P. Ganesan and Others vs Fernandous and Others

N. Arumugham, J.—On ordering notice of motion while the present Revision Petition was sought to be admitted which challenges the order

passed by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Pasumpon Muthuramalinga Thevar District at Sivaganga in Crl.R.P.No. 11 of 1995 dated

9.11.95 for want of certain legality and propriety, I had the occasion to hear the Bar appearing for the respective parties for and against the

impugned order.

The revision petitioners belong to the Marumalarchi Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (MDMK) of Ariyakudi unit in Karaikudi Taluk who were

respectively members of the parental party Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam with the persons of the A party in a like position. An extent of 0.48.5

hectares of road poramboke in Ariyakudi Village of Karaikudi Taluk situated in S.No. 98 appears to have been in possession and enjoyment of

the party DMK and in which a terraced building was put up and constructed as evident from the extract of house tax assessment register for

assessment number 647 standing in the name of ""DMK Branch Office"", however without any door number. Thus the party DMK took possession

of the above immovable property a house which was declared opened by its General Secretary Thiru. K. Anbazhagan in the year 1986 and that

since then onwards it has been in actual and continuous possession of the party lead by the respondent herein who is A party. Due to the split in

the said party DMK occurred during July 1994 and as a result of an incident happened on 10.7.94, the Secretary by name Fernandas of the

Ariyakudi DMK branch lodged a complaint to the Karaikudi South Police Station about the removal of the foundation stone laid down by its

General Secretary and the illegal trespass and mischief by the B party. The said complaint was registered as Cr.No. 298 of 1994 in Karaikudi

South Police Station. This was followed by registering of another complaint in Cr.No. 301of 1994 at about 8.00 am on 14.7.1994 for the offence

u/s 145 of Cr.P.C. That shows that both A&B parties are claiming a right to be in possession of the said property and as a result of which a

breach of peace was apprehended and that accordingly, the learned Sub-Divisional Executive magistrate (Sub-Collector), Devakottai in M.C.No.

336 of 1994 has initiated proceedings u/s 145(4) of Cr.P.C. After giving adequate time for both the parties to file objection and documents if any

to substantiate their respective case and also passing an interim order, the Sub-Divisional Executive magistrate has held that the B party viz., the

revision petitioners are entitled to be in possession of the property in question and against which a revision before the District Judge, Sivaganga has

been filed by the A party in Crl.R.P.No. 11 of 1995. After hearing both the parties in extenso alongwith the entire case records and on a perusal of

the same, the learned District Judge has set aside the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Executive Magistrate in M.C.No. 336/94 dated 20.2.95

and put the A party in possession of the building in question on the ground that as on the date of complaint they were held to be in possession and

enjoyment of the property and also as they are the original owners of the same and that the revision petitioners herein viz., the B party were the

defectors from the A party and became a new party with a new name and as such they have no right to be in occupation or possession of the

same. It was this order passed by the learned District Judge is being challenged and canvassed for want of its propriety and legality in this revision.

I have had the opportunity of hearing the Bar for the respective parties and the submissions for and against the impugned order. In the context of

the above rival submissions, I have looked into the impugned order as well as the order passed by the magistrate with reference to the entire case

records and on the perusal of the same, I have come to the conclusion that this revision lacks any merit and it does not at all deserve to be

admitted for the following reasons.

A terraced building situated in S.No. 98 of Ariyakudi Village having an extent of 0.48.5 hectares classified as road poramboke was occupied

by the DMK party several years ago admittedly and during their enjoyment, they have built up a terraced building in it as evident from the photo

copy of the property tax register extract and that admittedly, the A party is its District Secretary and the branch unit of the said party was in actual

occupation and enjoyment of the same. It also appears that as a result of the part of defection in the said party, some members have defected and

formed into a new party under the name and style of MDMK and removed the foundation stone for the terraced building for the existence of the

terraced building laid down in the year 1986 when its General Secretary Thiru. K. Anbazhagan declared open it and they have also removed all the

records and the account books of the party from the premises in question and that a complaint was lodged in this regard which was registered as

Crime No. 298 of 1994. It was also followed by registering of another complaint in Cr.No. 301 of 1994. The above factum has not at all been

disputed nor any contra plea or documents were filed or placed on behalf of the B party to show that the building in question belongs to them at

any point of time or the said building was in their possession at any point of time. As rightly pointed out by the learned District Judge, the revisional

authority, this is a clear case where the persons who are entitled to be in possession are A party and an attempt was made to show that B party

had tried to interfere with the same and that in view of the split resulting in their defection, B party tried to claim possession of the building which

belonged admittedly to A party. The various reasonings given by the learned Sub-Divisional Executive Magistrate were not based any

documentary or oral evidence and that the impugned order by him was overlooking the admitted case of the A party. Considering the entire case

records and the indisputable facts of the instant case, they clearly demonstrate that on 10.7.94 the premises of the property in question in the

Ariyakudi Village in Karaikudi Taluk belonged to the DMK party branch and that they were in actual and legal possession of the same and that the

B party are trespassers and they tried to show that the property belonged to them and even they have admitted that this property in question does

not belong to them and they are only in occupation of the same. Therefore, it is under such circumstances, I do not think anything remains to be

canvassed in this revision if admitted.

In the result, for the reasonings given above, this revision fails and accordingly it is dismissed. Consequently, the order passed by the learned

District Judge in Crl.R.P.No. 11of 1995 is hereby maintained and confirmed.

After pronouncing this order, it was brought to my notice by the Bar that the B party, namely, the petitioners herein, are to be directed to deliver

possession of the premises in question. But for which the learned counsel for the petitioner is not in a position to give any positive reply. Therefore,

it is open for the respondents, A party to move the concerned police for appropriate remedy on the basis of this order.