Possession of an agent or servant is the possession of the principal, and such permissive possession cannot give the agent or servant a locus standi against the principal in a proceeding under Section 145, Criminal Procedure Code.

These two revisions arise out of the orders passed by the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate of Arivalur, in proceedings under Section 145 Criminal Procedure Code, in M.C. Nos. 56 and 62 of 1971 on his file. The dispute related to the possession of certain lands situated in Muthiriyar, a village in Lalgudi taluk. The revision petitioners are the owners of these lands; there is no dispute about it. The respondents claimed tenancy rights in June 1970. In November 1970, the petitioners moved for action under Section 145 Criminal Procedure Code. On the report of the Police, the Executive First Class Magistrate, Musiri, issued the preliminary order under Section 145(1) Criminal P.C. on 25-11-1970. He attached the property and appointed the village Headman as the Receiver. The parties filed their written statements. The proceedings were then transferred to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate for disposal. Documents, Ex. A. 1 to A. 9 series, were filed by the petitioners for substantiating their contention that the respondents were only pannayals doing word in the lands for wages. Exs. B. 1, receipt for electricity charges, and Ex. B. 2, another letter issued by the President of the Agricultural Co-operative Society for sanction of a loan of Rs. 1540/- to one Marudamuthu for raising plantain crops were filed. On a consideration of the documents thus filed, the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate declared possession of the lands with the respondents. The correctness of this order is now canvassed by the petitioners.

2. Exs. A. 1 to A. 10. A. 24 to A. 34 and A. 45 to A. 50 series are the cooly chits executed by the members of the B party in favour of the petitioners. The chit opens with the following words :

"Details of the pannai servants in the lands of Raghunatha Thatham". Further details regarding the survey number, extent, names of the pannayals etc. are given. The duration for which they should do pannai work is mentioned as from the 26th of Adi to the 1st of Panguni of that year. Column 7 enumerates the items of the work which he should do in the pannai as a pannai servant. The owner should give the seeds, manure and the cooly for labourers. The land should be ploughed five times. Weeds should be removed thrice. Harvest should be done under the orders of the landlord. The landlord would take the amount due to him. The pannayal would receive the cooly as per the payment orders of the landlord. The value of the crops is estimated and the amount is mentioned in column 9. These pannayals are given different plots each year.

3. Ex. A. 14 is an affidavit filed by the village headman of the place. Ex. A. 15 is the affidavit filed by the karnam. Both these persons have sworn that the lands are in the pannai cultivation of the present petitioners, that the members of the B party have no independent rights in the lands and that they have been doing work in the lands allotted only as pannayals without any rights in the lands or in the crops. Ex. A. 16 to A. 21 are similar affidavits filed by order persons in the village.

4. These cooly chits are taken on a printed form, apparently standardized by the petitioners. Ex-facie, the document is an agreement for engaging the servants as a pannayal. The person named therein is described as a pannayal. The period during which he should serve as a pannayal also is specifically given. True, these cooly chits provide for the payment of specified quantities of the produce in the land to the owner; but this itself may not be conclusive of the question whether the relationship created by these chits is that of lessor and lessee, that is, of landlord and the tenant. The executant has executed this document, describing himself as a pannayal. These cooly chits have come into existence after the tenancy legislations and certainly this would have a bearing on the question as to whether it could have been the intention of the contracting parties to bring about a tenancy agreement for the year in question, limit