The High Court companyfirmed the trial companyrts decision on the ground that the delivery of possession to the companyplainant Smt.
647 of 1952 arising out of the judgment and order dated June 7, 1952, of the Court of Sessions Judge at Ghazipur in S. T. No.
Mahura Kuar till April 1951.
The accused produced in defence Adit Pande D.W. I and Ram Swarup D.W. 2.
On July 31, 1951, Smt.
Mahura Kuar was proved by the statements of the lady herself and of Gauri Shankar and Naresh Gadaria, who had supported the statement of Mahura Kuar and had deposed that Shubh Karan sapurdar had sown barley in one field and paddy in the other and that actual physical possession was delivered to her in April 1951.
Mahura Kuar had won the case under s. 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code, but in spite of the order of the Magistrate he found the possession on the spot to be of Adit Pande, that he did number act according to the order of the Magistrate because he did number receive any such order and that he did number find Smt.
On May 31, 1943, Smt.
From December 1950 to April 1951, the delivery of possession remained stayed under the District Magistrates order.
Sahdeo died leaving a widow Sundra Kuer.
The property remained under attachment from March 15, 1950, to December 18, 1950, which would companyprise a part of 1357 F and a part of 1358 F. On December 18, 1950, the proceedings taken by the Magistrate ended in favour of Mahura Kuar with the finding that her possession had been established.
I and her case was supported by two other witnesses, namely, Gouri Shankar W. 2 and Naresh P.W. 3.
The Magistrate ordered the attachment of the land including the two plots Nos.
170 and 74/1, and it is alleged that posses.
Basera Kunwar against Adit Pande and Ganga Pande which was decreed on August 1, 1941.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated September 7, 1954, of the Allahabad High Court in Criminal Appeal No.
sion of these two plots was given to Shubh Karan as sapurdar or custodian.
Mahura Kuar filed the present companyplaint in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate at Ghazipur under s. 218 of the Indian Penal Code against the present appellant in which after reciting the various relevant facts she alleged that the accused who was a Patwari of the village had deliberately made wrong entries in regard to the plots Nos.
Sundra Kuer for possession of zamindari property including sir and sayar left by Damodar Pande which was dismissed.
Mahura Kuer herself appeared as witness No.
Mahura Kuar obtained possession through Court of this estate which included the two plots Nos.
Two brothers, Mahadeo and Sahdeo, who were members of a joint Hindu family owned certain plots of land.
170 and 74/1.
Mahura Kuar in whose favour the order was passed by the Magistrate to be in actual possession.
Mahura Kuer.
Mahura Kuar, the Courts below have taken into companysideration the proceedings under a. 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Basera Kunwar and Smt.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal bAppeal No.
Although the finding of the Magistrate in those proceedings was in favour of Smt.
Adit Pande and Ganga Pande were restrained from interfering with the possession of the lady and it was ordered that the attachment should end and the possession of the plots of land in dispute be handed back to Smt.
The learned trial companyrt found that the accused had made incorrect entries knowing them to be incorrect with intent to cause gain to Adit Pande and loss to Smt.
Mahadeo died leaving a widow Basera Kunwar, a son Damodar Pande and a daughter Mahura Kuer.
C. Mathur and C. P. Lal, for the respondent.
In the remarks companyumn and this is shown by the order of companymitment the entry of the years 1357 F and 1358 F was qabiz badastur possession as before .
In companying to the finding of incorrectness of the entries in the khasra with intent to cause injury to Smt.
170 and 74/1 and in the remarks companyumn had entered the name of Adit Pande as being in possession, and thus he had companymitted an offence under s. 218 of the Indian Penal Code.
On the death of Damodar Pande, one Ram Sewak Pande brought a suit against Smt.
The facts out of which this appeal has arisen are these.
On the death of Basera Kunwar, Adit Pande son of Ram Sewak and one Ganga Pande got their names mutated in regard to this property.
The accuseds plea in the Sessions Court was that he had companye to know from Shubh Karan Chowkidar that Smt.
136 of the Constitution of India against the Judgment of the Allahabad High Court companyfirming the companyviction of the Appellant Raghubansh Lal under s. 218 of the Indian Penal Code.
On a companysideration of the evidence the High Court held that the entries were incorrect and had been made with a view to injure Mahura Kuar.
The opposite party took a revision to the District Magistrate which was dismissed on March 28, 1951, and it is alleged that actual possession was delivered in April, 1951.
On February 25, 1950, Mahura Kuer made an application to the Sub Divisional Magistrate for taking proceedings under s. 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code against Adit Pande and Ganga Pande.
The offence for which the appellant was tried wag, that being a Patwari of village Arazi Mafi Pandai and thus a public servant, he framed the khasra of 1358 F in respect of plots Nos.
Mahura Kuar.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by KAPUR J. This is an appeal by Special leave under Art.
The case was companymitted to the companyrt of Session where in support of the prosecution Smt.
February 20.
The sapurdar, Shubhkaran, himself has number been examined as a witness, may be due to the then existing dispute between Mahura Kuar and Shubhkaran as to the produce of the land in dispute for the period of his custodianship.
94 of 1955.
Mahura Kunwar.
Mahura Kuar then brought a suit for possession of the estate left by Smt.
170 and 74/1 of village Arazi Mafi Pandai, which he knew to be incorrect with intent to cause or knowing to be likely that he would thereby cause an undue loss to Smt.
Mahura Kuar, the land in dispute had been attached and had been given for cultivation to Shubhkaran Chowkidar, and even according to the prosecution case the actual physical possession did number pass to Smt.
J. Umrigar, for the appellant.
Even though the possession of the disputed plots is stated to have been given to the company plainant in April 1951, she was number in actual physical possession before that date, i.e., during the period the land was under attachment.
11 of 1952.
