PHULA RAM Vs. MEHADA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Does the finding, in proceedings under S.145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code'), that a particular patty is in possession, preclude the Civil Court from holding to the contrary, on the basis of material before it ? Herein lies the controversy in appeal.

(2.) The plaintiffs who are the respondents here, came to the Civil Court seeking an injunction to restrain the defendants - the present appellants - from interfering with their possession over the land in suit. They claimed that they were in possession as tenants on this land. In the alternative, a decree for possession was prayed for.

(3.) Before coming to the civil Court, the plaintiffs had filed an application under S.145 of the Code. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate Narnaul, by his order, exhibit D/3 of Jan. 20, 1971 held the appellant Bhura and others, to be in possession of the land in suit by observing, the spot inspection showed and the entire village testified to the possession, on the land in dispute as that of Bhura. In view of this, I cannot rely on the affidavits produced by Dev Sahai. Consequently, I declare Bhura and others (first party), to be in possession of the land in dispute for two months from the date of the filing of this application. It was after this order had been passed that the present respondents filed the suit for injunction on June 10, 1971. The lower appellate Court, after taking note of the finding recorded against them, in proceedings under S.145 of the Code, held the respondents to be in possession of the land in suit and consequently granted them the injunction prayed for.