RUDRA SINGH Vs. BIMLA DEBI
LAWS(PAT)-1960-2-19
HIGH COURT OF PATNA
Decided on February 02,1960

RUDRA SINGH Appellant
VERSUS
BIMLA DEBI Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

RAMNARAIN SINGH V. DHONRAI GOPE [REFERRED TO]
MAHABIR SINGH VS. EMPEROR [REFERRED TO]



Cited Judgements :-

JENATBIBI VS. KASAMBHAI NURBHAI RADHANPURI [LAWS(GJH)-1968-9-7] [REFERRED]
KAILASH NATH AGARWAL VS. AMAR NATH AGARWAL [LAWS(ALL)-1968-1-10] [REFERRED TO]
RAM DULARE YADAV VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-1971-1-30] [REFERRED TO]
SOHAN MUSHAR VS. KAILASH SINGH [LAWS(PAT)-1961-9-13] [REFERRED TO]
SARFI VS. SUGO [LAWS(PAT)-1961-10-12] [REFERRED TO]
Laiphrakpam Leiren Singh VS. Nongthombom Leiren Singh [LAWS(ORI)-1966-12-10] [REFERRED TO]
NAINA SAH VS. RAMRUP SAH [LAWS(PAT)-1964-7-2] [REFERRED TO]
MAHESH THAKUR AND SIX ORS. VS. LAKSHMAN PD. THAKUR AND ANR. [LAWS(PAT)-1971-3-8] [REFERRED TO]
KALI THEVAN VS. K. K. GIRIRAJA KALINGARAYAR AND ANOTHER, [LAWS(MAD)-1959-11-53] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

Kamla Sahai, J. - (1.)This application by the second party is directed against the final order passed in a proceeding under Section 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
(2.)In view of the course which I propose to adopt in this case, I do not consider it necessary to give in detail the cases of the parties. All that I need mention is that the members of the first party claim to be in possession of the disputed land under a registered patta executed on 22-2-1952, by one Narendra Prasad Singh, admittedly a cosharer of Shri Rudra Narain Singh of the second party, who Is petitioner No. 1 in this Court. They also claim that they have made some constructions upon the land. On the other hand, the second party's case is that an area of 5.85 acres of land, including the disputed land, was left ijmal between petitioner No. 1 and his co-sharers named Narendra Prasad Singh and Krishna Singh alias Srikrishna Singh under a compromise partition decree dated 19-2-1941. It is also the case of the second party that, by mutual arrangement, the second party has been in possession of 2.52 acres out of plot No. 1327, including the land in dispute. It is alleged that some trees stood upon this area of land; but they have dried up.
(3.)The learned Magistrate does not appear to have clearly stated anywhere in his judgment as to who was in possession before the members of the first party made constructions upon the disputed land. He has, however, come to the conclusion that the patta executed by Narendra Prasad Singh on 22-2-1952, conferred a right of possession over the members of the first party, and that they came into possession of the disputed land when they made constructions upon it, even though they did so in the absence of petitioner No. 1. He has further ob-served that, since they came into rightful possession and did not come into possession as trespassers, their possession had to be upheld by the Court.


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