BUDDALA VEERABHADRA RAO Vs. DUDDUMPUDI VENKATARAJU
LAWS(APH)-1964-12-6
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Decided on December 23,1964

BUDDALA VEERABHADRA RAO Appellant
VERSUS
DUDDUMPUDI VENKATARAJU Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

NARAYANA ASARI V. CANDASAMI ASARI [REFERRED TO]
INDRA DEO SINGH V. KESO SINGH [REFERRED TO]
RAMTTYYA. V. VENKATA [REFERRED TO]
A.SRIRAMAMURTHY V. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
RASI GOUNDAR V. MUTKU GOUNDAR [REFERRED TO]
VENKATACHCTLAM V. PALAYAM [REFERRED TO]
ARAN SORDAR V. HAM SUNDAR [REFERRED TO]
GAINDA LAL SHARMA V.BISHAMBER NATH KUMAR [REFERRED TO]
MUKHRAM VS. STATE [REFERRED TO]
HOSNAKI VS. STATE [REFERRED TO]
BABURAM RAJESHWARI PRASAD OJHA VS. DEO NARAIN SAO [REFERRED TO]
HARIPADO MAZUMDAR VS. DHANI AHAMAD SARKAR [REFERRED TO]
AMBIKA THAKUR VS. EMPEROR [REFERRED TO]
ELIMUDDIN SARKAR VS. UMED ALI BEPARI [REFERRED TO]



Cited Judgements :-

MASTANSHAH DIDARSHAH FAKIR VS. UMARSHAH HATTUSHAH FAKIR [LAWS(BOM)-1970-2-34] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)Buddala Veerabhadra Rao of Samalkot filed a petition before the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Kakinada, praying for an order under section 145, Criminal Procedure Code, in his favour against six respondents cited therein. The learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate forwarded the petition to the Station House Officer, Samalkot, for enquiry and report. On the report of the Station House Officer, the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate took the case on file as M.C. No. 8 of 1963 and passed a preliminary order under section 145 (1), Criminal Procedure Code, on 22nd November, 1963. He also attached the properties in dispute and appointed the Revenue Inspector of Samalkot to take possession of the property with the crop which stood on it. Subsequently, the case was transferred to the Additional District Munsif-Magistrate, Kakinada, and became M.C. No. 12 of 1964 on his file. Affidavits and documents were filed on both sides. After due consideration of those affidavits and documens, he passed a final order dated 28th July, 1964 declaring that the first respondent was in possession of the disputed property. The petitioner, Buddala Veerabhadra Rao felt aggrieved with that order and filed this revision petition in this Court directly. He did not prefer any revision petition before the learned Sessions Judge, Rajahmundry, before approaching this Court by way of revision. This revision petition was admitted by Sharfuddin Ahmed, J., on 28th July, 1964.
(2.)The relevant facts, as appearing from the records, are as follows. On 6th December, 1955, a registered lease deed was executed by Velpuri Satyanarayana (deponent in affidavit No. 7 filed on behalf of the petitioner) and his brother, Velpuri Seshabrahmam (R-4) in favour of the petitioner for a period of five years. The lease was to run upto 6th December, 1960. Meanwhile, the Andhra Tenancy Act of 1956 came into force from 9th September, 1956. The first respondent, as sole plaintiff, filed a suit (O.S. No. 381 of 1960) in the Court of the District Munsif, Kakinada, against two defendants, namely, the present petitioner and Velpuri Seshabrahmam (who is the fourth respondent herein) for ejectment of the petitioner from the suit land and putting the plaintiff, namely, the first respondent herein in possession. In that suit, the first respondent contended that he was in possession and that the petitioner (first defendant) had trespassed into the land and evicted the farm servants of his (R-l) on 31st October, 1960. That suit was dismissed by the learned District Munsif, Kakinada, by his judgment dated 30th August, 1961. Petitioner filed a petition under section 145, Criminal Procedure Code in M.C. No. 32 of 1962 on the file of the Additional District Munsif-Magistrate, Kakinada, against 19 respondents. The first respondent in that case was the same as the first respondent in the present case. Respondents 2 and 4 in that case were the same as respondents 2 and 3 in the present case. Velpuri Seshabrahmam, who is the fourth respondent in the present case, was not a party in that case. The first respondent remained ex parte, Respondents 3 and 5 to 19 in that case also remained ex parte. The only two persons who contested that case were Nalam Satyam and Putra Buliraju who were respondents 2 and 4 in that case and are respondent 2 and 3 herein. They pleaded that the registered lease deed in favour of the petitioner expired on 31st March, 1961, that the petitioner had vacated the land and that V. Seshabrahmam (R-4) who was the landlord, immediately took possession of the land and thereafter leased it to respondents 2 and 3 (respondents 2 and 4 in that case) by a lease deed dated 10th July, 1961 and that respondents 2 and 3 took possession of the schedule land and cultivated the same peacefully and that the other respondents in M.G. No. 32 of 1962 had no concern with the land. Both sides filed affidavits. On behalf of the contesting respondents 2 and 3 herein (R-2 and R-4 therein) affidavit No. 8 was that of N. Timmala Rao, Village Munsif of Samalkot. "The learned Additional District Munsif-Magistrate (Shri D. Krishnam Raju) held, after a discussion of the evidence, that the lease deed by the fourth respondent herein, namely, Velpuri Seshabrahmam, in favour of respondents 2 and 3 (R-2 and R-4 in that case) was executed only with an intention of taking possession from the petitioner and that no actual possession was taken from him. In the result, he passed an order under section 145 (6), Criminal Procedure Code, on 15th October, 1962, declaring that the petitioner was entitled to be in possession of the land until evicted therefrom in due course of law and forbidding the respondents from disturbance of such possession until such eviction. In those proceedings, affidavits No. 9 on behalf of respondents 2 and 3 (R-2 and R-4 in that case) was that of V. Seshabrahmam who is the fourth respondent in the present case.
(3.)Subsequently, the petitioner filed M. C. No. 2 of 1963 before the Taluq Magistrate, Kakinada, praying for an order under section 144, Criminal Procedure Code, against Duddampudi Venkataraju (R-1 herein) and others alleging that the latter Caused disturbance leading to breach of the peace in connection with his (petitioner's) enjoyment of the land. The learned Taluq Magistrate had the matter enquired into by the Station House Officer. Ultimately, the learned Magistrate passed an order as follows :-
"The Station House Officer, Samalkota, enquired into the matter and reported that it is purely a civil dispute and suggested that he apprehended breach of peace in this regard to the possession of land and suggested that action under section 145, Criminal Procedure Code, is appropriate. In the circumstances, I do not consider that an order under section 144, Criminal Procedure Code is necessary. If the petitioner is really aggrieved he can file a petition under section 145, Criminal Procedure Code, before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Kakinada. "
Accordingly, the petitioner filed M.C. No. 8 of 1963 before the learned Sub Divisioal Magistrate. The latter also forwarded the petition to the Station House Officer, Samalkot, for enquiry and report. On receiving the report of the Station House Officer, the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, passed a preliminary order under section 145 (1), Criminal Procedure Code, on 22nd November, 1963. He also passed as order under section 145 (8), Criminal Procedure Code, attaching the petition schedule properties in dispute and appointed the Revenue Inspector to take possession of the property and the crop.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.