Skip to content


Gurvanna Gowd and ors. Vs. Govindappa - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in44Ind.Cas.971
AppellantGurvanna Gowd and ors.
RespondentGovindappa
Cases ReferredVide Rajah of Venkatagtri v. Isakapalli Subbiah
Excerpt:
criminal procedure code (act v of 1898), sections 145, 146 - possession, enquiry into--attachment of property under section 146--cancellation, of order before adjudication by civil court, legality of. - .....was not a competent court for deciding a question as to the person entitled to possession of the land in dispute. this question can only be finally decided in the civil court and the magistrate having passed the order of attachment, not as an interim order under section 145 (4), proviso 2 of the code of criminal procedure, but as an order under section 146 (1) made at the conclusion of his enquiry after hearing the parties and taking evidence, was bound to continue the attachment until a competent civil court adjudicated on the rights of the parties. vide rajah of venkatagtri v. isakapalli subbiah 26 m. 410.3. i must set aside his order of february 26th, 1917, as made without jurisdiction and restore the order of attachment and the appointment of a receiver made on september 8th,.....
Judgment:
ORDER

Spencer, J.

1. As stated in paragraph 6 of the Deputy Magistrate's Order of 8th September 1915, the question for consideration in these proceedings under Chapter XII was who was in possession of the Takrar land on July 1st, 1915.

2. No doubt the Divisional Officer's Court, which determined that Patta should be registered in the name of Venkamma, was a competent Court to decide the question of registry, and it appears from the records that it was this question of registry which was the principal cause of the dispute as to possession. Nevertheless, the Divisional Officer's Court was not a competent Court for deciding a question as to the person entitled to possession of the land in dispute. This question can only be finally decided in the Civil Court and the Magistrate having passed the order of attachment, not as an interim order under Section 145 (4), proviso 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, but as an order under Section 146 (1) made at the conclusion of his enquiry after hearing the parties and taking evidence, was bound to continue the attachment until a competent Civil Court adjudicated on the rights of the parties. Vide Rajah of Venkatagtri v. Isakapalli Subbiah 26 M. 410.

3. I must set aside his order of February 26th, 1917, as made without jurisdiction and restore the order of attachment and the appointment of a Receiver made on September 8th, 1915.

4. Each party will bear his or their own costs in this Court.


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