Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : K.SUBBA RAO, P.SATYANARAYANA RAJU
Padmaraju Subba Raju - Appellant
Versus
Padmaraju Koneti Raju - Respondent
Decided On : 11-25-54
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE - SECTION 145 - ACTUAL POSSESSION - MEANING - RIGHT TO POSSESSION EXCLUDED - MEDIATE OR IMMEDIATE POSSESSION INCLUDED - DISPUTE BETWEEN LANDLORD AND TENANT - TENANT'S ACTUAL POSSESSION IS LANDLORD'S ACTUAL POSSESSION - DECLARATION IN FAVOUR OF LANDLORD VALID - DISPUTE BETWEEN RIVAL LANDLORDS OR BETWEEN LANDLORD AND TENANT OF ANOTHER LANDLORD - ORDINARY RULE APPLIES - TENANT'S ACTUAL POSSESSION IS LANDLORD'S ACTUAL POSSESSION - DECLARATION IN FAVOUR OF SUCH LANDLORD VALID - EVEN THOUGH TENANTS ARE NOT PARTIES TO PROCEEDINGS.
Fact of the Case:
A dispute arose between the 'a' party respondent and the 'b' party respondents over the possession of two houses, a pandal, and a backyard. The 'a' party respondent filed a petition before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, claiming possession of the rectangular and round houses. The 'b' party respondents contended that Subbamma, the elder sister of the 'a' party respondent, was the owner of the houses and that she had sold them to P.W. 1, who was in possession of the round house with her permission. The Magistrate, after considering the evidence, held that the 'a' party respondent was in possession of the rectangular house and that Subbamma was in permissive possession of the round house under P.W. 1. He declared the 'a' party respondent to be entitled to possession of the two houses, the pandal, and the backyard until evicted therefrom in due course of law. The 'b' party respondents filed a revision petition against the Magistrate's order.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the Magistrate's order was wrong. The Court held that the words 'actual possession' in Section 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code exclude a right to possession but take in actual possession, whether mediate or immediate. In the instant case, Subbamma was in physical possession of the round house on the crucial date and was claiming under the 'b' party respondents. Therefore, the 'b' party respondents' right should be declared.
Issues: 1. Whether the words 'actual possession' in Section 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code include a right to possession or only actual possession, whether mediate or immediate? 2. Whether, in a dispute between rival landlords or between a landlord and a tenant of another landlord, the ordinary rule that the tenant's actual possession is the landlord's actual possession applies? 3. Whether a declaration in favour of such a landlord is valid even though the tenants are not parties to the proceedings?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The words 'actual possession' in Section 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code exclude a right to possession but take in actual possession, whether mediate or immediate. 2. In a dispute between rival landlords or between a landlord and a tenant of another landlord, the ordinary rule that the tenant's actual possession is the landlord's actual possession applies. 3. A declaration in favour of such a landlord is valid even though the tenants are not parties to the proceedings.
Final Decision: The High Court allowed the revision petition and set aside the Magistrate's order. However, the Court clarified that its order would not preclude the 'a' party respondent from taking possession of the rectangular house if the mediators willingly and voluntarily delivered it to him.
( 2 ) THE case of the "a" party respondent was that he was in possession of the rectangular house in his own right and that Subbamma, his elder sister, was with his permission residing in the round house and that the "b" party respondents were trying to take forcible possession from him of the said two houses. The "b" party respondents contention was that Subbamma was the owner of the said two houses, that she sold the same to P. W. 1 on 4-11-1952 and put him in possession of the said two houses and that he was living in the round houses with his permission. It is common case that on 7-2-1953 the rectangular house was put in the possession of the mediators peacefully and voluntarily to prevent disputes between the parties. On 7-5-1953, the Additional First Class Magistrate, Thirupati, to whom the case was transferred made a preliminary order equiring he "a party and "b" party respondents to put in written statements of their respective claims in regard to the fact of actual possession of the subject of dispute. Both parties accordingly placed their entire evidence before the Magistrate. On 24-5-1954, he made an order wherein he held that on 7-2-1953 the mediators took possession of the rectangular house, but prior to that the "a" party respondent was in possession and that in regard to the round house, subbamma was in permissive possession, under a. W. 1 On those findings he came to the conclusion that A. W. 1 was in possession of the two houses on the date of the petition and the preliminary order. On the basis of tht conclusion, he declared under S. 145 (6), Criminal P. C. , that the "a" party respondent was entitled to the possession of the two houses, the pandal and the backyard until evicted therefrom in due course of law. The "b" party respondents preferred the above revision.
( 3 ) MR. Ramachandra Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the "b" party respondents, contended that, on the findings given by the Magistrate, the petition filed by the "a" party respondent should have been dismissed. In regard to the rectangular house, his contention was two-fold: (1) having held that on 7-2-1953, the mediators peacefully took possession of the said house to prevent further disputes between the parties, the Magistrate should have held that the first proviso to S. 145
( 4 ) , Criminal P. C. , has no application, for that could be invoked only in a case of forcible and wrongful dispossession and (ii) as the dispossession of the "a" Party8 respondent was admittedly more than two months next before the date of the preliminary order, the proviso would not apply. This was countered by Mr. Venkatasubba Rao appearing for the "a" party respondent by stating that the possession of the mediators was only for and on behalf of the "a" party, and, therefore, the "a" party respondent continued to be in possession upto and subsequent to the date of the preliminary order. In regard to the round house, the argument of the learned ocunsel for the "b" party respondents was that the Magistratehaving found that Subbamma was in actual possession purporting to be under the "b" party respondents, he was wrong in upholding the possession of the "a" party on the basis of title which question is irrelevant under s. 145, Criminal P. C. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the "a" party respondent would argue that a Magistrate under S. 145 (1) ha
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
