees of the civil courts are maintained......m. c. no. 18 of 1951 of the file of the additional first class magistrate, saidapet, in which the counter-petitioners (respondents herein) were declared to be in possession of the disputed land. this is one of those cases where the petitioner after going to civil courts several times obtaining an order in his favour is frustrated in his attempts to be in possession by the high handed action of the counter-petitioners. the land was assigned to the petitioner on 29-8-1924. on account of the trouble given by the counter petitioners and their attempts to disturb the possession of the petitioner herein, a suit was filed by the petitioner in o. s. no. 449 of 1926 on the file of the district munsif's court, poonamallee. the title was, declared to be in favour of the petitioner and possession.....
Judgment:
ORDER

Somasundaram, J.

1. Cr. R. C. No. 647 of 1951: This is a revision filed by the petitioner in the lower Court against the order passed under Section 145 Cr. P. C. in M. C. No. 18 of 1951 of the file of the Additional First Class Magistrate, Saidapet, in which the counter-petitioners (respondents herein) were declared to be in possession of the disputed land. This is one of those cases where the petitioner after going to civil Courts several times obtaining an order in his favour is frustrated in his attempts to be in possession by the high handed action of the counter-petitioners. The land was assigned to the petitioner on 29-8-1924. On account of the trouble given by the counter petitioners and their attempts to disturb the possession of the petitioner herein, a suit was filed by the petitioner in O. S. No. 449 of 1926 on the file of the District Munsif's Court, Poonamallee. The title was, declared to be in favour of the petitioner and possession was directed to be given to him. He filed E. P. No. 1083 of 1927 and obtained delivery of possession on 24-1-1927. The appeal against the decree and judgment of the District Munsif filed by the counter-petitioners in A. S. No. 310 of 1927, District Court, Chingleput, was dismissed on 3-5-1929. Subsequently after two years, the counter-petitioners again attempted to disturb the possession of the petitioner herein. The petitioner filed C. C. No. 1132 of 1929 before the Stationary Sub-Magistrate, Saidapet, and there the counter-petitioners gave an undertaking that they would rot interfere with the possession of the petitioner herein.

2. Things went on smoothly till 1941 and again the cr.-petnrs attempted to disturb the possession of the petitioner. Thereupon, the petitioner filed O. S. No. 144 of 1941 on the file of the District Munsif's Court, Poonamallee, for an injunction restraining the counter-petitioners from interfering with his possession and enjoyment and the suit was finally disposed of on 15-8-1941, giving a permanent injunction against the counter-petitioners from interfering with the possession of the petitioner. Having failed in their attempts the Counter-petitioners clandestinely in league with the village Munsif, who happened to he on their side, obtained patta for the land. Thereafter on representations being made by the petitioner to the higher authorities, the patta was cancelled and re-transfer was ordered on 12-3-1948. In spite of this, the counter-petitioners again started giving trouble and the Magistrate under these circumstances instead of declaring the petitioner to be in possession of the properties has put a premium upon the unlawful activities of the counter-petitioners and declared the counter-petitioners to be in possession of the property. It is the duty of the Magistrate in cases like this to support the decisions of the civil Courts and see, as far as possible, that the decrees of the civil Courts are maintained. Otherwise it would only amount to putting a premium upon the high handed and unlawful activities of the other side. In the circumstances, I declare the petitioner to be in possession of the property and forbid and restrain the counter-petitioners (respondents) herein from interfering with the possession of the petitioner.

3. In Cr. R. C. No. 648 of 1951 the petitioner has purchased a portion of the property from the petitioner in Cr. R. C. No. 647 of 1951 and he should therefore be declared to be in possession of the portion of the property which he has purchased. The counter-petitioners are also restrained from interfering with the possession of the petitioner in Cr. R. C. No. 643 of 1951.

4. The petitions are allowed.


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