Padam Ravinder Jeet Singh Vs. Jagat Singh & Ors.
EmailAppeal: Criminal Appeal Nos. 666-669 of 1987.
(Arising out of SLP(Crl) Nos. 1464-67/87.)
(Arising out of SLP(Crl) Nos. 1464-67/87.)
Petitioner: Padam Ravinder Jeet Singh
Respondent: Jagat Singh & Ors.
Apeal: Criminal Appeal Nos. 666-669 of 1987.
(Arising out of SLP(Crl) Nos. 1464-67/87.)
(Arising out of SLP(Crl) Nos. 1464-67/87.)
Judges: RANGANATH MISRA & MURARI MOHON DUTT,JJ.
Date of Judgment: Dec 16, 1987
Head Note:
PRACTICE & PROCEDURE
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973; sections 145 and 397 – Specific Relief Act,1963; section 6 – Protracted litigation between the parties – Several courts involved into different facets of the litigation – The question of tenancy raised in several miscellaneous proceedings but there was no clear adjudication in respect of tenancy – Respondents given liberty to establish the claim of tenancy in the manner prescribe by law – Receiver to look after the property pending the proceedings – All proceedings between the parties stayed until the determination of tenancy by the revenue court.
JUDGEMENT:
O R D E R
1. Special Leave granted.
2. A large tract of land became the subject matter of a proceeding under section 145 Cr.P.C. and on attachment became custodia legis. The learned Magistrate found possession in favour of the respondents, whereupon the appellant approached the Sessions Judge under section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to have the order revived. The Session Judge did not finally dispose of the revision but remitted the matter to the original forum. Thereupon the respondent filed a revision petition before the High Court. The High Court came to hold that the order remitting the proceeding was not correct. Ordinarily in such a situation the Sessions Judge has to hear the revision again.
3. We would not have entertained a matter of this type because the Sessions Judge was yet to deal with the revision and whatever final order was passed by him was subject to decision in a suit. The litigation between the parties appears to be continuing over two decades and without any appropriate justification. Several courts – civil, criminal and revenue are being called upon to look into different facets of the litigation. At the moment there is proceeding pending in the High Court at Allahabad and several revenue proceedings have been initiated which have really no justifiable base. In a dispute between the parties it has been finally decided that upto June, 1960 the relationship between them was that of Principal and Agent, the respondents having been inducted into the property to manage the same as Agent. The dues of the appellant under the decree of the High Court have been paid in 1984. After 1960, the respondents started claiming tenancy. Though there have been several miscellaneous proceedings where the claim of tenancy has been raised, yet there has been no clear adjudication of tenancy as provided by law. The respondents instituted some time after a suit under section 6 of the Specific Relief Act on the allegation that they have been dispossessed by the appellant. During the pendency of this suit, on the basis that they had recovered possession by force, they did not want to continue the suit. The trial Court did not accept the prayer and dismissed the suit on the ground that they were not entitled to claim relief under section 6 of the Act. Subsequently dispute arose as to possession of the property leading to apprehension of the peace in the locality which led to initiation of proceedings under section 145 Cr.P.C. out of which this appeal arises. It is well established in law that criminal courts have to honour decisions rendered by civil courts and on that principle, in view of the two decisions of the civil courts, possession of the on the basis of title and dismissal of their claim of restoration of possession should have been upheld.
4. Looking into the history of the matter and nature of the dispute between the parties, we are of the view that ends of justice would be satisfied, if the respondents are given liberty to establish the claim of tenancy in the manner prescribed by law. We accordingly direct that within one month from today, if so advised, the respondents may institute the proceeding in the revenue court with jurisdiction claiming tenancy. In case such claim is lodged, parties should be given full opportunity to canvass their respective cases by producing documents and leading oral evidence and the court shall decide the case within six months from the date of institution. On completion of the proceedings, the revenue officer shall report to the Registry of this Court that the proceedings have been finalised.
