DAULAT RAM ETC. Vs. SMT. SHANTI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a revision directed against the judgment of the Sessions Judge, Mahasu, upholding in revision an order of the Sub -Divisional Magistrate, Solan whereby Daulat Ram and others have been restrained from interfering in the possession of the Respondent Shanti Devi of a portion of second storey which was in her actual occupation and in respect of which a dispute arose under Sec. 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The facts of the case are that Shanti Devi being widow of the predeceased son of Daulat Ram was in possession of a defined portion of a house occupied by all of them as a family mansion. It was the case of Shanti Devi that Daulat Ram and others had dismantled one verandah, latrine and bathroom occupied by her and thus interfered in her possession. Accordingly the proceeding started under Sec. 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The parties were asked to put in written statements and affidavits in support of their respective claims. The learned Magistrate considered these written statements and affidavits, and held that Shanti Devi was dispossessed from a: portion of the house, within two months next before the date of his order and hence she should be deemed to be in possession on such dates. Accordingly he declared that Shanti Devi was entitled to. remain in possession. and the Petitioner -Respondents Daulat Ram and others were forbidden to disturb her possession until she was evicted in due process of law. Since she was found in, possession two months next before the date of the order, she was restored the possession ,of the verandah, latrine and the bath -room.

(2.) Daulat Ram and others came in revision before the learned Sessions -Judge, but there too they failed and the order of learned Magistrate was confirmed. However, they have come up in another revision before, the High Court.

(3.) It is contended on behalf of the learned Counsel that the parties were in joint' possession and therefore no proceedings - could be initiated under Sec. 145. The learned Counsel seems to have fallen into -an error as he considered a case of joint ownership as one of joint possession. It is a different matter that all the parties claim joint ownership , but the definite allegation of Shanti Devi had been that she was in exclusive possession over a defined portion of the house. The mere putting forward of a case of joint possession by one party while the other party claims exclusive possession does not take the matter out of the purview of Sec. 145 Criminal Procedure Code. As long as there is a dispute relating to a property which is likely to cause a breach of the peace and the possibility of declaring one of the parties to be in actual possession is there, the requirements of Sec. 145 are satisfied. Otherwise, all that one of the parties need do to secure the termination of the proceeding is to plead joint possession. This would defeat the very object of Sec. 145. Thus from the evidence on record, the learned Magistrate, and so the learned Sessions Judge, were rightly satisfied that Shanti Devi claimed 'exclusive possession and as she was disturbed from that possession and there was likelihood of breach of peace, the jurisdiction to proceed under Sec. 145 was very much there and the proceeding was rightly initiated.