BHAG KAUR Vs. SURJEET KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE are two connected references and arise out of S. 145 Criminal Procedure Code proceedings.

(2.) I need not refer to the entire history of the case, suffice it to say that the proceedings before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Ganganagar, started on an application filed by Smt. Sukhdev Kaur on 12. 9. 66. This application was sent by the learned Magistrate to the police for enquiry and the police submitted their report. On 1. 10. 66, the learned Magistrate passed a preliminary order and called upon the parties to file their written statements about the actual possession of the land. The learned Magistrate also ordered the attachment of the disputed property and appointed Tehsildar as the Receiver. The parties filed their respective affidavits as also the affidavits of their witnesses and produced some documents. The learned Magistrate, however, could not determine the possession of either of the parties and he referred the case under sec. 146 Criminal Procedure Code to the Civil Judge, Ganganagar. The learned Civil Judge returned the reference saying that it be sent to the court of the lowest jurisdiction. Accordingly, the reference was made to the court of Munsif. The learned Munsif found that the party No. 2 Smt. Surjeet Kaur and others were in possession of the disputed land. In accordance with the finding of the Civil Court the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate declared the possession of Party No 2 over the land in dispute and forbade Party No. 1 from interfering with the possession of Party No. 2 except in due course of law. Aggrieved of this Party No. 1 filed the revision application before the learned Additional Sessions Judge. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has made this reference No, 12, on the ground that part of the property lay outside the territorial jurisdiction of the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate and accordingly the learned Magistrate had no jurisdiction or deal with the dispute. He likewise held that the learned Munsif too lacked the territorial jurisdiction and consequently his finding about possession was bad. In his own words, the conclusion of the learned Additional Sessions Judge may be put like this: "be as that may, out of these two Chaks, the land of square No. 47 and Chak No. 11 BGS still formed part of reference to the Civil Court and the learned Munsiff Ganganagar has also given his finding on the fact of possession about this land also. Admittedly this land does not lie within the territorial jurisdiction of either the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Ganganagar or the Munsiff Ganganagar Therefore, both the preliminary order and the reference under sec. 146 Cr. P. C. and also the findings of the Civil Court about the land, are erroneous and cannot legally be sustained. "

(3.) NOW, I may turn to the question whether the learned Munsif can be said to have acted without jurisdiction. It is not disputed that the Munsif had jurisdiction over a portion of the land. Sec. 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure lays down where a suit is to obtain relief respecting, or compensation for wrong to, immovable property situate within the jurisdiction of different Courts, the suit may be instituted in any Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction any portion of the property is situate. Sec. 146 Cr. P. C. lays down that if the Magistrate is of opinion that none of the parties was then in such possession, or is unable to decide as to which of them was then in such possession of the subject of dispute, he may attach it, and draw up a statement of the facts of the case and forward the record of the proceeding to a Civil Court of competent jurisdiction to decide the question. For construing the words "civil Court of competent jurisdiction" one has necessarily to go to the Civil Procedure Code with a view to seeing whether such civil court could entertain a suit in respect of the property in dispute. Therefore, sec 17 Civil Procedure Code is attracted in the matter for seeing the competence of the civil court. As the learned Munsif Ganganagar had jurisdiction over a portion of the property, he was accordingly competent to deal with the entire dispute relating to the property, though some of the property lay outside his territorial limits.