APPAJAPPA Vs. LAKSHMIRAMA SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On a report submitted by the Sub-Inspector of Police, BEML Police Station, Robertsonpet, on 4-3-1975 the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Kolar Sub-Divn, passed a preliminary order on 15-3-1975 under S. 145(1), CrlPC (New) in case No CMC 15 of 1975, as according to him, there was a dispute in respect of a portion of Survey No.6912 of Doddavalagamadi village, measuring 2 acres 28 guntas between the petitioners (members of the II party) on the one hand and the respondents (members of the I Party) on the other. Then, on 29-7-1975 the Sub-Divl Magistrate, passed a final order holding that Lakshmiram Singh, first respondent (first member of the first Party) was in possession and in occupation of the said land on the date of preliminary order and as such, he is entitled to possession of the said land until evicted therefrom in due course of law. The petitioners challenged the said order before the Sessions Judge at Kolar in CrlRP.31 of 1975 and the learned Sessions Judge, by his order dt.22-6-76, dismissed the said Revision Petition and aggrieved by the said orders, the petitioners have approached this Court by filing a petition under Section 482, Criminal Procedure Code (new).

(2.) It appears to be the case of the petitioners that the land belonged to Ramakrishna Reddy the father of respondents 3 and 4 and husband of respondent-2 and that one Krishna Singh had leased it to them some 20 years back and since then they were cultivating it as tenants without any interruption. On the other hand, it appears to be the case of the respondents, that the said land was not leased to the petitioners either by Krishna Singh or any one else and that on the death of Ramakrishna Reddy the respondents 2 to 4 and Viswanatha Reddy (since deceased), came into possession of the said land and continued to be in possession of the same till the same was sold to the first respondent on 28-12-1974 under a registered sale deed, for a consideration of Rs. 9,000. It appears to be their further case, that on the date of sale, respondent-1 was put in possession and the petitioners without any justification whatsoever being instigated by some of the villagers who wanted to purchase the said land, started creating trouble by interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said land by respondent-1.

(3.) The parties, apart from producing affidavits of various persons, also relied upon some documents. But, it appears that there was nothing on the side of the petitioners to show that the said land was leased to them by Krishna Singh at any time and they were cultivating the same as tenants. On the other hand, the Sub-Divl Magistrate, relying upon the entries in the pahani wherein the third respondent is shown to have cultivated the said land till he sold the land in favour of first respondent, came to the conclusion that the first respondent was in possession of the said land on the date of the preliminary order, In reaching that conclusion, what further weighed with him was the recital in the sale deed to the effect that possession of the land was handed over to the first respondent on the date of the sale itself and the affidavits of 5 persons filed on behalf of respondents. Consequently, the Sub-Divl Magistrate, Kolar, passed the impugned order without attaching any value to the affidavits filed on behalf of the petitioners and in that connection this is what he has stated :