SHREEDHAR THAKUR Vs. KESHO SAO
LAWS(PAT)-1960-10-13
HIGH COURT OF PATNA
Decided on October 17,1960

SHREEDHAR THAKUR Appellant
VERSUS
KESHO SAO Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

MADDEN V. NELSON AND FORT SHEPPARD RAILWAY [REFERRED TO]
PADMANAVA BHATTACHERJEE V. BIDHUBUSHAN DAS [REFERRED TO]
JHAMAN MAHTON V. THAKURI MAHTON [REFERRED TO]
TAASHUQ HUSSAIN VS. STATE [REFERRED TO]
KHUDIRAM MANDAL VS. JITENDRA NATH [REFERRED TO]
RAM NARAYAN GOSWAMI VS. BISWANATH GOSWAMI [REFERRED TO]
MUTHU SETHURAYAR VS. LOUDUSWAMI ODAYAR [REFERRED TO]
KHARTAR SAO VS. PRADIP SINGH [REFERRED TO]



Cited Judgements :-

BRAHMA NAIK VS. RAMKUMAR AGARWALLA [LAWS(ORI)-1967-12-3] [REFERRED TO]
RAJA SINGH VS. MAHENDRA SINGH [LAWS(PAT)-1963-1-2] [REFERRED TO]
RAM SHANKER VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-1997-3-173] [REFERRED TO]
JAMUNA PRASAD VS. BISHESHWAR SAH [LAWS(PAT)-1969-4-9] [REFERRED TO]
PHULENA THAKUR VS. DEVI THAKUR [LAWS(PAT)-1977-5-6] [REFERRED TO]
RAMASWAMY AND OTHERS VS. KUNCHI ALIAS GAVARAN [LAWS(MAD)-1975-9-38] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF BIHAR VS. HARI MISHRA [LAWS(PAT)-1964-5-3] [REFERRED TO]
AYODHYA PRASAD TEWARI VS. HOPAL MANJHI [LAWS(PAT)-1967-1-1] [REFERRED TO]
AYODHYA PRASAD TEWARI VS. HOPAL MANJHI [LAWS(PAT)-1967-1-1] [REFERRED TO]
MOHAMMAD ABBAS VS. MOHAMMAD MUSTAQIM [LAWS(PAT)-1969-7-7] [REFERRED TO]
JAHANA SINGH AND OTHERS VS. STATE THROUGH KALWA AND OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-1968-2-25] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

Sahai, J. - (1.)This application by the second party is directed against a final order passed in a proceeding under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It has come before this Bench on a reference made by me while sitting singly.
(2.)The proceeding, which was drawn up under an order of the Sub-divisional Magistrate of Jamui dated the 18th January, 1956, related to a total area of 14.84 acres of lands comprised in seven khatas, namely, khatas Nos. 189, 50, 128, 84, 175, 33 and 239, in Village Basmatha, tola of mauza Anandpur, within the jurisdiction of Lakshmipur Police Station in Jamui Sub-division. The only details given in the proceeding, which was drawn up, were the khata numbers, plot numbers and the area in dispute. There was nothing to indicate the total area of any of the plots, nor was there anything to show that the whole or a portion of any of the plots, numbers of which were given, was in dispute. Admittedly, the parties were at issue as to the possession over only portions of some of the plots; but there was nothing in the proceeding to indicate the direction in which the disputed portions in those plots lay. The boundary of none of the plots, or portions of the plots, was given. The police report, on the basis of which the proceeding was drawn up, also contained no additional details about the disputed lands. The learned Advocates for both parties have admitted before us, that, with the exception of the khatian of khata No. 239 (exhibit 6), the khatian of none of the other khatas has been put in evidence. It is also conceded that there is nothing in the written statement of, or the evidence adduced by, either party to show the total area of any of the plots in dispute or to show on which side of a plot, in which only a portion was claimed, the disputed portion lay. The position thus is that it is not possible to ascertain either from the proceeding or from any other material on the record whether the whole of any of the plots mentioned in the proceeding is in dispute, nor is it possible to ascertain from which direction a portion of any plot is in "dispute.
(3.)By an order dated the 6th June, 1956, the learned Magistrate referred the case under Section 146 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure to the Civil Court. He made no attempt whatsoever in that order to discuss the evidence, or to make an attempt to come to any conclusion on the question of possession over the subject of dispute, but merely said that the dispute was of a chronic nature, that the parties had (been?) fighting for some time, that "a finding on the factum of possession after a thorough examination of" the parties' contentions would be the only permanent solution, and that it was not possible for him to arrive at a decision regarding the actual possession on "the facts, evidence and circumstances so far available".


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