Skip to content


Guru Das Kundu Chowdhry Vs. Kedar Nath Kundu Chowdhry - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1911)ILR38Cal889
AppellantGuru Das Kundu Chowdhry
RespondentKedar Nath Kundu Chowdhry
Cases ReferredLaldhari Singh v. Sukdeo Narain Singh
Excerpt:
dispute concerning land - joint-owners--claim of exclusive possession to subject of dispute, by each party--jurisdiction of magistrate--criminal procedure code (act v of 1898) section 145. - .....procedure code is concerned, it is clear that the land is in the possession of the first party, fakir chand kanrar, the tenant of the same. but g the question remains whether the deputy magistrate had jurisdiction to proceed and pass an order under the section. it is urged on behalf of the petitioners that the dispute involved the joint co-sharers who were brought on the record, c and that, in accordance 'with the rulings of this court, the deputy magistrate should have refrained from exercising jurisdiction in the matter. it appears to us, however, that the order passed in favour of one tenant, as against the other persons setting up their tenancy, was a good and valid order which does not transgress the principle applied in makhan lal roy v. barada kanta roy (1906) 11 c.w.n. 512......
Judgment:

Caspersz and Sharfuddin, JJ.

1. The land in dispute is six cottahs out of an area of 32 bighas. So far as the finding under Section 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code is concerned, it is clear that the land is in the possession of the first party, Fakir Chand Kanrar, the tenant of the same. But G the question remains whether the Deputy Magistrate had jurisdiction to proceed and pass an order under the section. It is urged on behalf of the petitioners that the dispute involved the joint co-sharers who were brought on the record, c and that, in accordance 'with the rulings of this Court, the Deputy Magistrate should have refrained from exercising jurisdiction in the matter. It appears to us, however, that the order passed in favour of one tenant, as against the other persons setting up their tenancy, was a good and valid order which does not transgress the principle applied in Makhan Lal Roy v. Barada Kanta Roy (1906) 11 C.W.N. 512. The case here is one of exclusive possession claimed by each set of landlords through their respective tenants. The landlords of the tenant in possession can recover the entire rent from Fakir Chand Kanrar according to his lease. The presence of the rival tenants was necessary: see Laldhari Singh v. Sukdeo Narain Singh (1900) I.L.R. 27 Calc. 892. The Rule is discharged.


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