Judgment NAVIN CHANDRA SHARMA, J. ( 1 ) THOUGH the fathers name of Chandan Mal Duggar was Sadasukh (Everhappiness), but unfortunately Chandan mal Duggar is a cursed soul still breathing at the age of 98 years. He wanted to lead a happy married life like others and for that purpose he married a lady who died soon after the marriage. To fulfill his human desire to lead a happy married life, he married second time with the mother of Dhanraj Duggar but unfortunately again that happiness was also short-lived. The second wife died leaving Dhan Raj in a tender age of five years. Then apart from the desire to lead a happy married life, there arose the necessity for Chandanmal Duggar to give a proper parental care to the minor son Dhan Raj Duggar and, therefore he married again in the year 1925 with Smt. Manohar Devi. The facts and circumstances leading to this litigation go to show that the name Manohar Devi was only deceptive. This name can very well be attached to the property which is also known ast Manohar Building and which is situated in important commercial market of Jaipur known as Mirza Ismail Road. In this world self interest is always predominant. Manohar Devi, being the third wife when Chandanmal Duggar must have been approaching towards the old age, instead of thinking of giving parental care to Dhan Raj Duggar which might have been the expectation of Chandanmal Duggar, started caring for her own security in the event Chandanmal Duggar may pre-deceased her or Dhan Raj Duggar after attaining m majority may ignore her altogether and leave her in a destitute condition. Her apprehensions were as well true as this day we find that the posterity of Dhanraj Duggar is litigating for the property known as Manohar buildingtt. Smt. Manohar Devit was a courageous lady as it appears from the facts on the record of the proceedings under section 145 Cr. P. C. of the court of the Additional District Magistrate, Jaipur. In the first instance, in order to secure herself she could get a settlement deed in her favour from Chandanmal Duggar and his son from the second wife Dhanraj Duggar which is Ex, PA on the file of the Additional District Magistrate. The seeds of dissension were sown more than 43 years back on May 5, 1973. By Ex. In the first instance, in order to secure herself she could get a settlement deed in her favour from Chandanmal Duggar and his son from the second wife Dhanraj Duggar which is Ex, PA on the file of the Additional District Magistrate. The seeds of dissension were sown more than 43 years back on May 5, 1973. By Ex. 4 Chandanmal Duggar and Dhanraj Duggar settled the property situated at Mirza Ismail Road with Manohar Devi for life for her maintenance. Apart from this property, it was also agreed that an amount of Rs. 150 per month would be paid by the settlers to Manohar Devi for her maintenance and they will also look after the repairs of the building. They further undertook to bear to the extent of Rs. 10,000 expenses, which may be incurred in the expansion of that building. There was an important clause in Ex. 4 which provided that in case Smt. Manohar Devi incurred more than Rs. 10,000 in the expansion of Manohar Building, the expended portion of the building would be exclusive property of Smt. Manohar Devi with which Chandanmal Duggar and Dhanraj Duggar will have no concern. Since then Smt. Manohar Devi, despite being of a weaker sex, continuously fought to earn and was getting the due income from this property by continuously litigating with tenants in occupation. ( 2 ) CHANDANMAL Duggar and Dhanraj Duggar being bound by Ex. 4 could not do anything to get back the property to the family and, therefore, the minor sons of Dhanraj Duggar named Nirmal Kumar and Kushal Kumar alias Kushal Chand come forward and filed a civil suit No. 26/27 of 1960 in the court of the Additional District Judge No. 2, Jaipur City claiming a declaration that Ex. 4 was nun and void as against them. They also claimed delivery of possession of the property. That suit was vigorously contested by Smt. Manohar Devi and the suit filed by Nirmal Kumar and Kushal Chand was dismissed by the Additional District Judge No. 2, Jaipur City on September 30, 1974. Nirmal Kumar and Kushal Chand filed a first appeal before the Court but the same was withdrawn by them on September 9, 1984 and thus the judgment and decree of the Additional District Judge No. 2, Jaipur City dated September 30, 1974 attained finality against them. Nirmal Kumar and Kushal Chand filed a first appeal before the Court but the same was withdrawn by them on September 9, 1984 and thus the judgment and decree of the Additional District Judge No. 2, Jaipur City dated