BANARSI DEVI Vs. PRAHLAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two revision petitions arise out of a single judgment passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jhunjhunu on 7th June, 1972 upholding the order of the Sub -Divisional Magistrate. Jhunjhunu, dated 19th May, 1970 in a proceeding under Section 145, Cr. P.C. As there are common questions of law and fact involved in these two applications in revision, they are disposed of by one judgment.

(2.) THE relevant facts giving rife to these revision petitions may be shortly slated as follows. The Station House Office', Police Station, Ghidawa initiated proceedings under Section 145, Cr P.C. against the parties in the court of the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Jhunjhunu on 12th August, 1968. It was alleged by the police that there is an agricultural land measuring 24 bighas and 2 biswas under a well popularly known as 'Swamiwala Will' situated in khasra No. 529 at village Ojatu Out of this land one half, i.e. 12 bighas and 1 Biswa belong to Nathudas and his daughter Kamali and her husband Hajarilal (hereinafter referred to as Party No. 2) and the remaining half belongs to Prahlad, Dwarka, Sagar and Radheshyam (hereinafter referred to as Party No. 1). There is a dispute concerning a portion of this land measuring 2 bighas and 5 biswas between the parties which is likely to cause breach of peace. On account of this dispute a quarrel ensued between the parties on 27th July, 1968 which led to a 'marpeet'. The party No. 1 got a criminal case registered under Sections 447 and 324, IPC. at the Police Station. The party No, 2 also lodged a first information report about this incident with police. Each party has claimed this piece of land to be of their ownership and possession and there is every likelihood that they may again commit breach of peace over the possession of this land in dispute.

(3.) THE legal representatives of Nathudas deceased who have been brought on record by the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate under Sub -section (7) of Section 145, Cr. P.C. also felt aggrieved by the order of the Sub Divisional Magistrate because the Sub Divisional Magistrate did not pass the order that they should also be put in joint possession of the land in dispute. Hence the legal representatives also filed an application in revision against the order of the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate. Jhunjhunu before the Sessions Judge for modification of the order for restoration of possession in their favour The learned Sessions Judge heard the revision petition and held that the order of the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate should be interpreted in such a manner as to mean that the legal representatives of Nathudas deceased were also ordered to get joint possession of the land with Kamli and Hajarilal along with the benefits accuring therefrom during the period of attachment. Against this judgment of the learned Sessions Judge both the legal representatives of Nathudas deceased and Kamali and Hajarilal have come up in revision to this Court as stated above.