THAKUR JAIKRIT SINGH Vs. SOHAN RAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS reference has been made by the District Magistrate, Jodhpur, for setting aside an order passed by the Additional District Magistrate, Jodhpur, on 6-4-1957 in Criminal Original Case No, 1 of 1954 in proceedings under Section 145 of the code of Criminal Procedure.

(2.) THE dispute between the parties relates to Bunglow No. 17 which is situated in the precincts of Ratanada Palace at Jodhpur. It is common ground between the parties that the said bungalow elonged to the Late His Highness Maharaja hanwant Singhji, the then Ruler of Jodhpur State till 13-1-1948 when he was blessed with a son who has succeeded to his properties. One Mr. G. H. Godwin was officer-in-charge of the "state Aviation" and the said bungalow was given to him for his residence, even after the merger of the former State of Jodhpur in the State of Rajasthan, mr. Godwin continued to remain in the personal service of the Late His Highness maharaja Hanwant Singhji. Maharaja Hanwant Singhji expired on 26-1-1952. Thereafter, Mr. Godwin's services were terminated and he left for England in october, 1952. Nearly two years thereafter, an occurrence is said to have taken place on 14-10-1954 and the present case arises out of the same.

(3.) ON 22-10-1954, the non-petitioner in this Court Shri Sohanraj (who will be hereinafter referred to as Party No. 1) presented an application in the court of extra Magistrate First Class, Jodhpur City under Section 145 of the Code of criminal Procedure. It was alleged by him that the said bungalow was given by the late. His Highness Maharaja Hanwant-singhji to Mr. Godwin in gift before his demise and that the commands of His Highness were con- firmed on 14-3-1952 by members of Advisory Committee. Mr. Godwin was, therefore, owner of the said property. It was further stated that when Mr. Godwin proceeded to England, he handed over the possession of the bungalow together with furniture placed therein, to him (party No. 1) under the supervision of Shri Magh Raj Bhansali, Advocate and that Mr. Godwin had informed the Household Comptroller of this arrangement by his letter dated 1910-1952. Since then the said bungalow was in his possession and Madho Chowkidar, who was continuing in the employ of Mr. Godwin since his presence in the State, was looking after the said property. On 14-10-1954, he (party No. 1) was informed by madho Chowkidar that Thakur Jaikritsinghji, Chandra Singbji and others (who will be hereinafter referred to'as party No, 2 for the sake of brevity) came to that bungalow and forcibly took possession of the same by putting their lock in addition to the lock of party No. 1 which was already present on the main entrance of the building. It was also mentioned in the application that party No. 1 had presented an application to police authorities on 15-10-1954 about the said trespass but no action was taken. It was pointed out that party No. 2 was not prepared to remove its possession over the property, that party No. 1 was being forcibly ousted from the possession, that there was a likelihood of breach of peace and, therefore, proceedings under Section 145, Cr. P. C, should be taken. The Magistrate forwarded the application to Sub-Inspector of Police for enquiry and report. Accordingly, the police made some enquiry and when its report was received by the Magistrate, he ordered the papers to be filed on 4-12-1954 saying that there was no apprehension of breach of peace. Being dissatisfied with this order, party No. 1 presented another application before the Additional District magistrate, Jodhpur, on 11-12-1954. The Addl. Dist. Magistrate was satisfied on perusal of the application and affidavits filed therewith, that there-was a likelihood of breach of peace and, therefore, he passed a preliminary order on the same clay ana directed both the parties to put in written statements of their respective claims as respects the fact of actual possession of the property in dispute. Both the parties then filed their written statements and certain documents in support of their claims. The Magistrate also examined 13 witnesses and after hearing both the parties, he came to the conclusion that party No. 1 was in actual possession of the disputed property on 14-10-1954 and, therefore, he ordered that the said property which was attached by the Court during the pendency of the proceedings, be released from attachment, that its possession be restored to Shri sohanraj party No. 1 under the direction of Shri Maghraj. At the same time, he directed party No. 2 not to disturb the possession of party no. 1 over the disputed property until it was evicted therefrom in due course of law. Aggrieved by this order dated 6-4-1957, party No. 2 filed a revision application in the court of the learned District Magistrate, Jodhpur. The learned District Magistrate has reported that Mr. Godwin was living in bungalow No. 17 only as a servant of His Highness, that there was no valid gift in his favour since party No. 1 had not produced any registered document evidencing the gift, that Mr. Godwin's possession, therefore, was only as a servant and that provisions of Section 145 Cr. P. C. could not be invoked in a dispute over a property between a master and a servant. It is next pointed out that neither the present Maharaja of Jodhpur nor Mr. Godwin who claim- ed their respective title and possession over the property, were parties to the proceedings, that the parties on record were only their servants or agents and for this reason also, the proceedings were invalid. He has recommended that the order of the Additional District Magistrate, Jodhpur, should be set aside. He has not made any recommendation about the delivery of the property to one party or the other.