Ismail Ghami Ammal vs Katinna Rowther and Others

We think that in the state of facts which are found in this case the possession of the Receiver appointed on the 4th April 1909 may, for the

purpose of Section 145 of the Cr. P. C, be properly regarded as possession on behalf of the party who should ultimately be found by the

Magistrate to be in possession immediately before the 4th April just as for purposes of limitation the possession of the Receiver is held to be the

possession of the patty entitled to possession-Raja of Venkatagiri v. Isakapalli Subbiah ILR (1902) M. 410 and Jayanti Kumar Mookerjee v.

Middleton ILR (1900) C. 785.

To hold otherwise would be to hold that neither of the parties nor the Receiver is in possession and this would lead to the very scramble for

possession and probable breach of the peace which it is the purpose of the law to prevent. We must, therefore, dismiss the petition.