Havildar Venkatachalam v. Sapper Palayam & Another

Cr. R.C No. 647 of 1951: This is a revision filed by the petitioner in the lower court against the order passed under S. 145 Cr.P.C in M.C No. 18 of 1951 on the file of the Additional First Class Magistrate, Saidapet in which the counter petitioners (respondent herein) were declared to be in possession of the disputed land. This is one of those cases where the petitioner after going to civil courts several times obtaining an order in his favour is frustrated in his attempts to be in possession by the high-handed action of the counter-petitioners. The land was assigned lo the petitioners on 29-8-1924. On account of the trouble given by the counter-petitoners and their attempts to disturb the possession of the petitioner herein, a suit was filed by the petitioner in O.S No. 449 of 1926 on the file of the District Munsif's Court, Poonamallee. The title was declared to be in favour of the petitioner and possession was directed to be given to him. He filed E.P 1083 of 1927 and obtained delivery of possession on 24—1—1927. The appeal against the decree and judgment of the District Munsif filed by the counter petitioners in A.S No. 310 of 1927 District Court Chingleput was dismissed on 3-5—1929. Subsequently after two years, the counter-petitioners again attempted to disturb the possession of the petitioner herein. The petitioner filed C.C No. 1132 of 1929 before the Stationary Sub-Magistrate, Saidapet and there the counter-petitioner gave an undertaking that they would not interfere with the possession of the petitioner herein. Things went on smoothly till 1941 and again the counter-petitioners attempted to disturb the possession of the petitioner. Thereupon the petitioner filed O.S No. 144 of 1941 on the file of the District Munsif's Court, Pooamallee for an injunction restraining the counter-petitioners from interfering with his possession and enjoyment and the suit was finally disposed of on 15-8-1941, giving a permanent injunction against the counter petitioner from interfering with the possession of the petitioner. Having failed in their attempts the counter-petitioners clandestinely in league with the village munsif, who happened to be on their side, obtained patta for the land. Thereafter on representations being made by the petitioner to the higher authorities, the patta, was cancelled and retransfer was ordered on 12-3-1948. In spite of this, the counter-petitioners again started giving trouble and the Magistrate under these circumstances instead of declaring the petitioner to be in possession of the properties has put a premium upon the unlawful activities of the counter-petitioners and declared the counter-petitioners to be in possession of the property. It is the duty of the Magistrate in cases like this to support the decisions of the civil courts and see, as far as possible, that the decrees of the civil courts are maintained. Otherwise it would only amount to putting a premium upon the high-handed and unlawful activities of the other side. In the circumstances, I declare the petitioner to be in possession of the property and forbid and restrain the counter petitioners (respondents herein) from interferring with the possession of the petitioner.

In Cr. R.C No. 648 of 1951 petitioner has purchased a portion of the property from the petitioner in Cr. R.C No. 647 of 1951 and he should therefore be declared to be in possession of the portion of the property which he has purchased. The counter-petitioners are also restrained from interfering with the possession of the petitioner in Cr.R.C No. 648 of 1951.

The petitions are allowed.

N.T.RPetions allowed.