5. Until then the property would be in the hands of the Receiver. The learned Magistrate shall find out whether the Receiver has been managing the property properly. Since it is a vast tract of land, the learned Magistrate shall ensure that cultivation is carried on properly. In case the revenue court makes any interim order regarding possession, the same shall be given effect to; otherwise the interim arrangement under the receiver shall be continued till the disposal of the dispute in the revenue court. If no claim of tenancy is lodged as stated above, the appellant shall be entitled to move the magistrate to put him in possession of the property by terminating the receivership and make appropriate orders to ensure that such permission is not interfered with by the respondents.
6. The writ petition before the High Court is dismissed and any proceedings between the parties will not be proceeded with until determination of tenancy by the revenue court. The criminal revision before the Sessions Judge is dismissed .
7. The appeals are accordingly disposed of.
1. Special Leave granted.
2. A large tract of land became the subject matter of a proceeding under section 145 Cr.P.C. and on attachment became custodia legis. The learned Magistrate found possession in favour of the respondents, whereupon the appellant approached the Sessions Judge under section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to have the order revived. The Session Judge did not finally dispose of the revision but remitted the matter to the original forum. Thereupon the respondent filed a revision petition before the High Court. The High Court came to hold that the order remitting the proceeding was not correct. Ordinarily in such a situation the Sessions Judge has to hear the revision again.
3. We would not have entertained a matter of this type because the Sessions Judge was yet to deal with the revision and whatever final order was passed by him was subject to decision in a suit. The litigation between the parties appears to be continuing over two decades and without any appropriate justification. Several courts – civil, criminal and revenue are being called upon to look into different facets of the litigation. At the moment there is proceeding pending in the High Court at Allahabad and several revenue proceedings have been initiated which have really no justifiable base. In a dispute between the parties it has been finally decided that upto June, 1960 the relationship between them was that of Principal and Agent, the respondents having been inducted into the property to manage the same as Agent. The dues of the appellant under the decree of the High Court have been paid in 1984. After 1960, the respondents started claiming tenancy. Though there have been several miscellaneous proceedings where the claim of tenancy has been raised, yet there has been no clear adjudication of tenancy as provided by law. The respondents instituted some time after a suit under section 6 of the Specific Relief Act on the allegation that they have been dispossessed by the appellant. During the pendency of this suit, on the basis that they had recovered possession by force, they did not want to continue the suit. The trial Court did not accept the prayer and dismissed the suit on the ground that they were not entitled to claim relief under section 6 of the Act. Subsequently dispute arose as to possession of the property leading to apprehension of the peace in the locality which led to initiation of proceedings under section 145 Cr.P.C. out of which this appeal arises. It is well established in law that criminal courts have to honour decisions rendered by civil courts and on that principle, in view of the two decisions of the civil courts, possession of the on the basis of title and dismissal of their claim of restoration of possession should have been upheld.
4. Looking into the history of the matter and nature of the dispute between the parties, we are of the view that ends of justice would be satisfied, if the respondents are given liberty to establish the claim of tenancy in the manner prescribed by law. We accordingly direct that within one month from today, if so advised, the respondents may institute the proceeding in the revenue court with jurisdiction claiming tenancy. In case such claim is lodged, parties should be given full opportunity to canvass their respective cases by producing documents and leading oral evidence and the court shall decide the case within six months from the date of institution. On completion of the proceedings, the revenue officer shall report to the Registry of this Court that the proceedings have been finalised.
5. Until then the property would be in the hands of the Receiver. The learned Magistrate shall find out whether the Receiver has been managing the property properly. Since it is a vast tract of land, the learned Magistrate shall ensure that cultivation is carried on properly. In case the revenue court makes any interim order regarding possession, the same shall be given effect to; otherwise the interim arrangement under the receiver shall be continued till the disposal of the dispute in the revenue court. If no claim of tenancy is lodged as stated above, the appellant shall be entitled to move the magistrate to put him in possession of the property by terminating the receivership and make appropriate orders to ensure that such permission is not interfered with by the respondents.
6. The writ petition before the High Court is dismissed and any proceedings between the parties will not be proceeded with until determination of tenancy by the revenue court. The criminal revision before the Sessions Judge is dismissed .
7. The appeals are accordingly disposed of.
