I.David Christian , J. - (1.) TINS Criminal Revision Case has been preferred by one Gopalakrishnan. who is B -Party in M.C.No.4/99/A.l/on the file of the Sub Divisional Magistrate and Sub Collector. Tiruppur to set aside the order passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate under Section 145 Cr.P.C.
(2.) THE Revision Petitioner Gopalakrishnan is the brother of Venkatachalani who was arrayed as A -Party before the Sub -Divisional Magistrate. After the death of the father, the petitioner and his brother Venkatachalani have divided the properties left by their father and Door No.4, Town Extension. I Street, Tiruppur was allotted to the share of the petitioner, whereas Door No.5, Town Extension, First Street, Tiruppur was allotted to the share of his brother Venkatachalani. Partition was effected on 14.4.1972 and ever since the petitioner is in possession and enjoyment of Door No.4, Town Extension, I Street, Tiruppur . There has been some dispute between the petitioner and his brother and the petitioner's brother Venkatachalam tried to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioner and therefore the latter was constrained to file O.S.No.120 of 1999 before the Sub -Court, Tiruppur praying for a permanent injunction restraining Venkatachalam from interfering with his possession and enjoyment of building bearing Door No.4, Town extension, I Street, Tiruppur. He has also filed an Interlocutory Application in I.A.No.309 of 1999 along with the suit and obtained an interim order of injunction against Venkatachalani by the order dated 24.2.1999. While so, Venkatachalam seems to have been sending petitions to the Revenue Officials and to the police and on the complaint made by Venkatachalam Tiruppur South Police Station have registered a case in Cr.No.709 of 1999 under Section 145 Cr.P.C. on 1.11.1999. This was forwarded to the Sub Divisional Magistrate and Sub -Collector, Tiruppur who issued notices to Venkatachalam and this petitioner Venkatachalani was arrayed as A -Party and Gopalakrishnan. The present petitioner was arrayed as B -Party, Gopalakrishnan entered appearance and filed a written statement setting out his claim of possession of the disputed property and also filed documents in support of his claim. Venkatachalam did not file any statement of claim, but he filed number of documents. The Sub Collector also called for a report from the Tahsildar, Tiruppar and on consideration of these materials, he has proceeded to pass an order dated 2.2.2000 as per which he found that Venkatachalam A -party is and has been continuously in possession of Door No.4, Town Extension, I Street, Tiruppur and directed 'B" Party Gopalakrishnan not to disturb his possession and also strangely prohibited Gopalakrishnan from executing a sale deed or mortgage in respect of the said property. Aggrieved at the said order passed by the Sub -Divisional Magistrate and Sub -Collector dated 2.2.2000, Gopalakrishnan has preferred this Revision. The point for consideration is as to whether the order passed by the Sub -Divisional Magistrate. Tiruppur dated 2.2.2000 in M.C.No.4/99/A. 1 can be sustained or not?
(3.) THE POINT: The dispute has arisen between two brothers, who claim to have succeeded to the disputed property bearing Door No.4. Town Extension. First Street, Tiruppur. The Dispute is only in respect of this building and Gopalkrishnan does not dispute that his brother Venkatachalam is entitled to building bearing Door No.5, Town Extension, I Street, Tiruppur. Both of them claim to have been entitled to the respective houses only by virtue of succeeding to their father after his death. It is also seen from the records filed in support of their claims that both Venkatachalam and Gopalakrishnan have referred to a partition deed dated 14.4.1972 and the claim of Gopalakrishnan is based only on this partition deed as per which as against his share, he has been allotted Door No.4, Town Extension, First Street, Tiruppur. Even though Venkatachalam claims to be in possession and enjoyment of the building bearing Door No.4. he has not stated as to how he has become entitled to the said property because he also does not dispute that the father left number of properties and that they were divided among two brothers under a partition of the year 1972.;