KANTA DEVI Vs. RAJ KUMARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Formally admitted. To be disposed of simultaneously.

(2.) The bone of contention between the parties is House No.150, Street No.4, Mohalla Vish-Karma, Yamuna Nagar, District Ambala. Its owner was one Gian Chand. He died on 10-4-1982. While he was alive, the house was in his possession. Allegedly, he was a widower and died issueless. The petitioner Kanta Devi claimed herself to be his sister by conduct (described by the Courts below as baptised sister). She also claimed to be in possession of the house after the death of Gian Chand on the basis of a will dt. 25-2-1982. A copy thereof appended with this petition discloses that her residential address given therein was also of the same house. Respondent No.1 Raj Kumari claiming herself to be the grand-daughter of Gain Chand laid claim to the house as also its possession. This led to proceedings under S.145, Cr.P.C. at the instance of Kanta Devi petitioner before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Jagadhri. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate passed a preliminary order under S.145(1), Cr.P.C. Thereafter, written statements were filed by the parties and evidence was led by them in support of their claim. The petitioner produced A.W.1 Buti Ram, a neighbour, to support her case. She also produced A. W. 2 Mohan Lal, one of the witnesses of the will to support her claim to ownership as also possession. She herself appeared as A.W.3. The learned Magistrate in his final order dt. 29-7-1983 has mentioned that the aforesaid three witnesses had supported the claim of Kanta Devi to be in possession of the house. On the side of Raj Kumari respondent, five witnesses were examined and the sixth one was Raj Kumari herself. According to the learned Magistrate, all those have supported the possession of Raj Kumari. He disposed of the matter in the following words :-

(3.) The petitioner challenged the order before the Additional Sessions Judge, Ambala. He expressed the view that the impugned order did not suffer from any infirmity and was legal and just. Consequently, the revision petition was dismissed. Now the petitioner has approached this Court to invoke its jurisdiction under S.482 of the Cr.P.C. bemoaning that to leave the matter in such a situation was nothing but an abuse of the process of the Court and had led to injustice.