GHANSHYAM Vs. PARVATI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE lands covered by Khasra No. 191, 590, 591,593,594, 596, 597, 598, 599, 600, 602 and 603 situate in village Bhamed, Tehsil Bairath, werein the Khatedari of deceased Shiv Prasad under Khata No. 149. Deceased Shiv Prasad is said to be grand-father of deceased Jagdish, the husband of Smt. Parvati. Smt. Parvati made an application under section 145 Cr. P. C. in the court of Sub-divisionl Magistrate, Kotputli, inter alia alleging that deceased Shiv Prasad and deceased Jagdish husband of Smt. Parvati resided together and both were cultivating the aforesaid lands. It was alleged in the application that Shiv Prasad being an old man, the lands in question were being looked after by the deceased husband of smt. Parvati. It has been further alleged in the application that even after the death of deceased Jagdish Prasad deceased Shiv Prasad used to reside with Smt. Parvati and after the death of deceased Shiv Prasad the aforesaid lands in question have been in continuous possession of Smt. Parvati and have been cultivated by her. It is further averred in the application that after the death of Shiv Prasad on 23rd Sept, 1970, the non-applicants Ghan-shyam and Krishan Kumar, who are father and son harboured an ill intention to forcibly take possession of the aforesaid lands from Smt. Parvati asserting that Krishna Kumar was adopted by deceased Shiv Prasad in his life time and by virtue of adoption the non-applicants were in possession of the lands in question. It has been alleged under this pretext the non-applicants are bent upon to take forcibly possession of the aforesaid lands in question from the applicant Smt. Parvati although her crops are standing. It is further averred in the application that when the applicant Smt. Parvati went on her lands to look-after her crops the non applicants quarrelled with her and threatened that she will be furnished off. She has further stated in her application that the non-applicants are wrongfully preventing her from harvesting her crop and thus there is every likelihood of breach of pleace on the part of the non-applicants. On these allegation Smt. Parvati prayed that her possession on the lands in question be declared and the non-applicants Ghanshyam and his son Krishna Kumar be bound down to be effect that they would not interfere with the possession of Smt. Parvati. This application was sent by the Sub-divisional Magistrate to the Station House Officer, Shahpura, for report. THE Assistant Sub-inspector had reported that here is a serious dispute relating to the lands in question between the parties. Upon the perusal of the report the Sub-divisional Magistrate, Kotputli drew a preliminary order under section 145 (1) of the Cr. P. C. , and called upon the parties concerned to attend his court in person or through pleader on 12th of April, 1974, to put in written statements of their respective claims, as respects the facts of actual possession of the disputed lands. In compliance of this preliminary order notices were sent to the parties and both the sides submitted their written state-ments along with affidavits and documents in their possession.

(2.) THE learned Sub-divisional Magistrate perused the various documents submitted by the parties and after hearing the arguments and perusing the record, recorded a finding that from the evidence produced on the record neither of the parties have been able to prove their possession to the satisfaction of the court. Consequently, he attached the aforesaid lands and appointed Naib Tehsildar, Viratnagar, as the receiver of the aforesaid land and directed him to reach the spot at once and take the possession of the lands and make proper arrangements for the cultivation of the lands in question.

(3.) IN Central Bank of INdia vs. Gokul Chand (8) their Lordships of the Supreme Court have observed that interlocutory orders are merely procedural and do not effect the rights or liabilities of the parties pending proceedings and that they are merely steps taken towards final adjudication and for assisting the parties in the prosecution of their case in the pending proceedings.