DHANAKOTI ACHARI Vs. VEERASWAMI REDDI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision potation has been filed by the B party in M.C. 152 of 1965, on the file of the District Magistrate (J.), Chingleput. The A party filed that petition M.C. 152 of 1965 under S. 145, Cri.P.C. before the learned Magistrate claiming to be in possession of the properties mentioned in the potion. They admitted that the B party was in possession of some portions of the properties, but alleged that the B party was in such possession only as tenants of the A parry. The B party however claimed to be in possession in their own right and further they claimed to be in possession of a much larger extent than was admitted by the A party. The learned District Magistrate found that the evidence produced by the parties was vague and inadequate and that it was not possible for him to come to a definite conclusion and, there fore, under S. 146(1 Cri P.C., he draw up a statement of the case and forwarded the record to the civil Court of competent jurisdiction which he named as the District Munsif, Chingleput, to decide the question whether and which of the parties was in possession of the petition-mentioned properties on the date of the order passed earlier under S. 145(4). The present revision petition has been filed by the B party against that order.

(2.) The first contention of Mr. Sundaravardan learned counsel for the petitioners, is that the learned Magistrate need not have forwarded the case to the civil Court and could well have decide the case himself. I am how ever unable to find anything wrong in the order aspect. The second point urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the District Munsif. Chingleput was not the civil Court of competent jurisdiction to whom the record could be forwarded under S. 146(1) Cri P.C. and that the Subordinate Judge, Chingleput, alone would be the civil Court of competent jurisdiction. It is admitted that the District Munsif has territorial jurisdiction over the properties in dispute. But it is urged that the value of the properties is very much in excess of Rs. 5,000 the pecuniary limits of the jurisdiction of there District Munsif to try an original suit.

(3.) The relevant portion of S. 146(1). Cri P.C. is