MADHUKAR ANANDRAO GIRDHARI Vs. TUKARAM ANANDRAO GIRDHARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned advocates for the parties.

(2.) PERUSED the records.

(3.) THE petitioner and respondents No. 1 to 4 are the real brothers. Respondents no. 5 and 6 are his sons, Respondent No. 7 is the wife and respondent No. 9 is the daughter-in-law. Respondent No. 8 is the son of the respondent No. 3. The dispute, in question, relates to 2 rooms being Room Nos. 4 and 5 in a building situated on plot No. 115 of Samarthnagar, Aurangabad, hereinafter called as "the suit property". According to the petitioner it is an ancestral property, whereas the respondent No. 1 claims the same to be self acquired property. The father of the petitioner and the respondent No. 1 expired somewhere in the year 1981. On or about 6th november 1989 the respondent No. 1 filed and application under Section 145 of the code of Criminal Procedure against the petitioner and other respondents contending that in spite of the fact that he was in the possession of the suit property, he was forcibly dispossessed there from by the petitioner. The Executive Magistrate issued notice thereof on 18-12-1989 to the petitioner and other respondents requiring them to file their reply on 27-12-1989 and thereafter considering the materials placed before him issued a preliminary order under Section 145 (1) of the Cr. P. C. on 24-1-1990 requiring the parties to produce necessary evidence in support of their respective claim. Both the parties filed their say in reply to the said notice and also adduced evidence including documentary evidence and thereupon the executive Magistrate by an order dated 29-2-1992 held that the petitioner and other respondents, who constituted the Party No. 2 before the Magistrate in the said proceedings, had forcible and wrongfully dispossessed the Party No. 1 i. e. the respondent No. 1 herein, from the suit property and, therefore, should restore the possession of the same to respondent No. 1 herein, within 24 hours failing which they should be evicted there from with the help of Police. He also directed the petitioner and other respondents not to disturb the possession of the suit property with the respondent No. 1 as he is entitled for possession thereof till evicted there from in due course of law. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred Criminal Revision Application no. 104 of 1993, which was dismissed by the judgment and order dated 1-2-1994. Hence the present petition.