ALAGIRISAMI NAIDU Vs. CHINNA VEERAMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner and the second counter petitioner, counter petitioner 1 is the mother of the counter petitioner 2, each claimed exclusive possession of the land in dispute. The learned Magistrate before whom proceedings under Section 145, Criminal P. C. were initiated reached the conclusion that neither side was in exclusive possession on the date of the preliminary order (18th January 1947), and that the evidence on record did not; establish conclusively that either side had been disposssseed within two months before the order. The learned Magistrate ordered the attachment of the property under Section 146 (1), Criminal P. C. The petitioner Reeks to have that order set aside in revision.

(2.) THE learned Magistrate was certainly entitled to rely upon the oral evidence of the village Headman C. W. 6. He (C, W. 6,) says that each cultivated ball, petitioner and counter petitioner 2. 1 do not for a moment disbelieve the evidence of this witness who is very straightforward. Considering that it was a six month crop that was raised when 0. W. 6 harvested it the learned Magistrate was certainly right in his observation "with regard to recent possession, it cannot be definitely said who was in exclusive possession. "

(3.) I am unable to see any real substance in the contention put forward by the learned advocate for the petitioner, that on the evidence on record the learned Magistrate should have come to the conclusion that the petitioner was in exclusive possession of the land. To reiterate, the learned Magistrate was entitled to rely upon the oral testimony of 0, W, 6. There was nothing in the documentary evidence to indicate with any finality that, if the second counter petitioner got any possession at all it must have been within two months before the date of the preliminary order.