Determination of possession on the basis of patta held justified.

On a petition filed by Mucheli Narasimha Reddy, as sole petitioner, the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Chandragiri passed an order under section 145(1), Criminal Procedure Code on 17th September, 1963 in which he noted the complainant as ‘A’ party and the respondents cited in the petitions as ‘B’ party. The learned Magistrate called on the parties to put in statements regarding their possession as contemplated in section 145 (1), Criminal Procedure Code. The parties accordingly put in their claims. Ultimately the First Class Magistrate, Tirupathi, passed a final order on 3rd April, 1964, under section 145(6), Criminal Procedure Code in M.C.No. 271 of 1963 declaring the ‘A’ party to be in possession of the schedule land and directing the ‘B’ party not to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the ‘A’ party as mentioned in that sub-section. The ‘B’ party thereupon filed Criminal R.P.No. 2 of 1964 before the Sessions Court, Chittoor to make a reference to the High Court to set aside the order of the learned Magistrate. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chittoor, dismissed that petition. Thereupon, the ‘B’ party filed this revision in this Court.

The dispute land consists of Survey Nos. 73/3 and 74 in Chiguruvada, Uttarapu Khandriga. ‘A’ party is a resident of South Chiguruvada, Dakshinapu Khandriga. The ‘B’ party are residents of Kottur village, hamlet of Uttarapu Khandriga.

‘A’ party contended in his written statement as follows. The land originally belonged to one Seshachalam Dikshitulu. He (A party) took an agreement of sale dated 1st February, 1953, from the owner and was in possession from that time. Subsequently, he obtained a registered sale deed dated 22nd August, 1961. He was enjoying the land and the trees on it. He cut some trees in this land to the knowledge of the ‘B’ party and removed some of the smaller branches Later on 5th August, 1963, when he wanted to remove the trunks of those felled trees, the ‘B’ party objected and obstructed. The ‘B’ party had no right or interest in the properties. The ‘A’ party has been in exclusive possession of the land.

Respondents Nos. 1, 2, 4 to 6 and 9 of the ‘B’ party filed a statement to the following effect. The land given in the schedule of the petition has been village site from time immemorial. The residents of Kottur village and Kottur Harijanwada have been enjoying the land in question as common village site for common purposes and for easing themselves as a public latrine. ‘A’ party has never been in possession and enjoyment of the site. The villagers are actually in physical possession and enjoyment of the site.

Each side filed a large number of affidavits. ‘A’ party marked Exhibits P-1 to P-28 on his side and the ‘B’ party marked Exhibit B-1 to Exhibit B-7 on their side.

The learned Magistrate carefully discussed the documentary evidence with reference to the contentions of the parties. But, as regards the affidavits, he stated as follows:

"Both parties had filed a large number of affidavits in support of their respective claim. The village of Chiguruvada Uttarapu Kandriga Was an inam village and it was taken over by the Government. It is common experience that in inam villages there is a party of the inamdars and a party of the tenants. Each party will have its own strength and it is easy for each party to procure any number of affidavits. It is not safe to rely upon these affidavits, which cannot be treated on a par with the testimony which is subjected to cross-examination. As I have already pointed out the very contention of the ‘B’ party respondents that the petition schedule land is Gramanatham has been disproved and, therefore, it cannot be said that it was in the common enjoyment of the villagers. It had been amply proved that the petition schedule land was tope and was in possession and enjoyment of the vendors of the ‘A’ party respondent."

The learned Magistrate placed particular reliance on Exhibit P-28 which is an Order of the Assistant Sett