NAGOJI ROW Vs. SUBBARAYULU NAIDU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Magistrate, acting under Section 145 of the code of Criminal Procedure, has adjudicated upon a dispute likely to cause a breach of the peace in the presence of two groups of individuals whom he designates as Party No. I and Party No. II.

(2.) From the Magistrate s preliminary order it appears that the individuals composing No. I party are the servants of the purchaser of the village of Kandadu in Kalahasti Estate, and that No. II party has been administering the forest in dispute which is claimed diversely by the Kalahasti and Karvetnagar Estates. From the description of the parties in the final order it appears that on one side we have a forest amin, a tanadar and two forest watchers, and on the other side a forest amin and seven forest watchers. 2. The words in Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure parties concerned in such dispute have been understood as including persons who are interested in or claim A right to the property Bam Chandra Das v. Monohur Roy 21 C. 29 : 10 Ind. Dec. (N.S) 652 and Queen-Empress v. Kuppayyar 18 M. 51 Weir 106 : 6 Ind. Dec. (N.S.) 386.

(3.) The course of legal decisions as regards the right of Managers to represent their Principals in such proceedings shows a curious development. In Behary Lal Trigunait v, Darby 21 C. 915 : 10 Ind. Dec. (N.S.) 1242 Managers were held to have no interest or possession, and this was followed in Brown v. Prithiraj Mandal 25 C. 423 : 13 Ind. Dec. (N.S.) 280; In Dhondhai Singh v. Follet 31 C. 48 : 7 C.W.N. 825 : 1 Cr. L.J. 49 the possession of a Manager on behalf of an absentee proprietor was recognised. In Bholanath Singh v, Wood 32 C. 287 : 2 Cr. L.J. 202 the fact of a Manager being made a party instead of his employer was held to be a mere irregularity not affecting the Magistrate s jurisdiction, even if the zemindar who employed him lived within the Court s jurisdiction.