Skip to content


Ram Bistu Majhi Vs. Joy Ram Majhi and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Judge
Reported in61Ind.Cas.174a
AppellantRam Bistu Majhi
RespondentJoy Ram Majhi and ors.
Cases ReferredMakhan Lal Roy v. Baroda Kanta Roy
Excerpt:
criminal procedure code (act v of 1898), sections 145, 146, applicability of - property in dispute held jointly--dispute in respect of share of each party. - .....bankura and dated 25th may 1990. the proceedings in this matter were drawn up under section 144, criminal procedure code and after certain evidence had been adduced by tuth the parties the magistrate coma to the conclusion that, in his opinion, the subject-matter of the dispute, namely, a palm grove was held jointly by both the first and the second parties, who were quarrelling and fighting among themselves as regards their respective share in the property concerned. it has been argued before us that the magistrate having found in this case that two parties were claiming exclusive possession of the property concerned, and that the property was held jointly by bath the parties, it is not a case which can be dealt with under the provisions of section 145 or section 146, criminal.....
Judgment:

Ghose, J.

1. The present Rule was issued on an application arising out of an order under Section 146, Criminal Procedure Code, passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer of Bankura and dated 25th May 1990. The proceedings in this matter were drawn up under Section 144, Criminal Procedure Code and after certain evidence had been adduced by tuth the parties the Magistrate coma to the conclusion that, in his opinion, the subject-matter of the dispute, namely, a palm grove was held jointly by both the first and the second parties, who were quarrelling and fighting among themselves as regards their respective share in the property concerned. It has been argued before us that the Magistrate having found in this case that two parties were claiming exclusive possession of the property concerned, and that the property was held jointly by bath the parties, it is not a case which can be dealt with under the provisions of Section 145 or Section 146, Criminal Procedure Code, and in support of this contention reference has been made to the case of Makhan Lal Roy v. Baroda Kanta Roy 11 C.W.N. 512 : 5 Cr.L.J. 296 In my opinion, the contention is sound and ought to be given effect to ; and, for this reason, the order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate is set aside.

Beachcroft, J.

I agree.


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