BASIRUDDIN SK. AND ORS. Vs. RAJMAMUD SARKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition of revision arises out of a proceeding under Section 145, Criminal Procedure Code. The petitioners before me were arrayed as second parties before the Court of the Magistrate and the opposite party before me were arrayed as the first party before that Court. The complaint of the first party was that by various sale deeds he purchased twenty bighas of land in five different plots of various areas from the second party. After taking the sale deeds he came into actual possession and the second party in a body tried to dispossess him of the property and thus there was a likelihood of the breach of the peace. On being satisfied that there was a likelihood of the breach of the peace the Magistrate issued a preliminary order and called upon the patties to file evidence in support of their possession over the plots. The case set out by the second party petitioners was that the sale deeds were executed only as some loan was advanced by the first party but possession was never given to the first party and that the second party continued respectively in possession over their plots. The loans were repaid and thus the first party has no right to remain in possession of the property. The Magistrate after consideration of the documentary evidence and the affidavits filed by the parties came to the conclusion that the first party has proved his possession over the various plots and thus declared that the first party is in possession of the land and directed that the land attached should be released in his favour. In the petition five plots are set out and it is stated that the various plots were sold by different sale deeds by different members of the second patty.

(2.) TWO points have been mainly urged by Mr. Sen for the petitioners. Firstly it is contended that as there are distinct items of property involved, the disputes were separate and the Magistrate could not in one proceeding lump together the disputes relating to various plots. Initially, thus, the Magistrate has no right to hold the inquiry under Section 145, Criminal Procedure Code.

(3.) REGARDING the second case I do not see how that case gives any support to the contention raised by the petitioners. The case clearly lays down that it is open under Section 145, Criminal. P. C. for the Magistrate to decide the dispute relating to various distinct plots provided all the disputants have been given an opportunity to substantiate their case. That case thus does not support the contention of the petitioners.