Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.28 seconds)The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Section 28 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
The Limitation Act, 1963
Unde Rajaha Raje Rajah Velugoti Sree ... vs Thatikola Subbiah on 15 September, 1921
As stated in Rajah of Venktagiri v. Subbiah and also in Beni Prasad Koeri v. Shahjada Ojha [1905] 32 Cal. 856 the possession of the Magistrate is possession on behalf of such of the parties as may eventually prove themselves entitled to possession.
Section 146 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Solai Ammal vs Jogi Chetty And Ors. on 23 July, 1919
8. It does not appear to have been argued in that, case that if the property were in the hands of "the receiver and the receiver was in possession of it, no suit to recover the property or possession of the property was liable to be instituted or could 'be instituted against him by some party who is not in possession of the property. The learned Judges conceded that the receiver was not a necessary party and,. if the receiver was the person in possession it is difficult to understand how a suit for possession could be instituted against any other. It seems to have been assumed rather than decided as the result of any consideration or argument that the nature of the suit to be instituted by the plaintiff in such a case would necessarily be only a suit for the recovery of possession of the property. In any case the learned Judges seem to have proceeded on the footing that the. suit contemplated is one for possession by a party against whom an order was passed by the Magistrate because the suit before them was for possession of the property. But as it is clear that it is not in any case necessary that a suit in the circumstances should always be a suit, for the recovery or possession of property it follows that it is not in every case in which an order of the Magistrate is passed that a suit for recovery should be instituted. Even assuming that the decision in the last cited case would govern the present case we feel that, having regard to the numerous other decisions both of this Court and of the other 'High Courts we should prefer to follow the other decisions.
Goswami Ranchor Lalji vs Sri Girdhariji on 15 November, 1897
In my opinion it is clear that Article 47, Limitation Act, does not apply to suits brought in consequence of an order made by a Magistrate under Section 146, Criminal P.C. It was decided in Akilandammal v. Periasami and Goswami Ranchor Lalji v. Sri Girdhariji [1897] 20 All. 120 that an order of attachment under Section 146 of the Code was not an order respecting the possession of immovable property within the meaning of Article 47, Limitation Act, and I think that is clearly so. Under Section 146 of the Code the Magistrate makes a finding either that none of the parties to the proceedings was in possession or that he is unable to satisfy himself which of them was in possession at the time in question. He does not make an order regarding possession but on either of those findings he makes an order of attachment.
Row Venkata Kumara Mahipati Surya Row ... vs Gani Venkat Subba Row And Ors. And ... on 1 April, 1915
In Rajah of Venkatagiri v. Subbah it is assured all through that Article 47 is applicable (only to a case in which a magistrate under Section 145 of the Code confirms the possession of one party or of the other.' And, as pointed out by my learned brother a suit to which Article 47 applies is a suit to recover possession. The attachment made by the Magistrate under Section 146 of the Code is not a legal dispossession of any party who has a legal right to possession.
1