Ambar Ali vs Piran Ali - 1927 Supreme(Cal) 304

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

1927 Supreme(Cal) 304

GRAHAM, CUMING, CAMMIADE
Ambar Ali – Appellant
Versus
Piran Ali – Respondent

JUDGMENT

Graham, J. - In this case a rule was issued calling on the Deputy Commissioner of Sylhet and the opposite party to show cause why the order of the Extra Assistant Commissioner of Sylhet dated 6th December 1926 u/s 145, Criminal P.C., declaring the 2nd party (now the opposite party) to be entitled to retain possession of certain land should not be set aside on the ground that the learned Magistrate erred in law in not upholding the possession delivered to the petitioner (1st party) under a civil Court decree against the opposite party Piran Ali.

2. On the particular facts in this case the Magistrate's order is in my opinion manifestly wrong, and he ought, I think, to have maintained the decree of the civil Court, and the possession given by it subsequent thereto Atal Hazra v. Uma Charan [1916] 20 C.W.N. 763, Akhoy Mondal v. Basu Bai AIR 1923 Cal. 176, Kunja v. Khetra [1902] 29 Cal. 208. The petitioner, 1st party, obtained possession of the land in question through the civil Court on 23rd July 1925 and it is clear that the opposite party No. 1. Piran Ali (opposite parties 2 and 3 are his sons) has throughout wilfully ignored the decree, and is treating the litigation as if it