ELUMALAI GOUNDER Vs. ANNAMALAL GOUNDER
LAWS(MAD)-1970-2-25
HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Decided on February 10,1970

ELUMALAI GOUNDER Appellant
VERSUS
Annamalal Gounder Respondents

JUDGEMENT

K.N.Mudaliyar, J. - (1.) A Party are the Petitioners before the learned District Magistrate, (J) Chingleput on a receipt of a police report dated 12th June 1967. The learned First Class Magistrate. Executive, Kancheepuram passed an order under Section 145(1) Code of Criminal Procedure The case set up by the Petitioners is that the village Odanthangal is an estate and that they are ryots and they have been in possession of the same. 'B' Party 1 to 8 claim to be vendees from the inamdar. The claim of the counter Petitioners is that the said village is an Ekabogam Mirasi and that the Petitioners are only tenants under the mirasdar and that they have no occupancy right. At this stage, we are not really concerned with the relative merits of the case set up by the respective parties. On 26th December, 1967 the learned District Magistrate passed an order in the following terms: Further proceedings dropped.
(2.) BEFORE I consider the legal arguments submitted by Mr. V.S. Rangaswami Ayyan -gar assailing the order of the learned District Magistrate, I want to make it clear that the statement filed by the counter -Petitioner No. 2 Kanna Gounder makes it abundantly clear that substantially a dispute, likely to cause the breach of the peace exists concerning the said village. It is argued by the learned Counsel for the Petitioners that the order passed by the learned District Magistrate does not state the grounds in support of the order and that when proceedings are started under Section 145(1) Code of Criminal Procedure there ought to be a continuation of the proceedings save for the exceptional reasons mentioned in Section 145 Sub -section (5). Sub -Section 5 of Section 145 Code of Criminal Procedure reads as follows: Nothing in this Section shall preclude any party so required to attend, or any other person interested, from showing that no such dispute as aforesaid exists of has existed; and in such case, the Magistrate shall cancel his said order, and all further proceedings thereon shall be stayed, but subject to that cancellation, the order of the Magistrate under Sub -section (1) shall be final.
(3.) AT the very outset it is clear no person or party interested in the matter showed to the court that no such dispute as aforesaid existed or exits. The very fact that the A party are the Petitioners before this Court and that being aggrieved by the order of the court below, should have chosen to come before this Court is itself an indication that the dispute likely to cause the breach of the peace still exists. It is obvious that no grounds have been stated by the learned District Magistrate (J) Chingteput.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.