JAGA KISHAN Vs. BENIMADHAB SUPAKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision application has been filed by the members of the second party against the order dated 31-10-64 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer Sambalpur, in a , proceeding under Section 145 Cr. P. C. declaring possession of the 1st party to the land in dispute. The 1st party Benimadhab Supakar claims possession of the disputed property on behalf of himself and his 4 sons, between whom there was an amicable partition in respect of some of the properties in dispute. The second party members represent different branches of the family and are eighty four in number. Originally the dispute was with regard to 71. 81 acres of land, but later on the enquiring Magistrate excluded 38. 41 acres from the score of pro-readings. Therefore the subject matter of the present proceeding is confined to 33. 41 acres of land situate in village Madhupur in the district of Sambalpur.

(2.) THE preliminary order under Section 145 (1) was passed on 22-7-63. It is admitted that the first party is the owner of the disputed land and the second party claimed possession as Sikimi tenants in respect of different parcels of land in the disputed properties. There was an amicable partition between the 1st part, benimadhab and his sons in respect of some of the disputed properties and some properties still remain joint. Though the sons made an application to the Court to be added as parties the Court in view of the joint nature of the claim of possession and that the 1st party is still in charge of the properties, did not think it advisable to add them as parties and the matter rested there. Thus, for all purposes benimadhab alone was treated as the 1st party. The learned Magistrate after an elaborate discussion of the claims of the parties, declared the 1st party to be in possession of the entire land in dispute, until evicted therefrom in the course of law. It is against this order of the Magistrate the second party has now come with this application.

(3.) THE main contention of Mr. Murty, learned Counsel for the petitioners is that in view of the partition amongst the sons of the 1st party and this being a case of several disputes in respect of different parcels of land as claimed by different members of the second party, a joint enquiry in respect of all such disputes was illegal and on that ground alone, the order of the learned Magistrate was liable to be set aside.