Skip to content


(Chinchilada) Kirishnam Raju Vs. Chintala Swami Naidu and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported inAIR1927Mad816
Appellant(Chinchilada) Kirishnam Raju
RespondentChintala Swami Naidu and ors.
Excerpt:
- .....petition they took forcible possession on 28-4-25 and thus have been in possession for over two months prior to the date of the preliminary order on 11-7-25. as to this i find no admission in the petition or any finding that the present petitioners were in possession from 28-4-25 up to the date of the preliminary order. further, the petition was put in on 8-5-25 and the two months prior to 11-7-25 were spent mostly in the magistrate holding preliminary enquiries. i am not prepared at present to subscribe to the proposition that a party taking possession by force must be retained in possession if, owing to delay after the dispossessed party has asked the court to take action, on the part of the court taking action, over two months have elapsed before the court finally makes up its mind.....
Judgment:
JUDGEMENT

Wallace, J.

1. The argument put forward is that the Magistrate's uncertainty as to possession relates to the date of the alleged disturbance, 28-4-25 and not to the date of the preliminary order, 11-7-25. As to that nothing has been put before me to show that there was any change in conditions between these two dates, such that a remand of the case for a more proper order would lead to any different result.

2. It is then pleaded that the Magistrate ought to have declared petitioners to be in possession, since on the statements in the original petition they took forcible possession on 28-4-25 and thus have been in possession for over two months prior to the date of the preliminary order on 11-7-25. As to this I find no admission in the petition or any finding that the present petitioners were in possession from 28-4-25 up to the date of the preliminary order. Further, the petition was put in on 8-5-25 and the two months prior to 11-7-25 were spent mostly in the Magistrate holding preliminary enquiries. I am not prepared at present to subscribe to the proposition that a party taking possession by force must be retained in possession if, owing to delay after the dispossessed party has asked the Court to take action, on the part of the Court taking action, over two months have elapsed before the Court finally makes up its mind to issue a preliminary order. This Court would not interfere in revision on behalf of such a party since clearly no gross injustice had been done. I, therefore, dismiss this petition.


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