PARAS NATH PANDEY Vs. DEONANDAN PANDEY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision Is directed against the judgment and order passed on 11-3-1986 by Mr. M P. Singh the then Sessions Judge Ballia. The learned Sessions Judge was disposing of Criminal Revision No. 107 of 1985 and he set aside the order passed by Mr. Rakesh Kumar. A.S.D. M. Bansdih. District Ballia passed In Criminal Case No. 49 of 1985.

(2.) Briefly stated the facts arc that at the instance of Vijay Kumar Pandey and Paras Nath Pandey proceedings under section 145 of the Cr. P. C were started. They came with the allegations that they were bhumidhars in possession of plot no. 60 measuring decimals and of plot no. 48 measuring 61/2 decimals in Mauza janari. P.S. Kotwali, district Ballia. They also contended that the opposite parties namely Deooandan Pandey and others had, no concern with these plots, but they were laying claim to the same and since there was an apprehension of breach of peace. Action under section 145 Cr. P.C. may be taken. A preliminary order was passed by the A.S.D.M. on 7.3.1984 and simultaneously be directed attachment of the standing crops. A local lawyer Mr. Paras Nath Lal was appointed Commissioner and was directed to go on the snot and carry out the attachment and submit his report. Then on 12.4.1984 the revisionists filed a written statement. Their contention was that originally this land was the bhumidhari of Surendra Pandey who transferred the same in their favour and since then they have been in possession and that the attached crop was also theirs as it had been sown and grown by them. It was also contended that Surendra Pandey had transfer red the actual possession of this land also since he was in possession by virtue of a private partition.

(3.) A written statement was also filed by Deonandan Pandey and others and their contention was that the first party was not in sole possession over the property, but that they were co-tenant and since there was no private partition, hence it was a jointly held property.