PADMARAJU SUBBA RAJU Vs. PADMARAJU KONETI RAJU
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
PADMARAJU SUBBA RAJU
PADMARAJU KONETI RAJU
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) Rao, C.J.(1) This is a Criminal Revision Petition agagainst the order of the Additional First Class Magistrate, Thirupati, under S. 145(6), Criminal P. C. declaring that the "A" party respondent is entitled to possession of the two houses, pandal and the back yard until evicted therefrom in due course of law.The "A" party respondent filed a petition on 7-2-1953 before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate (Executive) Chandragiri, stating that the "B" party respondents were interfering with his possession of the two houses belonging to him, which for convenience will be described as rectangular and round houses.
(2.) The case of the "A" party respondent was that he was in possession of the rectangular house in his own right and that Subbamma, his elder sister, was with his permission residing in the round house and that the "B" party respondents were trying to take forcible possession from him of the said two houses. The "B" party respondents contention was that Subbamma was the owner of the said two houses, that she sold the same to P. W. 1 on 4-11-1952 and put him in possession of the said two houses and that he was living in the round houses with his permission.It is common case that on 7-2-1953 the rectangular house was put in the possession of the mediators peacefully and voluntarily to prevent disputes between the parties. On 7-5-1953, the Additional First Class Magistrate, Thirupati, to whom the case was transferred made a preliminary order equiring he "A party and "B" party respondents to put in written statements of their respective claims in regard to the fact of actual possession of the subject of dispute. Both parties accordingly placed their entire evidence before the Magistrate.On 24-5-1954, he made an order wherein he held that on 7-2-1953 the mediators took possession of the rectangular house, but prior to that the "A" party respondent was in possession and that in regard to the round house, subbamma was in permissive possession, under a. W. 1 On those findings he came to the conclusion that A. W. 1 was in possession of the two houses on the date of the petition and the preliminary order.On the basis of tht conclusion, he declared under S. 145(6), Criminal P. C., that the "A" party respondent was entitled to the possession of the two houses, the pandal and the backyard until evicted therefrom in due course of law. The "B" party respondents preferred the above revision.
(3.) Mr. Ramachandra Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the "B" party respondents, contended that, on the findings given by the Magistrate, the petition filed by the "A" party respondent should have been dismissed.In regard to the rectangular house, his contention was two-fold: (1) having held that on 7-2-1953, the mediators peacefully took possession of the said house to prevent further disputes between the parties, the Magistrate should have held that the first proviso to S. 145;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.