September 30, 1974 attained finality against them. Then for about 12 years there remained complete calm between Nirmal Kumar and Kushal Chand and Manohar Devi. To continue the narration, Manohar Devi having attained the old age of 68 years apprehended the inevitable death and still at that stage she was not inclined to reconcile either with her old husband or her step-son or step grand sons. She also suffered throughout her age by litigating in reletion to this property. Being bestowed with no issue, there came to her mind the philanthropic use of the property and by a trust-deed she purported to create a trust to be named as Manohar Devi Jan Kalyan Trust. One can only thank to her at this stage that a lady who never thought of her husband and her step-child and who always litigated with those who occupied Manohar Building, while facing death thought of philanthropic purpose. A document has been produced to show that on April 23, 1981 Manohar Devi gave Manohar Buildingt to this trust in perpetuity for certain philanthropic purpose mention therein. ( 3 ) ONE could be hopeful with that the soul of Smt. Manohar Devi ultimately lying in an eternal peace would bring peace in the family and also end the litigations concerning Manohar Building. However, it seems that Manohar Building is as unfortunate as the posterity of Sada Sukh Duggar has been. The case of petitioner Sukh Karan in this petition is that on the second floor of Manohar Building there is a flat consisting of four rooms, one kitchen, one Chandani, and attached latrine, bath and this portion was taken by him on rent on January 1, 1986 from trustee Pannalal of Manohar Devi Jan Kalyan Trust on a monthly rent of Rs. 500 excluding house tax The rent deed to that effect was also executed by the petitioner Subh Karan in favour of the trust on February 12, 1986 and he came in its possession on the New Year day of year 1986. 500 excluding house tax The rent deed to that effect was also executed by the petitioner Subh Karan in favour of the trust on February 12, 1986 and he came in its possession on the New Year day of year 1986. He alleges that Chandanmal Duggar, his son Dhanraj Duggar and his grand sons started pressurising him to execute the rent note in respect of the above flat in their favour but the petitioner did not succumb to their pressure. Thereupon a false first information report was lodged by Kushal Chand on February 10, 1986 against him and as Chandanmal Duggar and his descendants were interfering in his lawful and peaceful possession of the flat, he had to file a civil suit for declaration and permanent injunction in the court of Additional Civil Judge. In that suit Subhkaran prayer for a declaration that he was a lawful tenant in respect of the disputed premises since January 1, 1986 and defendants therein had no right to interfere in his peaceful enjoyment. Along with that suit the petitioner filed application under 0. 39, 2 C. P. C. read with section 151 C. P. C praying for a temporary injunction against the defendants in that suit. That application was partly allowed by the Additional Civil Judge No. 1, Jaipur City after hearing the parties by its order dated April 7, 1986 and Chandanmal Duggar and his descendants were restrained by a temporary injunction from disturbing his possession over the said premises otherwise than in accordance with law. ( 4 ) THEREUPON Kushal Chand made a report on that very day under section 145 Cr. P. C. to the Circle Officer Police Station Gandhinagar, Jaipur City and through him to the Additional District Magistrate, Jaipur City on April 8, 1981 alleging therein that there was a serious dispute regarding possession of the above flat in the second floor of Manohar Building between Kushal Chand, Subh Karan and Panna Lal Bhatia and there was an apprehension of the breach of peace. The certified copy of that complaint is enclosed as Anx. 5 along with this petition. A further application was presented before the Addi. District Magistrate Jaipur City under section 146 Cr. P. C. praying therein that the said flat be attached and receiver be appointed in respect thereof. The certified copy of that complaint is enclosed as Anx. 5 along with this petition. A further application was presented before the Addi. District Magistrate Jaipur City under section 146 Cr. P. C. praying therein that the said flat be attached and receiver be appointed in respect thereof. The Additional District Magistrate on that very day drew a preliminary order under section 145 (1) Cr. P. C. and also ordered for attachment of the said flat and appointed Tehsildar, Jaipur as Receiver of the property. The Receiver was directed to take possession of the