KHOBRAJI Vs. VIJAYASINGRAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE two applicants and opponent No. 4 Govinda Narayan purchased different portions of land on a Gadhi in village Shebalpimpri in the district of Yeotmal, belonging to one Vijayasingrao Narasingrao Deshmukh, Party No. 1 (Opponent No. 1 here ). They were not made parties to proceedings Under Section 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code initiated by Station Officer, Jawala, taluq, Pusad, district Yeotmal. There was a dispute between party No. 1 (Opponent No. 1) and Party No. 2 (Opponents Nos. 2 and 3) over the subject-matter Gadhi. Party No. 1 is Vijaysingrao and Party No. II are his wives Vijayamalabai and Vimalabai. The learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate passed a preliminary order on 19-9-1966 and thereafter also passed another order on 17-10-1966 for attachment of the entire Gadhi including the portions purchased by the present applicants. The applicants claim to be in actual possession of the portions of the Gadhi which they purchased. Because the subject-matter of the dispute, after the order of attachment, was attached on 6-11-1966, therefore, the applicants appeared before the Court with an application on 22-111966 with a request that they should be made parties to the proceedings Under Section 145, Criminal Procedure Code. That application was not decided until the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate passed the final order on 26-9-1967.

(2.) THE learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate has observed in his judgment that during the proceedings the applicants had objected claiming to be the purchasers of certain pieces of land from Party No. 1 that their objections are outside the purview of these proceedings and that proper forum for the enforcement of sales and possession, if any, is the civil court, as they have not been impleaded as parties to those proceedings. The learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate also found that Party No. II Viiayamalabai and Vimalabai, the wives of Party No. 1, were in peaceful possession of the disputed property on the date of the preliminary order. Therefore, he declared that they were entitled to the possession of the disputed property until evicted therefrom in due course of law. He also forbade all disturbances to their possession until such eviction. Against this order, a revision was filed by the applicants. The learned District Magistrate while disposing of the revision application and the objections of the applicants also agreed with the view of the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate. According to the District Magistrate, the objections raised by the two applicants were outside the purview of those proceedings and the proper forum for enforcement of sales as well as possession, if any, was the civil court, because they were not parties to those proceedings. Against this order of the learned District Magistrate, the two applicants have come here in revision.

(3.) THE learned advocate for the applicants contends here that the applicants had purchased certain defined portions of the Gadhi which is the subject-matter of the dispute by registered sale-deeds from Vijayasingrao Party No. I on 3-9-1963 and 19-6-1965. Three sale deeds were executed and registered on these dates. It is, therefore, the claim of the applicants that as a result of these sale transactions long before the dispute between the two parties they purchased some portions of the Gadhi. and came to be in possession of the portions purchased by them. Accordingly, therefore, they ought to have been made parties to the proceedings Under Section 145, Criminal Procedure Code when they appeared before the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate on 22-11-1966 after the date of attachment and wanted to be parties to the proceedings. On the other hand the learned advocate for the party No. II contends here that the applicants had waited until the disposal of Section 145 proceedings. According to him, they ought to have seen that there was an order passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate on their application dated 22-11-1966. Because they have waited until the disposal of the Section 145 proceedings, according to him, the applicants are not now entitled to revise that order. It is further contended by him that Under Section 145, Cr. PC proceedings, it is not always necessary that all the necessary parties should invariably be parties to the proceedings. According to him, therefore, the application by the applicants is not tenable. The learned Government Pleader, however, supports the application by the applicants saying that the State is more concerned with the prevention of offences; that the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate does not bind the applicants and that therefore there is bound to be another quarrel between the applicants and Party No. II in whose favour a declaration is made by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate that they were in possession on the date of the preliminary order. According to the learned Government Pleader, the applicant? should, therefore be given an opportunity to show whether they are in possession of the disputed Gadhi or they are not in possession.