Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.23 seconds)Section 17 in The Orissa Money-lenders' Act, 1939 [Entire Act]
The Orissa Money-lenders' Rules, 1987
Pathak Bhaunath Singh And Ors. vs Thakur Kedar Nath Singh And Ors. on 8 February, 1934
In --'Sundar Mall v. Jhari Lal', 2 Pat L J 637, it was pointed out that the Magistrate can deal under Section 145, Cr. P. C., with crops attached to, or if the same are cut and lying on the land but when not removed from it. In a very recent Patna decision reported in -- 'Deonan-dan Singh v. Thakur Singh', AIR 1949 Pat 58 the previous decisions on the subject were fully reviewed and, with respect, I would agree with the reasons given in that judgment. Mr. Rao is, therefore, right in his contention that the learned Magistrate had no jurisdiction to initiate or to continue the proceeding under Section 145, Cr. P. C., in respect of seven heaps of paddy crops that had been cut and removed from the lands in dispute long before the commencement of the proceeding and that were lying on two threshing-floors. But this conclusion will not be fatal to the entire case. The preliminary order under Section 145, Cr. P. C., has made a sharp distinction between "lands in dispute" on the one hand and "produce in dispute" on the other. Proceedings may be bad in respect of the "produce in dispute", for the reasons already stated. But this is clearly severable from the main proceeding which was in respect of the "lands in dispute" and no prejudice was caused to either party by the action of the Magistrate. Consequently I would not hold that the entire proceeding is bad.
Sarbananda Basu Mozumdar And Anr. vs Pran Sankar Roy Chowdhuri And Ors. on 20 February, 1888
-- 'Sarbananda v. Pran Sankar', 15 Cal 527 where it was pointed out that even if the tenants had attorned to the new landlord but no payment of rent had been made to him the previous landlord's right to have recourse to Section 145, Cr. P. C., so as to have his possession of the right to collect rent maintained still existed.
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Indramoni Devi vs Raghunath Bhanja Birabar Jagdeb And ... on 1 September, 1949
In a recent decision of this Court reported in -- 'Indramoni Devi v. Raghunath Bhanja', ILR (1949) 1 Cut 635 this question was discussed at some length and it wag pointed out that the act of possession of a landlord of tenanted lands is exercised by receiving his share of the produce.
Sheo Mangal Singh vs Thakurain Maharaj Kuar on 20 August, 1948
It is true that this decision was in respect of an offence under the Defence of India Rules and the seizure of some property illegally in a case started for that offence. But the principle laid down therein is undoubtedly of wider application and would apply with equal force where a Magistrate after having illegally attached and brought into his custody moveable property in a proceeding under Section 145, Cr. P. C., passes an order for its disposal after the termination of the proceeding. There is also a recent decision of the Allahabad High Court in -- 'Sheo Mangal v. Maharaj Kuar', AIR 1949 All 285 in support of the view that an order under Section 517, Cr. P. C., can be passed in respect of moveable property illegally attached in a proceeding under Section 145, Cr. P. C. Therefore I find no illegality in the last order of the Magistrate directing release of the property in favour of the opposite party. As regards the propriety of that order I would content myself with pointing out that after having held the opposite party to be in possession of the disputed plots the Magistrate had no other option but to direct delivery of possession of the crops cut from those plots to that party.
P. Venugopal Mudaliar vs P.V. Neelakanta Mudaliar And Ors. on 15 December, 1944
12. The present case is weaker for the petitioner than the case reported in '15 Cal 527'. Here the finding is that the tenant had not attorned, in his favour. The only tenant who deposed on his behalf (Saura Singh) admitted that formerly he was paying produce rent to the opposite party and that it was only on the date of attachment that he came to know that the land belonged to the petitioner. No produce rent of any of the plots was paid to the petitioner either on 24-1-48 or on any subsequent date. The crops that were kept on the threshing-floors had not yet been thrashed by that time. When the thrashing operations just commenced on the 24th the police came to the scene on the 25th and again attached the crops. Under these circumstances the general presumption that there is continuity of possession and that as between rival landlords the possession of tenant is that of his landlord (See -- 'Venugopal v. Neelakanta', AIR 1945 Mad 255) would apply in favour of the opposite-party and they must be held to have remained in possession all along.
1