Skip to content


The Secretary of State for India in Council Vs. Cherukara Narayananunni Pisharodi - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported inAIR1916Mad820; 31Ind.Cas.799
AppellantThe Secretary of State for India in Council
RespondentCherukara Narayananunni Pisharodi
Excerpt:
civil procedure code (act v of 1908), order xxt, rules 98, 99 - court, when can direct possession. - .....xxi, rule 99, civil procedure code, says that where the obstruction was by a person claiming in good faith to be in(possession on his own account, the court 'shall' make an order dismissing the application (that is, the application under order xxi, rule 97). here the government is found to have obstructed delivery because it claimed the land to be river poramboke belonging to them. there can be no doubt that the claim was a claim made in good faith.2. by an almost culpable carelessness, the counter-petition signed by the acting collector of malabar, does not expressly state that the government is in possession or claims possession in good faith, and it only states that the government obstructed delivery because it is the owner of the land.3. but i think it is clear that their.....
Judgment:

Sadasiva Aiyar, J.

1. Order XXI, Rule 99, Civil Procedure Code, says that where the obstruction was by a person claiming in good faith to be in(possession on his own account, the Court 'shall' make an order dismissing the application (that is, the application under Order XXI, Rule 97). Here the Government is found to have obstructed delivery because it claimed the land to be river poramboke belonging to them. There can be no doubt that the claim was a claim made in good faith.

2. By an almost culpable carelessness, the counter-petition signed by the Acting Collector of Malabar, does not expressly state that the Government is in possession or claims possession in good faith, and it only states that the Government obstructed delivery because it is the owner of the land.

3. But I think it is clear that their possession was not denied, as the respondent wanted to get possession after removing their obstruction.

4. Order XXI, Rule 98, gives jurisdiction to the Court to direct possession only if it is satisfied that the obstruction was by the judgment-debtor or by some other person at his instigation. Even if there is no question of jurisdiction involved and Section 11 Civil Procedure Code, does not, therefore, apply, this is a fit case for interference under the Charter Act.

5. The order of the District Munsif is set aside and the decree-holder's Petition No. 471 of 1913 will stand dismissed.

7. In view of the carelessness above pointed out and under the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs.


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