DODDA REVANNA Vs. T V NARAYANA MURETHY
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.)In this revision petition the Petitioners (II Party) in proceedings under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in the Court below challenge the correctness of the order declaring that the Respondent (I Party) was in possession. The learned Magistrate has dealt with the documents produced by either side in support of its case as also the affidavits of various persons filed on behalf of the parties. He has come to the conclusion that the affidavits and the documentary evidence indicate that the I Party has been in possession of the site in question.
(2.)It is urged for the Petitioners that their documents show that they were in possession earlier, but the learned Magistrate holds that those documents are not shown to pertain to the disputed site, while the documents filed on behalf of the I Party give the original khaneshmari number borne by the site and the subsequent number also. These are questions of fact and the view of the lower Court cannot be called in question in revision.
(3.)It is next urged that when the affidavits filed on behalf of the Second Party show that the persons whose affidavits are relied upon by the I Party were interested against the II Party as they had previously filed a suit against him the learned Magistrate should have allowed the examination of those persons as witnesses.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.