Skip to content


Chintamoni Jena and ors. Vs. Jagannath Ramanuja Das and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Judge
Reported inAIR1915Cal644(1),28Ind.Cas.651
AppellantChintamoni Jena and ors.
RespondentJagannath Ramanuja Das and anr.
Excerpt:
criminal procedure code (act v of 1898), section 145 - record of rights recently published, entries in--presumption therefrom--factum of possession. - .....effect has not been given to the presumption arising from the entries in a recently published record of rights. that certainly is not a question going to the jurisdiction and we, therefore, cannot interfere, we at first thought that the other ground that there should have been separate proceedings in respect of the several plots claimed by the several sets of tenants, was a separate point going to the jurisdiction. but we find that this is not so. the other sets of tenants have not come here at all, and the present applicants have only come upon the ground that they had obtained tenant rights and possession by a recently published record of rights. it is needless to say that whatever presumption may be raised by such a record, id does not in itself establish the fuel am of.....
Judgment:

1. The question which appears to be one of jurisdiction on the Rule really depends upon the second ground of the Rule, which is that; effect has not been given to the presumption arising from the entries in a recently published Record of Rights. That certainly is not a question going to the jurisdiction and we, therefore, cannot interfere, We at first thought that the other ground that there should have been separate proceedings in respect of the several plots claimed by the several sets of tenants, was a separate point going to the jurisdiction. But we find that this is not so. The other sets of tenants have not come here at all, and the present applicants have only come upon the ground that they had obtained tenant rights and possession by a recently published Record of Rights. It is needless to say that whatever presumption may be raised by such a record, id does not in itself establish the fuel am of possession, and that if the Magistrate decides the fart it DI of possession wrongly that is not a question with which the High Court can interfere under the Charter, it not being a question of jurisdiction.

2. The Rule is discharged.


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