flat. Subh Karan feeling aggrieved by these orders filed a revision petition before the Sessions Judge, Jaipur City which was registered as Criminal Revision No 1/1986 and which was subsequently transferred to the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Jaipur City who by his order dated July 19, 1986 dismissed the revision petition (Anx. 8 ). It is next averred that after the passing of the order by the Additional District Magistrate, Jaipur city on April 8, 1986 attaching the property and appointing the receiver, the petitioner filed an application on April 11, 1986 to the Additional District Magistrate that the proceedings under section 145 Cr. P. C. may be dropped and the order of attachment be withdrawn. The ground on the basis of which this application was made was that the petitioner had already filed a civil suit prior to the filing of ihe complaint under section 145 Cr. P. C. and the Civil Court on April 7, 1986 had granted a temporary injunction. That application was heard by the Additional District Magistrate and was decided by him on June 3, 1986. The Additional District Magistrate held, after taking into consideration the background, that there was considerable tension between both the parties, both of them were claiming their possession and if the order relating to attachment of the flat is withdrawn there is likelihood of breach of peace and in case the attachment continues any untoward incident will be avoided. Under such circumstances, he thought it proper to continue the attachment and accordingly rejected the application filed by Subh Karan. However, in the last para of his order the Additional District Magistrate, Jaipur City stated that a civil suit instituted by Subh Karan and as between the parties to proceedings under section 145 Cr. Under such circumstances, he thought it proper to continue the attachment and accordingly rejected the application filed by Subh Karan. However, in the last para of his order the Additional District Magistrate, Jaipur City stated that a civil suit instituted by Subh Karan and as between the parties to proceedings under section 145 Cr. P. C was pending in civil court in which the question of title and possession in relation to this property is pending adjudication. He, therefore, thought that there was no justification to take further proceedings in the case under section 145 Cr. P. C. till the question of possession was decided by the Civil Court. He concluded by ordering that the order of attachment will remain intact till the decision of the civil suit as the decision of the civil suit will determine and affect the case. ( 5 ) SUBH Karan petitioner has filed the present application under section 482 Cr. P. C. stating that the courts below have committed serious error of jurisdiction in not properly considering that when the learned Additional District Magistrate in his order dated June 3, 1986 had held that proceedings under section 145 Cr. P. C. cannot continue in view of the civil proceedings pending before the civil court between the parties, the only logical conclusion which could be arrived at by the courts below was to withdraw the order of attachment and the order of appointment of Receiver. ( 6 ) IT may be stated before proceeding further, that aggrieved by the order of the Additional District Magistrate dated June 3, 1986 Subh Karan had filed Criminal Revision No. 1 of 1986 in the court of Sessions which was decided on September 6, 1986 by the Additional Sessions Judge No. 2. Jaipur City. That revision was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge. Before the Additional Sessions Judge also it was contended on behalf of the petitioner that when the Additional District. Magistrate has dropped the proceedings under section 145 Cr. P. C. there was no justification for him to continue the attachment and appointment of Receiver. Jaipur City. That revision was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge. Before the Additional Sessions Judge also it was contended on behalf of the petitioner that when the Additional District. Magistrate has dropped the proceedings under section 145 Cr. P. C. there was no justification for him to continue the attachment and appointment of Receiver. The learned Additional Sessions Judge explained the order of the Additional District Magistrate by stating that the Additional District Magistrate had only stated that a civil suit was going on and, therefore, it was fruitless to make further inquiry and considering that there was likelihood of breach of peace, he continued the attachment and appointment of Receiver. ( 7 ) I have heard Shri R. M. Lodha and Shri Jagdeep Dhankar at great length in