ELUMALAI GOUNDER Vs. ANNAMALAL GOUNDER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A Party are the Petitioners before the learned District Magistrate, (J) Chingleput on a receipt of a police report dated 12th June 1967. The learned First Class Magistrate. Executive, Kancheepuram passed an order under Section 145(1) Code of Criminal Procedure The case set up by the Petitioners is that the village Odanthangal is an estate and that they are ryots and they have been in possession of the same. 'B' Party 1 to 8 claim to be vendees from the inamdar. The claim of the counter Petitioners is that the said village is an Ekabogam Mirasi and that the Petitioners are only tenants under the mirasdar and that they have no occupancy right. At this stage, we are not really concerned with the relative merits of the case set up by the respective parties. On 26th December, 1967 the learned District Magistrate passed an order in the following terms:

(2.) BEFORE I consider the legal arguments submitted by Mr. V.S. Rangaswami Ayyan -gar assailing the order of the learned District Magistrate, I want to make it clear that the statement filed by the counter -Petitioner No. 2 Kanna Gounder makes it abundantly clear that substantially a dispute, likely to cause the breach of the peace exists concerning the said village.

(3.) AT the very outset it is clear no person or party interested in the matter showed to the court that no such dispute as aforesaid existed or exits. The very fact that the A party are the Petitioners before this Court and that being aggrieved by the order of the court below, should have chosen to come before this Court is itself an indication that the dispute likely to cause the breach of the peace still exists. It is obvious that no grounds have been stated by the learned District Magistrate (J) Chingteput.