Jwala Prasad, J.:— The only question in this case is, whether the police had legally taken charge of and attached six cattle found in the math at the time of attaching the math under orders of the Magistrate under Section 146 of the Cr PC. The facts briefly are that on 21st November 1915, Mohant Lashman Das, owner of a math or asthal in Bakhri, died leaving a large property including the math. The petitioner and one Ram Charitar Das claimed to be in possession of the property left by the mahant under different titles, the former as a senior chela and successor of the late mahant, and the latter by virtue of a tamliknama or deed of gift said to have been executed in his favour by the late mahant on 27th December, 1914. On account of the dispute between the aforesaid rival claimants, leading up to an imminent danger of a breach of the peace, the Deputy Magistrate of Muzaffiarpur instituted proceedings under Section 145 of the Cr PC, on 10th February, 1916 in respect of village Bakhri with the math or asthal situate therein. Under Cl. (4), Section 145 of the Cr PC, the Magistrate attached the subject-matter in dispute, viz., the village Bakhri and the math, and directed the Sub-Inspector of Police to take charge of them. On 12th February, 1916 the Sub-Inspector of Police accordingly attached the property, including six cattle that were found by him in the math at the time of attachment. The Magistrate finally by his order, dated 4th April, 1915, directed the attachment of the village and the math under Section 146 of the Cr PC, until the rights of the parties were determined by a competent Court.
2. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the attachment of the cattle was illegal and without jurisdiction, inasmuch as Ch. 12, Code of Criminal Procedure, applies only to “disputes as to immovable property.” No doubt, under Section 145 or 146 of the Cr PC, moveable property such as cattle cannot be attached. But in this case the Magistrate ordered the attachment of the math, which is immovable property. The Sub-Inspector attaching the math took charge of the cattle its they were found in the math. The Sub-Inspector, of course, was not only entitled but was bound to take charge of everything that was within the math, including the cattle. After attachment no party had a right to enter into the math or to take possession of the property, moveable or immovable, appertaining to and found within the math.
3. It is conceded that the persons entitled to the possession of the math will also be entitled to the possession of the cattle found within the math. The Magistrate was unable to decide which of the parties was in possession or was entitled to possession of the math in dispute and accordingly attached it under Section 146 of the Cr PC. The cattle could not be released or made over to any of the parties to the proceedings, until his right to the math in which the cattle were found was determined by a competent Court. The ruling reported as Ramzan Ali v. Janardhan Singh(1) cited by the learned vakil for the petitioner, where the crops of the land attached were severed from the land and stored in the threshing floor, does not apply to the facts of the present case. The principle of the authority in Kochuny v. Manavikrama Rajah Amyal(2), in which an elephant was taken possession of by the attaching officer, while attaching a forest in pursuance of a Magistrate's order to attach the forest under Section 145 of the Cr PC, supports the view that we have taken of this case. The Rule should be discharged.
4. Roe, J.:— I agree.
V.S/R.K
5. Rule discharged.