AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The finding is that the counter-petitioner is the managing member of the joint Hindu family that owns the property in dispute, and that, as such, he
is in possession of the joint family property. We think that the view taken in Sri Mohan Thakur v. Narsing Mohan Thakur ILR (1899) C. 259 is
correct. The cases quoted by the petitioner are all either cases; of co-trustees or of ordinary partners in which the rights of each trustee or partner
are equal. None of them are cases like the present of a co-parcenary under the Mitakshara law, in which the managing member has a recognized
position of superiority with well-defined rights of management and possession independent of the consent of the other members of the family.
Mr. Mayne, in para 292 of the 7th edition of his Hindu Law, when discussing the mode in which the joint family property is to be enjoyed by the
co-parceners says: ""In Malabar and Canara the head of the family is entitled to its entire possession and is absolute in its management, ""and also
that"" a family governed by the Mitakshara Law is in a very similar position except as to their rights to a partition and to an account as incident to
that right."" We do not see why a manager of a joint family should, not be protected in his possession by proceedings u/s 145, Criminal Procedure
Code.
We, therefore, hold that the Magistrate has jurisdiction to act under that section, and this Court has no jurisdiction to interfere. We dismiss the
petition.