ADAIKKAN Vs. MALLAKARUPPAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I cannot help remarking that the order of the Magistrate might have been much clearer. The Magistrate in paragraph 5 thinks that counter petitioners were allowed to be in possession from the date of the decree in 1907 till delivery of possession was given in 1916 by Exhibit B. This would imply that the opposite side got possession afterwards, but the Magistrate says lower down that he was not satisfied that the decree-holder was in possession subsequent to the delivery in 1916, He thinks the oral evidence on both sides is not very trustworthy, but having considered the evidence on both sides and the documentary evidence afforded by the decree order for possession and kist receipts he thinks the version of No. 1 party as to possession was more probable.

(2.) A great deal has been made of the halting opinion of the Magistrate, and it is argued that the case is one under Section 146 of the Criminal P. C., the Magistrate not being able to find who is in possession.

(3.) The Magistrate is entitled to rely on the documentary evidence as to title, to corroborate the oral evidence as to possession. Kali Kristo Thakur V/s. Golam Ali Cowhdhry 7 C. 46 : 4 Shome L.R.119 : 8 C.L.R. 245 : 3 Ind. Dec. (N.S.) 579, and, reading the judgment as a whole, I think what the Magistrate means is that, though the oral evidence is unsatisfactory, and had it stood alone, would not afford a basis of decision as to who was in possession, the documentary evidence supports the evidence of No. 1 party and makes it more probable that it was in possession.