this petition. The file of the Additional District Magistrate, Jaipur City No. 137/86 under sections 145 and 146 Cr. P. C. was also called for. Before me also it was strenuously urged by Shri RM. Lodha appearing for Subhkaran petitioner that when the Additional District Magistrate by his order dated June 3, 1986 had dropped the proceedings under section 145 Cr. P. C. and had held that they cannot continue in view of the civil suit pending in the court of the Additional Civil Judge, he had no jurisdiction to continue the appointment of Receiver. On this ground alone, Shri Lodha urged that the order of the Additional District Magistrate which was confirmed in revision by the Additional Sessions Judge continuing the attachment and the appointment of Receiver under section 146 Cr. P. C. may be quashed. It may by stated that it was not argued before me by Shri RM. Lodha that proceedings under section 145 Cr. P. C. may be dropped. All his arguments were based on the assumption that proceedings under section 145 Cr. P. C. have been dropped by the Additional District Magistrate, Jaipur City. This assumption is incorrect. As already stated, what the Additional District Magistrate, Jaipur City has stated in his order is that because there was a civil suit pending in the court of the Additional Civil Judge in which the question of title and possession relating to the fact in question is involved, there is no justification to further continue the proceedings till the decision of the civil suit. The Additional District Magistrate had dismissed the application which had been filed by Subh Karan petitioner for dropping the proceedings under section 145 Cr. P. C. Considering that there was still apprehension of breach of peace, the Additional District Magistrate continued the attachment and the appointment of Receiver. The learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Jaipur City similarly construed and very rightly so, the order of the Additional District Magistrate. ( 8 ) THE above notion of facts would go to show that there is a scramble for possession over this flat between the parties and all that the Additional District Magistrate has done is that he has stayed the proceedings under section 145 Cr. P. C. till the decision of the civil suit because further inquiry by him was not necessary when the matter had already been taken to the civil court. In such circumstances, it cannot be said that the Additional District Magistrate, Jaipur City was not justified in continuing the attachment and the appointment of Receiver. There is no interest of justice involved because the rival documents produced by the parties do not even prima facie establish the rights of one side or the other. I am not inclined to pass any order under inherent jurisdiction of this court for vacating the order continuing attachment and appointment of Receiver. ( 9 ) WHEN this order was dictated to this extent, Shri R. M. Lodha contended that this court may direct the Additional District Magistrate to drop the proceedings under section 145 Cr. P. C. and to withdraw the attachment and continuance of Receiver in view of the fact that the petitioner had already filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction against Chandan Mal Duggar and the Trust and for this purpose he had relied upon the decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Ram Sumer Pun Mahant v. The State of Uttar Pradesh. 1 The facts in Ram Sumer Pun Mahants case are very much distinguishable from the, facts of the present case. In the case before the Supreme Court, there was a title civil suit wherein the question of title was gone into and the suit had been dismissed by the trial court and an appeal was pending. Thus in that case there had been a determination in relation to the title to the property by the trial court. In the case before the Supreme Court, there was a title civil suit wherein the question of title was gone into and the suit had been dismissed by the trial court and an appeal was pending. Thus in that case there had been a determination in relation to the title to the property by the trial court. In the instant case, nothing has crystalised so far and both the sides are only scrambling for possession and trying to like edge over one another. According to the petitioner, the title of the flat in question after the death of Manohar Devi verses in Manohar Devi Jan Kalyan Trust and he has taken this flat on rent from one of the trustees of Trust named Panna Lal Bhatia. Kushal Chand non-petitioner No. 2, who had initiated proceedings under Section 145 Cr. P. C. is not a party to the civil suit instituted by the petitioner. Manohar Devi Jan Kalyan