AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
William Ayling, J.—The order of the Subordinate Judge, Exhibit A, is passed under Order XXI, Rule 96, of the Civil Procedure Code, which applies only to cases in which the property is in actual possession of a third party--in this case, the present petitioners: and the Subordinate Judge is very careful to state that it does not prejudice their right to the interest claimed by them (petitioners) or their right to resist Periasami Thevan (under whom respondent claims) when he seeks physical possession. Exhibit B, the delivery attakshi, is to the same effect.
These proceedings have no bearing whatever on the actual possession of the lands in dispute, which is the only subject of enquiry u/s 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
The Joint Magistrate relying on Exhibits A and B, has declined to exercise the jurisdiction vested in him of enquiring into the actual possession of the lands and passing an order in favour of the party in whom such actual possession is found to reside.
His order is set aside as illegal, he will restore the case to file and dispose of it according to law.