RAJINDRA SINGH Vs. PROMILA SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a criminal revision Under Section 401 of the Criminal P.C. 1973, for short "The Code". It is against an order of the Executive Magistrate, Silchar declaring possession of the disputed land and house in favour of the opposite party with a direction that she should be entitled to retain possession of the disputed property until ousted in due course of law.

(2.) SHORTLY put, the relevant facts are that a proceeding was initiated by the opposite party Smt. Promila Singh Under Section 145 of the Code in respect of the land and house. It was inquired into and the learned Magistrate by his order dated 5 -1 -80 declared possession of the land and house in favour of Smt. Promila and forbade disturbance to her lawful possession until evicted in due course by a competent court. However, in revision, the order was set aside by the learned Sessions Judge. The learned Judge remitted the case back to the Executive Magistrate for rendering fresh order after carefully considering the evidence of the case. Thereupon fresh notices were issued to the parties, the Magistrate heard arguments and upheld the claim of Smt. Promila. The learned Magistrate has held that there was apprehension of breach of peace between the parties concerning actual physical possession of the disputed property. For reaching the conclusion the learned Magistrate considered oral as well as documentary evidence. The Magistrate found that the owner of the property Indramoni Singh died leaving behind Angoubi Debi and Promila (the first party). Promila was then a minor. The learned Magistrate held that Promila was in possession of the entire property of Indramoni. On appreciation of oral and documentary evidence the learned Magistrate concluded that Promila was in actual possession of the disputed land on the date of drawal of the proceedings, and, accordingly passed the impugned order.

(3.) THIS documentary evidence does not directly go to establish the facturn of actual physical possession. This may be circumstantial evidence. Be that as it may, I find that the learned Magistrate has duly considered the deed of gift as well as "the house tax receipt". He has considered "the deed of gift" filed by the petitioner to bear up his claim along with the claim of Promila that the property was willed away in her favour of Smt. Angoubi Manipurini. Therefore, before the learned Magistrate the claims of the parties were based on deed of gift and will. The learned Magistrate surely could not have decided the genuineness or validity of the documents in the proceedings Under Section 145 of the Code when a probate case was "sub judice". The learned Magistrate was justified in observing that the parties to the proceedings wanted to bear up their respectiv claim on the basis of the two documents and no further. However, he was justified in holding that the deeds had no direct bearing on 'he question of actual physical possession, I hold that the Magistrate took into consideration the deed and the findings about the document are neither illegal nor unjustified.