SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1912 Supreme(Cal) 36

IMAM, HOLMWOOD
Manik Chandra Chakravarti – Appellant
Versus
Preo Nath Kuar – Respondent


JUDGMENT

1. This was a Rule calling upon the District Magistrate of Howrah and on the opposite party to show cause why the order passed u/s 145, Criminal Procedure Code, should not be discharged on the grounds, firstly, that the public who claim the right of easement for one day in the year cannot be a party to Section 145 proceedings, and secondly, that constructive conditional possession is not known to the law.

2. We are of opinion that this Rule must be made absolute on both the grounds on which it was issued.' It is clear that if the public are declared to be in possession of any piece of land, then both parties to the dispute are included in that term and the possession, therefore, is joint possession and the jurisdiction of the Court u/s 145 is ousted. But this is an academical question. The principal question is whether a party, who do not claim anything beyond the right to worship on one day in the year and the right to make due and proper preparations for the holding of that worship, by erecting huts for the purpose of holding the puja, can be admitted to proceedings u/s 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which only deals with rights to absolute continuous possession of

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top