GANAPATHI MUTHIRIYAR Vs. NARAYANASWAMI VAITHIAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Revenue Divisional Officer, Musiri, was also the Sub-Divisional Magistrate up to 1-1-1955, when the Judiciary was separated from the Executive in that district. Thereafter the Revenue Divisional Officer was a First Class Magistrate ex-officio, with territorial jurisdiction over his revenue division.

(2.) THERE were disputes over the possession of an extent of 7. 04 acres of land, which constituted the subject-matter of M. C. No. 63 of 1954 on the file of the sub-Divisional Magistrate, Musiri, under Section 145, Crl. P. C. After an inquiry, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate ordered under Section 146 (1), Crl. P. C. , that the lands should remain under attachment until a competent civil Court had determined the rights of parties to that land. Subsequently, on 6-2-1955, the revenue Divisional Officer, as a Magistrate of the First Class ex-officio who had jurisdiction to exercise the powers under Section 145 and Section 146, Crl. P. C. , directed the appointment of the village munsif of Nerinjalagudi as receiver of these attached properties. He was directed to lease the lands. The receiver leased the lands to Narayanaswami Vaithiar, the contesting respondent in these proceedings. The lease was for the period ending with 31-5-1956 and the rent reserved was 187 kalams of paddy. For the subsequent year 1-6-1956 to 31-5-1957 the receiver notified that an auction would be held for the grant of the lease. That auction was eventually held on 25-6-56 by the receiver. Ganapathi Muthiriyar, the petitioner in these proceedings, recorded the highest bid of 275 kalams of paddy. The receiver accepted that bid and concluded the auction. On 16-7-1956 the petitioner deposited Rs. 500 with the receiver as security for the payment of the rent reserved and executed a lease deed for the period 1-6-1956 to 31-5-1957.

(3.) ON 23-7-1956 the respondent, Narayanaswami, presented a petition addressed to the Executive First Class Magistrate, Musiri, wherein he prayed that he should be permitted to continue in possession as a lessee on the same terms as in the previous year. The respondent pointed out that he was entitled to the protection afforded by the provisions of Madras Act XXV of 1955.