KAMALAKANTA GIRI Vs. ATULA KUMAR GIRI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Circumventing the provision of Sub -section (3) of Section 397 of Cr.P.C. this Criminal Misc. Case has been filed invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the. Cr.P.C. According to the opposite party he had purchased the disputed land from his uncle Ainthu Giri by a registered sale deed dtd.17th April, 1982 and since that date he is in peaceful possession thereof. It is alleged that the present petitioners without having any right, title, interest and possession over the said lands created disturbance in the possession of the opposite party for first time on 9th July, 1987 and threatened to assault and murder the opposite party. Consequently the opposite party filed a petition under Section 145 of the Cr.P.C. before the Executive Magistrate, which was registered as Crl. Misc. Case No. 486/1989.

(2.) THE present petitioners who were members of second party before the Executive Magistrate took the stand that the disputed land was the ancestral joint family property of both the parties and the same fell to the share of Ainthu Giri in an amicable distribution among the co -sharers. The said Ainthu Giri had entered into an agreement with them as long back as in the year 1980 to alienate the property in their favour. He had also taken a part of the consideration money and handed over possession of the same to them. It is further alleged that since 1980 they are in possession of the disputed land and that the 1st party member had never possessed the same. - -

(3.) BEING aggrieved the petitioners who were second party members filed Crl. Revision No. 2/1993 before the Sessions Judge, Keonjhar. Learned Sessions Judge after hearing learned Counsel for both the parties and after perusing the evidence both oral and documentary observed that though the petitioners took the p|ea that they were in possession of the disputed land from the time of execution of the agreement dtd.24th March, 1980, but failed to prove their nature of possession. It was further observed that neither in the show cause nor in the evidence any materials were produced to prove the specific nature of possession. On the basis of such observation, the revisional Court held that the learned Executive Magistrate had rightly arrived at a conclusion that they were not in possession of the disputed land and the order does not suffer from any infirmity.