Back
High Court Of Rajasthan
Judgename : Navin Chandra Sharma
SUBHKARAN - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF RAJASTHAN - Respondent
Cr. Petition 678 Of 1986
Decided On : 01/08/1987
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE - SECTION 145 - PROCEEDINGS - DROPPING - ATTACHMENT AND RECEIVER - CONTINUANCE - JUSTIFICATION - CIVIL SUIT PENDING - TITLE AND POSSESSION DISPUTED - SCRAMBLE FOR POSSESSION - NO INTEREST OF JUSTICE INVOLVED - ORDER CONTINUING ATTACHMENT AND RECEIVER NOT QUASHED.
Fact of the Case:
A dispute arose over the possession of a flat in Manohar Building, Jaipur, between Subh Karan, the petitioner, and Kushal Chand, the non-petitioner. Subh Karan claimed to be a tenant of the Manohar Devi Jan Kalyan Trust, while Kushal Chand claimed possession on behalf of his family. Subh Karan filed a civil suit for declaration of his tenancy and permanent injunction, and also filed an application under Section 145 Cr.P.C. for attachment of the flat and appointment of a receiver. The Additional District Magistrate, Jaipur, passed an order attaching the flat and appointing a receiver, but later stayed the proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. till the decision of the civil suit. Subh Karan filed a revision petition challenging the order of the Additional District Magistrate, which was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge. Subh Karan then filed a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in the High Court, seeking to quash the order of the Additional District Magistrate continuing the attachment and appointment of the receiver.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the Additional District Magistrate was justified in continuing the attachment and appointment of the receiver, as there was a scramble for possession between the parties and the title and possession of both sides were still very much doubtful and at least highly debatable. The court noted that the civil suit filed by Subh Karan was only for declaration of his tenancy and permanent injunction, and did not address the issue of title to the flat. The court also noted that the Manohar Devi Jan Kalyan Trust, which claimed to be the owner of the flat, had not filed any title suit against Chandan Mal Duggar or his descendants. In such circumstances, the court held that there was no interest of justice involved in vacating the order continuing the attachment and appointment of the receiver.
Issues: 1. Whether the Additional District Magistrate was justified in continuing the attachment and appointment of the receiver, despite staying the proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C.? 2. Whether the civil suit filed by Subh Karan was sufficient to address the issue of title to the flat?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Additional District Magistrate was justified in continuing the attachment and appointment of the receiver, as there was a scramble for possession between the parties and the title and possession of both sides were still very much doubtful and at least highly debatable. 2. The civil suit filed by Subh Karan was only for declaration of his tenancy and permanent injunction, and did not address the issue of title to the flat.
Final Decision: The petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was dismissed.
NAVIN CHANDRA SHARMA, J.
( 1 ) THOUGH the fathers name of Chandan Mal Duggar was Sadasukh (Everhappiness), but unfortunately Chandan mal Duggar is a cursed soul still breathing at the age of 98 years. He wanted to lead a happy married life like others and for that purpose he married a lady who died soon after the marriage. To fulfill his human desire to lead a happy married life, he married second time with the mother of Dhanraj Duggar but unfortunately again that happiness was also short-lived. The second wife died leaving Dhan Raj in a tender age of five years. Then apart from the desire to lead a happy married life, there arose the necessity for Chandanmal Duggar to give a proper parental care to the minor son Dhan Raj Duggar and, therefore he married again in the year 1925 with Smt. Manohar Devi. The facts and circumstances leading to this litigation go to show that the name Manohar Devi was only deceptive. This name can very well be attached to the property which is also known ast Manohar Building and which is situated in important commercial market of Jaipur known as Mirza Ismail Road. In this world self interest is always predominant. Manohar Devi, being the third wife when Chandanmal Duggar must have been approaching towards the old age, instead of thinking of giving parental care to Dhan Raj Duggar which might have been the expectation of Chandanmal Duggar, started caring for her own security in the event Chandanmal Duggar may pre-deceased her or Dhan Raj Duggar after attaining m majority may ignore her altogether and leave her in a destitute condition. Her apprehensions were as well true as this day we find that the posterity of Dhanraj Duggar is litigating for the property known as Manohar buildingtt. Smt. Manohar Devit was a courageous lady as it appears from the facts on the record of the proceedings under section 145 Cr. P. C. of the court of the Additional District Magistrate, Jaipur. In the first instance, in order to secure herself she could get a settlement deed in her favour from Chandanmal Duggar and his son from the second wife Dhanraj Duggar which is Ex, PA on the file of the Additional District Magistrate. The seeds of dissension were sown more than 43 years back on May 5, 1973. By Ex. 4 Chandanmal Duggar and Dhanraj Duggar settled the property situated at Mirza Ismail Road with Manohar Devi for life for her maintenance. Apart from this property, it was also agreed that an amount of Rs. 150 per month would be paid by the settlers to Manohar Devi for her maintenance and they will also look after the repairs of the building. They further undertook to bear to the extent of Rs. 10,000 expenses, which may be incurred in the expansion of that building. There was an important clause in Ex. 4 which provided that in case Smt. Manohar Devi incurred more than Rs. 10,000 in the expansion of Manohar Building, the expended portion of the building would be exclusive property of Smt. Manohar Devi with which Chandanmal Duggar and Dhanraj Duggar will have no concern. Since then Smt. Manohar Devi, despite being of a weaker sex, continuously fought to earn and was getting the due income from this property by continuously litigating with tenants in occupation.
( 2 ) CHANDANMAL Duggar and Dhanraj Duggar being bound by Ex. 4 could not do anything to get back the property to the family and, therefore, the minor sons of Dhanraj Duggar named Nirmal Kumar and Kushal Kumar alias Kushal Chand come forward and filed a civil suit No. 26/27 of 1960 in the court of the Additional District Judge No. 2, Jaipur City claiming a declaration that Ex. 4 was nun and void as against them. They also claimed delivery of possession of the property. That suit was vigorously contested by Smt. Manohar Devi and the suit filed by Nirmal Kumar and Kushal Chand was dismissed by the Additional District Judge No. 2, Jaipur City on September 30, 1974. Nirmal Kumar and Kushal Chand filed a first appeal before the Court but the same was withdrawn by
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
