The relevance of evidence in determining possession and ownership of land in a dispute.

The dispute in this case between the parties is regarding Khasra No. 217 measuring 492 sq. yards situated in village Jaganpur, Nagla Haveli, Police Station New Agra, District Agra. The proceedings under Section 145, Cr PC, were taken and were decided by the learned Magistrate and he held that Ram vir Singh, revisionist was in possession on the said plot at the date of the preliminary order under Section 145 (1), Cr PC and also within two months prior to that date. He directed Makkhan Singh, opposite party No. 1 not to interfere in the posses sion of Ramvir Singh over the said plot. This order was passed by the learned Magistrate on 24-4-1987. Against that order the opposite party No. 1 filed Criminal Revision No. 241 of 1987 which have been allowed by order dated 28-10-1991 by IVth Additional Sessions Judge, Agra. The learned Additional Sessions Judge considered the dispute in detail and remanded the matter back to the learned Magistrate for re-decision after recording further evidence with the following obser vations:

"in the lower Court Santosh Kumar had not produced any record of the society to show that the society had made full payment to the farmers and had taken possession over the plots which were sold by the society. No document has been filed to show that how much property was purchased by the society and how the plots were demarcated. On the other hand, Santosh Kumar has not even told the boundaries of the plot in dispute. He has stated "mujhe Nahi Maloom Ki Is Plot Ke Uttar, Poorab, Paschim Ya Dakkin Main Kis Kis Ke Plot Hain/mujey Yeh Bhi Nahi Maloom Ki Is Plot Ke Baad Kis Kis Ke Plot Hain/society Ki Zameen Gajender Singh Wa Kailash Singh Se Kharidi Thi". At one place he has stated that Gajender Singh and Prahlad Singh were the owners of this land. The learned Magistrate should have, therefore, recorded the statements of Gajender Singh and Prahlad Singh to ascertain whether the original owners of the land had transferred this land to the society or not. If the sixty one thousand rupees of the farmers were due then there is nothing to show that the society had got possession over the land in dispute or was competent to transfer it to any person. The Magistrate should summon all the record of the society to ascertain whether the society was registered or not, whether Sri Santosh Kumar had the right to transfer the plot in dispute and whether the society was keeping any regular account for selling the plot. The Magistrate shall also see whether any prescribed procedure for the delivery of possession was executed by the society in favour of the purchaser. As the record of the society has not been

produced before the learned Magistrate the Magistrate was unable to ascertain as to who was in de facto possession over the land in dispute. "

2. Aggrieved by the order of the learned IVth Additional Sessions Judge, the present revision has been preferred.

3. I have heard Sri Amar Saran, learned Counsel for the revisionist, Sri Krishna Kapoor, learned Counsel for the opposite party No. 1 and the learned AGA, and have considered the entire record.

4. The dispute in this case lies in a very small compass. The case of Makkhan Singh is that the plot was purchased by him on 20-4-1982 from Sangthan Sahkari Avas Samiti Limited. He alleged that he has been in possession of the land. That Ramvir Singh belongs to the village of his father-in-law and was living with him at his house in the Civil Court Compound, Agra. That Makkhan Singh had another plot and therefore, he purchased this plot as banaml in the name of Ramvir Singh by sale-deed dated 12-4-1982 of the Samiti. As against this the case of revisionist, Ramvir Singh is that he has actually pur chased the plot and is not the banami and is the owner and is in the possession of the same. It is admitted that the sale-deed is in the name of Ramvir Singh, revisionist.

5. The question for decision is whether the land was purchased by Ram vir Singh and he is owner and posse