Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 684 (JHR)

Shyam Singh v. State of Jharkhand

2005-09-08

AMARESHWAR SAHAY

body2005
Order I.A. No. 1238 of 2005 The learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to make necessary correction in the cause title of the interlocutory application. 2. In view of the statement made in the petition and the grounds taken therein, the interlocutory application is allowed and the petitioner is permitted to be substituted in place of the deceased first party Lakshmi Singh, who died on 6th February 2004. 3. I.A. No. 1238/2005 is thus disposed of. Cr. Revision No. 129/2004 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. 5. A proceeding under section 145 Cr.P.C. was initiated between the parties with respect to the Plot No. 411, under Khata No. 19/1, area 44 decimals and Plot No. 376 under Khata No. 191 area 47 decimals, Village Alaudi, P.S. Senha, District Lohardaga. The Executive Magistrate by order dated 14/12/1996, after considering the oral as well as documentary evidence adduced on behalf of the parties, declared the possession in favour of the first party. Against the said order passed by the learned Executive Magistrate, the second party preferred revision before the Sessions Judge, Lohardaga being Criminal Revision No. 66/97. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lohardaga by his judgment dated 12.1.2004 allowed the revision application and set aside the order of the Executive Magistrate declaring the possession in favour of the first party, holding that the title and possession passes on the payment of consideration amount at the time of execution of the sale deed. It was further held by the revisional court that once sale deed has been executed from the date of its execution, title and possession was passed in favour of the vendee and accordingly, unilateral cancellation deed of sale deed is illegal. 6. In my view, the learned revisional court has wrongly and illegally gone into the question of title, which was the exclusive jurisdiction of the civil court to examine as to whether the cancellation of the sale deed was illegal or not? Therefore, the learned revisional court has exceeded its jurisdiction and thereby wrongly set aside the order passed by the learned Executive Magistrate in a proceeding under section 145 Cr.P.C. 7. Accordingly, this revision application is allowed. The judgment passed by the revisional court in Criminal Revision No. 66/97 is hereby set aside.