SHEO BADAN SINGH Vs. ADITYA PRASAD SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a criminal revision against the order dt. 20-1-1981 passed by the Magistrate Pratapgarh in a case under S.145, Cr. P.C. releasing the property in dispute in favour of Aditya Prasad Singh and Jairam Singh opposite parties 1 and 2.

(2.) The dispute between the revisionists and opposite parties 1 and 2 relates to certain plots situated in village Bhopia Mau, District Pratapgarh. They were undisputedly Bhumidhari plots of one Smt. Manraj Kunwar. On 15-5-1978 S.O. of Police Station Kotwali Pratapgarh submitted a report that there is a dispute, between the parties about the aforesaid plots and it is likely to cause a breach of the peace. On that report a preliminary order was passed on 6-6-1978 and the property was attached on 5-7-1978. On service of the order both the parties put in appearance and filed their written statements. Aditya Prasad Singh and Jairam Singh who have heep described as first party in the impugned order pleaded in their written statement that Smt. Manraj Kunwar was Bhumidhar of the plots. She executed agreement for sale in their favour in respect of those plots on 19-2-1976 and delivered possession to them. The first party was, therefore, in possession of the plots at the time of the preliminary order. Sheo Badan Singh and Krishna Kumar Singh revisionists described as second party in the impugned order obtained sale deed of those plots on 20-9-1977 from Smt. Manraj Kunwar whereupon the opposite parties 1 and 2 filed Suit No. 7 of 1978 on 13-2-1978 for specific performance of the agreement and cancellation of the sale deed in the Court of the civil Judge, Pratapgath. That suit was decreed on 27-1-1979 in favour of opposite parties 1 and 2. The revisionists therefore, preferred an appeal. Thus, the suit was pending when the report was made by the police and the preliminary order under S.145, Cr. P.C. and attachment order under S.146, Cr. P.C. were made. The written statements by the parties were filed in February 1979 i.e., after the decision of the civil suit for specific performance. The revisionists pleaded in their written statement that Smt. Manraj Kunwar did not execute any deed of agreement and the first party is not in possession of the plots in dispute. On the basis of the material placed before the learned Magistrate he came to the conclusion that there is a dispute between the parties regarding the aforesaid plots which is likely to cause a breach of the peace and the first party was in possession of the plots in dispute at the relevant time. He, therefore, passed an order for release of the property in favour of the first party and directed the second party not to interfere with the possession of the first party till the letter is evicted in due course of law. Feeling dissatisfied with this order the second party has filed the present revision.

(3.) The record of the lower Court was summoned and perused and the parties' counsel were heard at length.