SUBARNA SUNAMI Vs. KARTIKA KUDEI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY an order dated 31.3.1953, the Magistrate, First Class, Bargarh, declared the possession of the disputed lands measuring 51.052 acres in favour of the first party (opposite parties herein) in M. C. No. 65/314 of 1952 - a proceeding under Section 145, Criminal Procedure Code The Sessions Judge, Sambalpur, affirmed this order by his judgment dated 30.7.1953, in criminal revision Case No. 6 of 1953. It is against this order that the members of the second party have come up in revision to this Court.

(2.) THE facts leading to the dispute lie within a short compass. Akula, the father of the first party was admittedly the Thikadar - Gaontia, and after his death Kartick the first party, is the Thikadar. The disputed lands are the sir lands of the village enjoyed by the gaontias in lieu of maintenance. The members of the second party claim to be the daughters of one Bhagat who was the cousin of Akula and was the previous gaontia and who, it is said, died issueless over 20 years ago. It has been found by both the Courts below that the petitioners are, in fact, not the daughters of Bhagat. It is contended that they are the daughters of one Jagat belonging to a junior branch. In view of the findings of the Court below and the overwhelming documentary evidence, learned counsel for the petitioners did not reagitate this point before me, and it must be taken as established that the petitioners are not the daughters of Bhagat as alleged by them.

(3.) BUT apart from that, the main contention raised is that the order of the Magistrate violates the provisions Section 145 (4) as the first party had been dispossessed more than two months prior to the passing of the preliminary order. The admited facts are that on 18.6.1952 the members of the second party laid a report with the Police that they had cultivated the disputed fields on Akhayatruthiya day, corresponding to 27.4.1952 and that the members of the first party damaged the seedlings on 18.6.1952.