Latifan vs Mohammad Ibrahim

Allanson, J.—This application is directed against an order of the Sub-Divisional Officer of Barb, directing u/s 144, Criminal P.C., that the second party should not go onto the land in dispute.

The application is made by Mt. Latifan who is one of the second party. The land originally belonged to her husband who died a number of years ago leaving three daughters, one of whom was married to Mohammad Ibrahim the first party. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate has found that the rent receipts from 1326 to 1331 show that rent was paid by Ibrahim.

In the next two years the rent was paid by his son. The second party's case was that she obtained all the land in lieu of dower. Ibrahim's case is that he is in possession as a cosharer as his wife's heir. The order u/s 144 has already, expired. I would have declined to interfere for that reason, had it not been for the fact that in my opinion on the report submitted by the police this was certainly a case in which it would have been better to draw up proceedings u/s 145.

The Magistrate has found that Ibrahim lived with Mt. Latifan and, as I have said, that Ibrahim paid the rent. These facts by themselves certainly do not necessarily indicate that Ibrahim is solely in possession of the land. He may be cosharer or he may be cultivating on behalf of his mother-in-law. It is argued that prejudice may accrue to the second I party if the order u/s 144 is allowed to stand.

In my opinion the dispute between the parties is not likely to be satis factorily settled in this way, and proceedings u/s 145 should have been drawn up in the first instance.

I, therefore, set aside the order u/s 144.

If it is thought desirable, proceedings should be taken u/s 145 without delay.