RAMRACHYA SINGH Vs. SINGESHWAR RAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application in revision is directed against an order made under Section 146, Criminal P.C., by the learned Sub-divisional Magistrate of Begusarai, attaching some 22 bighas of diara land.

(2.) The petitioner, Ramrachya Singh, took a conveyance of this land in 1987 from the opposite party, Singeshwar Rai. The latter had, some time previously, taken settlement of an area of 45 bighas from the proprietors of Shahbegpur in which the land is situated. This comprised a single block, of which subsequently the northern half was sold to the petitioner. The land was a part of a large tract, which had alluviated at about the time the settlement was made, and, as other settlements, similar, to that made with Singeshwar Rai, were also made by the landlords a dispute eventually arose between these lessees and the landlords on the one hand and certain persons on the other, who claimed that, before the land diluviated, they had had occupancy rights in it and were, therefore, entitled to recover possession of it. A proceeding under Section 145, Criminal P.C., was instituted is respect of the entire area, which was something like 1800 bighas. Both the petitioner, Ramrachya Singh, and the opposite party, Singeshwar Rai, were made parties to the proceeding, and the former gave evidence, asserting that Singeshwar Rai had been in possession of 45 bighas, out of which he had sold 22 bighas to himself. The proceeding terminated on 7 October 1939, in an order, in which the petitioner, and the opposite party were declared to be in possession of 45 bighas. Some six months or so later, the petitioner, Ramrachya Singh, complained to the Sub-divisional Magistrate of Begusarai, that the opposite party, Singeshwar Eai, was attempting to dispossess him from the 22? bighas, which he had purchased from him. The learned Sub-divisional Magistrate caused certain inquiries to be made, and, eventually, instituted another proceeding under Section 145, Criminal P.C., in respect of the 22 bighas claimed by the petitioner.

(3.) The case which the opposite party, Singeshwar Rai, attempted to make out in that proceeding was that he had throughout been in possession of the entire area of 45 bighas; that the sale deed, which he had executed in 1937 in favour of Ramrachya Singh, was a benami document, having been executed merely in order to create evidence that he was then, and had for some time been in possession of the 45 bighas of which he had taken settlement from the landlord. The learned Sub-divisional Magistrate was unable to decide who was in possession of the land in dispute, and, therefore, made an order under Section 146, Criminal P.C., attaching it.