RAMVIR SINGH Vs. MAKKHAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) B. K. Rathi, J. The dispute in this case between the parties is regarding Khasra No. 217 measuring 492 sq. yards situated in village Jaganpur, Nagla Haveli, Police Station New Agra, District Agra. The proceedings under Section 145, Cr PC, were taken and were decided by the learned Magistrate and he held that Ram vir Singh, revisionist was in possession on the said plot at the date of the preliminary order under Section 145 (1), Cr PC and also within two months prior to that date. He directed Makkhan Singh, opposite party No. 1 not to interfere in the posses sion of Ramvir Singh over the said plot. This order was passed by the learned Magistrate on 24-4-1987. Against that order the opposite party No. 1 filed Criminal Revision No. 241 of 1987 which have been allowed by order dated 28-10-1991 by IVth Additional Sessions Judge, Agra. The learned Additional Sessions Judge considered the dispute in detail and remanded the matter back to the learned Magistrate for re-decision after recording further evidence with the following obser vations: "in the lower Court Santosh Kumar had not produced any record of the society to show that the society had made full payment to the farmers and had taken possession over the plots which were sold by the society. No document has been filed to show that how much property was purchased by the society and how the plots were demarcated. On the other hand, Santosh Kumar has not even told the boundaries of the plot in dispute. He has stated "mujhe Nahi Maloom Ki Is Plot Ke Uttar, Poorab, Paschim Ya Dakkin Main Kis Kis Ke Plot Hain/mujey Yeh Bhi Nahi Maloom Ki Is Plot Ke Baad Kis Kis Ke Plot Hain/society Ki Zameen Gajender Singh Wa Kailash Singh Se Kharidi Thi". At one place he has stated that Gajender Singh and Prahlad Singh were the owners of this land. The learned Magistrate should have, therefore, recorded the statements of Gajender Singh and Prahlad Singh to ascertain whether the original owners of the land had transferred this land to the society or not. If the sixty one thousand rupees of the farmers were due then there is nothing to show that the society had got possession over the land in dispute or was competent to transfer it to any person. The Magistrate should summon all the record of the society to ascertain whether the society was registered or not, whether Sri Santosh Kumar had the right to transfer the plot in dispute and whether the society was keeping any regular account for selling the plot. The Magistrate shall also see whether any prescribed procedure for the delivery of possession was executed by the society in favour of the purchaser. As the record of the society has not been produced before the learned Magistrate the Magistrate was unable to ascertain as to who was in de facto possession over the land in dispute. "

(2.) AGGRIEVED by the order of the learned IVth Additional Sessions Judge, the present revision has been preferred.

(3.) THE question for decision is whether the land was purchased by Ram vir Singh and he is owner and possession of the same or it was purchased by Mak khan Singh and he is in possession of the same and sale-deed in the name of Ramvir Singh is only a banami transaction. For the decision of this question sufficient evidence was led by the parties which is on the record as appear from the judgment of both the Courts below. THE record of the society, the statement of Gajcndra Singh and Prahalad Singh and the determination of the fact whether the society is registered or not, whether Santosh Kumar had the right to transfer the plot in dispute, whether the society was keeping regular accounts and selling the plot are not at all relevant for decision of question regard ing the possession of the land in dispute. THErefore, the remand of the case on above ground mentioned by the learned Additional Sessions Judge was unneces sary. None of this evidence is required for the decision of this case.