Gajadhar Mull Marwari and others vs Thakur Singh and others

Bucknill, J.—This is an application in criminal revisional jurisdiction asking that an order made by the Deputy Magistrate of Purnea on the 29th January last should be set aside. Proceedings were initiated as the result of a police report between two sets of persons both of whom claimed a large area of somewhat over 300 bighas in extent of land which is apparently situated in the domain of the Maharaja of Darbhanga. The first party who are the respondents here claim to be in possession as tenants of the Raj from long past, the second party who are the applicants here, claim to have recently been settled on the land by the Raj and to be in possession thereof. Subsequently the manager of the Darbhanga Raj was added as the third party; and, in this application, he adopted the arguments ''which have been so ably placed before me by the learned counsel who appears on behalf of the applicants. Now, the position was, as is often the case in these matters, a somewhat complicated one, for not only were the lands not co-terminus, but they were divided into some 23 different plots. They were not apparently claimed jointly or as a whole by all of the eight parties of the first party; but each party appears, so far as I can gather from their written statements, to have laid claim to be in possession of certain of these plots. One plot, indeed No. 7, it is common ground, was not claimed at all. Now, the matter might of course quite well have been dealt with in several different proceedings, that is to say, in proceedings in which one person claiming possession of a specific piece of property might have been joined as the first party and another person also claiming possession of that piece of property might have been joined as the second party. But the Magistrate did not adopt such a course although, as was pointed out by an officer who was deputed to make a report upon the possession of the land, it probably would have been more convenient had he done so. There is however, it is quite clear, nothing to prevent a Magistrate from joining numerous claims of this description together and in dealing with the matter at one hearing. The only objection which can really be taken to such a course is, if it can be shown, that the objector is adversely prejudiced by such proceeding. Now in this case, the Magistrate went into the matter very carefully and he came to the conclusion, a conclusion which I may say is not and could not well be challenged here, that the second party was not in possession at all of any of the lands in dispute and that the first party was. The objection which is put forward to the order by the second party (the applicants here) is that the Magistrate does not in his judgment state which of the first party is actually, according to his finding, in possession of which part of the property in dispute. It is suggested by the learned counsel who appears on behalf of the respondents (the first party here) that it may be said that those details may be inferred as being included in the Magistrate''s decision by reference to the written statements which have been filed. But what I think is a more cogent argument than that is that, so far as the second party is concerned, the allocation to the individuals of the first party of the different pieces of land does not appear to me to be a matter of any concern or moment. So far as the applicants are concerned the result of the Magistrate''s decision is simply that he has found that they are in possession. So far as the first party are concerned as between the parties thereto, the question of which piece of the property in dispute is in the possession of which of them is a matter which concerns themselves and not one which immediately in these proceedings in any way concerns now the second party. Under those circumstances although I must admit that I think it would have been more workmanlike in his judgment to have given clearly the limits of the pieces of the property and the persons in whose possession the Magistrate actually found those pieces of property to lie, I do not think that I can say that the order as it stands is without jurisdiction and I must therefore decline to interfere.

With regard to plot No. 7 it is agreed by both parties that this plot was not claimed by either party and ought not to have been included in the proceedings. So far therefore as this plot is concerned, the order will be modified by excluding it therefrom.