VAIDYANATHA IYER Vs. SUPPALU AMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A preliminary objection has been taken that this Court will not interfere with an order passed under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure unless it is apparent that the Magistrate acted without jurisdiction, and Kamal Kutty v. Udayavarma Raja Valia Raja of Chirakal 17 Ind. Cas. 65 : 36 M. 275 : (1912) M.W.N. 1154 : 12 M.L.T. 439 : 23 M.L.J. 499 : 13 Cr.L.J. 753 is quoted in support of that proposition.

(2.) The Magistrate in this case has on perusal of the written statements of their respective claims put in by parties in accordance with the requirements of the section decided that the 1st party s possession was the possession of an agent and that the 2nd party, his principal, is the person entitled to, possession.

(3.) It is argued that in refusing to recognises the possession, of the 1st party which he alleges to be actual possession the Magistrate declined a jurisdiction which he ought to have assumed. But the Magistrate concluded by passing an order in the usual form in favour of the second party, so that it cannot be said that he declined jurisdiction by deciding that the first party had no loons standi., Such a decision may have been right or wrong, but it was a decision on the merits upon the materials before the Magistrate, and it is not necessary to go so far as the learned Judges have gone in Meenatchi Achi v. Ananthanarayana Ayyar 26 M. 224 : 12 M.L.J. 380 to hold that it was not intended by the Legislature that the High Court should interfere in revision in this class of cases.