SACHIDANAND SINGH Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal revision arises out of the judgment and order dated 6-5-1988 passed by Sri Umesh Chandra Misra, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ballia in Criminal Revision No. 193 of 1986 which had been filed by the present respondent No.2 against the judgment and order dated 17-5-1985 passed by S. D. M. Ballia in proceedings under Sec. 145 Cr. P. C. in case No. 47 of 1984.

(2.) The dispute related to a piece of land situated in the east of the house of the present revisionist Sachidanand Singh and to the south of the present respondent No.2. Both of them claimed their possession thereon. Apprehension of breach of peace was reported about the possession in respect of the said piece of land by the police and the learned Magistrate drew preliminary order under Sec. 145(1) Cr. P. C. on 14-5-1982. Both the parties adduced evidence in respect of their respective claim regarding possession after filing their written statements. The revisionist before this Court was first party before the learned Magistrate. He contended that the disputed land was the part of his old house. As his house had got damaged, he constructed a new portion in the western side and the disputed land was still in his possession. He claimed that the debris of the old house was still lying on the disputed land. Besides examining himself two other witnesses Raghunandan Kunwar and Jai Narain Singh were examined who supported his claim of possession.

(3.) The present respondent No.2 Satya Deo Singh figured as second party before the Magistrate and contended that the disputed land lying towards south of his house was part of his house and the debris thereon was of his old house. He also claimed that there existed an opening of his house towards the disputed land. He examined himself and two other witnesses Laxman Singh and Satya Narain in support of his alleged possession. On weighing the respective evidence of the parties, the learned Magistrate decided the question of possession in favour of the first party Sachidanand Singh. Second party, namely, Satya Deo Singh was restrained from interfering with the lawful possession of the first party unless the revisionist was evicted therefrom in due course of law.