LEELA SINGH Vs. BPSINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This a reference by the Additional District Magistrate of Gaya recommending that the order passed by the inquiring Magistrate in favour of the first-party under Section 145, Criminal P.C., be set aside.

(2.) The case of the respective parties has been very well summarised by the learned Additional District Magistrate. The dispute is between Leela Singh and others who happen to be the first party and are raiyats of village Gaffa, on the one hand, and Mr. B.P. Singh and others, the landlords of the village who happen to be the second party, on the other. It relates to eighteen holdings, namely, plots Nos. 54, 55, 44, 45, 183, 184, 27, 129, 216, 193, 194, 66, 67, 134, 136, 137, 264 and 265, covering about 70 acres of bhaoli and 25 acres of naqdi land. The case of the first party is that these holdings were in possession of tenants originally but were sold by the civil Court at the instance of the Chunibigha Co-operative Society in execution of money-decrees obtained by the society. The society was put in possession of the holdings by the civil Court in 1936 and 1937 but they sold them to S. Ibrahim who took possession shortly after the delivery of possession to the society. S. Ibrahim is said to have taken possession of the holdings in 1937 although the formal sale deed in favour of Section Ibrahim in respect of the holdings was executed on 3 April 1940, (the deed is Ex. 15, in these proceedings). S. Ibrahim settled the holdings with the original tenants and allowed them to cultivate the disputed land. Later on, he sold the holdings to Mahanth Shiva Ram Bharathi, by Ex. 15(a), in August 1940, in the farzi name of Baran Singh. It is said that the Mahanth also allowed the original tenants to cultivate the land. That is to say, the case of the tenants is that the Mahanth settled the land with the original tenants who had continued to cultivate the holdings from 1937 when the society was put in possession, till June 1943, when the Mahanth, partly orally and partly by sale deeds, transferred the holdings to the tenants. Hence the tenants claimed to be in possession of the disputed land ever since 1937 till the proceedings were started in 1943.

(3.) Before setting out the case of the second party I should note here certain relevant dates in connection with the proceedings. A report was made under Section 144, Criminal P.C., on 19 November 1943, and proceedings were drawn up under that section on 22 November, 1943. The proceedings were converted into one under Section 145 of the Code on 13 January 1944; and the notices were actually issued on 26 January 1944.