BIJOYANANDA DAS Vs. SIRISH CHANDRA DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE facts of this case have been clearly stated in the orders of reference. The disputed land is the property belonging to the deity Raghunath Jiu. The members of the first party and second party members 1 to 5 are co-sebaits of the deity. In the written statement filed by the first party, it was stated that the entire body of co-sebayats were in joint possession of the disputed land, but that the second party members 6 to 22, in connivance with second party members 1 to 5 were trying to oust them from their lawful possession over the disputed land. The first party members filed an application for taking action under Section 145, Cr. P. C. as there was apprehension of breach of the peace. The case of second party members 6 to 22 was that the disputed land was settled with them on acceptance of salami by the entire body of the Sebayats of the deity and that they were in possession of different portions of the land settled with them in 1960. Though the settlement deeds were scribed and executed by second party members 1 to 5, members of the first party did not join in the matter of execution. They claimed possession of different portions of the land after reclamation at huge costs. The second party members 1 to 5 did not file any written statement. Second party member No. 1 examined himself as a witness and supported the case of the second party members 6 to 22. A reference was made to the Civil Court under section 146 (1), Cr. P. C. as the Magistrate was unable to decide as to which of the parties was in possession on the date of the preliminary order. The Munsif to whom the case had been referred, transmitted his finding under Section 146 (1b)holding that members of the first party were in possession of the disputed land on the date of the preliminary order. The Magistrate on receipt of the finding disposed of the proceeding under Section 145, Cr. P. C. in conformity with the decision of the Civil Court declaring possession of the first party.

(2.) BEFORE the learned Sessions Judge, two points were raised-

(3.) MR. Misra advanced two contentions :