Trust has not come forward to file a civil suit asserting its title and possession against Chandan Mal Duggar, Dhanraj Duggar, Kushal Chand and Nirmal Kumar. The Civil suit has been instituted by Subh Karan petitioner claiming himself to be tenant of the Trust with effect only from 1st January, 1986. It is pertinent to note that Smt. Manohar Devi (apart from herself) had appointed eight trustees by the alleged Trust deed dated April 18, 1981 (Annexure-1) and the photo-stat copy of rent note (Annexure-2) produced by the petitioner is in favour of the Trust through only one of the trustees Shri Chandji Bengani. It is not in favour of all the eight trustees of the alleged Trust and there is nothing prima facie to show that all the eight trustees had admitted the petitioner as a tenant. It is again pertinent to note that while the petitioner alleges that he took the flat in question on rent from the Trust on 1st January, 1986 and entered into its possession on that date, but the rent note (Annexure-2) was surprisingly executed on 12th February, 1986 i. e. 1 month and 12 days after the alleged taking of the premises on rent. On this point, it is also important to note that Chandan Mal Duggar had lodged first information report on 10th February, 1986 against the petitioner in the Police complaining that the petitioner had on the night intervening 9th and 10th February, 1986 broken open the lock of this flat and committed theft and entered into the flat. It is after this first information report that the rent note (Annexure-2) came into existence on 12th February, 1986 narrating that the petitioner had taken the flat with effect from 1st January, 1986. All these aspects are to be considered by the Civil Court in which the petitioner has filed the suit for declaration of his tenancy and permanent injunction. ( 10 ) IT is not a disputed fact that this flat was in the tenancy of one Jeetendra Kumar Mehta. There is controversy between the parties as to when Jeetendra Kumar Nehta delivered the possession of this flat after vacating it in December 1986 i. e. whether to the trust or to Chandan Mal Duggar or his descendants, Then the Civil suit was filed by the alleged tenant (petitioner) only four days before the presentation of complaint under section 145, Cr. P. C. by the police on the report of Kushal Chand and after the firstn information about theft had been lodged on 10th February, 1986. ( 11 ) AS already stated, :manohar Devi Jan Kalyan Trust has not filed any title not with respect to Manohar building against Chandan Mal Duggar or his descendants. It is only the alleged tenant (i. e. the petitioner) who has come forward to file the civil suit. 1. Chandan Mal Duggar and his descendants have also still to establish their title to the flat in question which is on second floor and which was not included in the family settlement Ex. 4 executed on may 5, 1943. But Chandan mal Duggar and his descendants are not admitting the creation of trust by Smt. Monohar Devi deceased on 18th April, 1981 and bequeathing of Manohar Building to the trust on 23rd April, 1981. All these disputed questions of fact can only be properly decided in a suit for declaration of title and possession at the instance of either Chandan mal Duggar and his descendants or by the Trust. All these disputed questions of fact can only be properly decided in a suit for declaration of title and possession at the instance of either Chandan mal Duggar and his descendants or by the Trust. If crezation of Trust and bequeathing of Manohar Building to the Trust is not estaboished Chandan mal Duggar or his descendants may claim heirship in relation to this building including this frlat on the basis o9f succession to Smt. Manohafr Devi or termination of her life interest in the propoerty settled by Ex. 4. All these questions are to be agitated before and decided by the civil court. Thus in the instant case, the present position only reveals a scramble for possession between the petitioner and Kushal Chand and title of right to possess the flat is not even by a semblance crystaliswed between the contenders. The above facts distinguish this case with the facts before a the Supreme Court in Ram Sumer Pun Mahants case. In the present case, the title and possession of both the sides are still very much doubtful and at least highly debatable. In such circumstances, there is no justification for dropping the proceedings under section 145 Cr. P. C. which have been stayed by the Additional Distruct magistrate, Jaipur till the decision of the civil suit instituted by the petitioner. ( 12 ) THIS petitions has, therefore, no merit in it and it is hereby dismissed. Petition dismissed.