ABRAHAM UPADESI Vs. MATHAI TITUS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The point raised in this batch of criminal revision petitions refers to the legality of an order passed by the Stationary First Class Magistrate, Pathanamthitta, under S.113(3), Travancore Criminal P.C. The petitions are resisted both by the learned Public Prosecutor and by the respondents here (the petitioners in the Court below). The respondents wanted the Magistrate to demand security for keeping the peace from the counter petitioners in the Court below who are the petitioners here.

(2.) There is a dispute between the two rival parties regarding the right of the petitioners here to retain possession of a compound and certain houses in that compound. Respondent 1 in this court claims to be the owner of the property and his contention is that the petitioners here were really his lessees in respect of the compound and the tenements, that the leases had terminated and that he had actually taken possession of the property from the petitioners here. After remaining in possession for a time, he seems to have granted a fresh lease in favour of Respondent 2 in this Court. Under that lease, when Respondent 2 attempted to gather the usufruct, the petitioners here offered resistance. It was in those circumstances that the proceedings commenced before the Stationary First Class Magistrate for taking security from the petitioners here for keeping the peace.

(3.) It is contended by Mr. Thomas on behalf of the petitioners here, that the order is not in accordance with law. Learned Counsel bases his argument on sub-s.(3) of S. 113 which sets forth that,