Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

In Re: Ravri Manikyam and ors.

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Sep 07, 1917
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/801496

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Chennai
Judge
Decided On
Subject
Property

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Criminal Procedure Code (Act V of 1898), Sections 145, 435, 439 - Opinion of Magistrate, expression of--Final orders, absence of--Revision, High Court, power of interference of--Jurisdiction. -

Key legal issue
Property

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

In Re: Ravri Manikyam and ors.

Legal References

Reported In
AIR1918Mad164; 43Ind.Cas.95

Excerpt

criminal procedure code (act v of 1898), sections 145, 435, 439 - opinion of magistrate, expression of--final orders, absence of--revision, high court, power of interference of--jurisdiction. - order1. it is clear that the magistrate has made no final order under chapter xii of the code of criminal procedure.2. he says in his proceedings of july 17th: 'i refrain from taking proceedings under either of the aforesaid sections (sections 145 or 107 of the code of criminal procedure) just at present'. 'if the counter-petitioners persist in interfering with the petitioners' possession of the mil), i shall be constrained to institute regular proceedings under section 107 of the cede of criminal procedure; but i hope and trust that they will refrain from doing so i wish to make it clear that i am not actually issuing an order, disobedience to which is ipso facto a criminal offence'.3. also it does not appear that he issued any order, as is required by section 145(6) forbidding all disturbance of the possession, of the successful party until eviction, in, due course of law.4. the magistrate in fact stopped the proceedings that he commenced under section 145, and stated in writing what his opinion was as to the documents produced in the case and as to their legal effect; but i do not find that he exercised his powers as a magistrate and passed any order authorised by, any section of the code of criminal procedure, there is no award of possession to either party. under these circumstances, i must decline to interfere under sections 435 and 439 of the code of criminal procedure, i dismiss the petition.

Full Judgment

ORDER

1. It is clear that the Magistrate has made no final order under Chapter XII of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

2. He says in his proceedings of July 17th: 'I refrain from taking proceedings under either of the aforesaid sections (Sections 145 or 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure) just at present'. 'If the counter-petitioners persist in interfering with the petitioners' possession of the mil), I shall be constrained to institute regular proceedings under Section 107 of the Cede of Criminal Procedure; but I hope and trust that they will refrain from doing so I wish to make it clear that I am not actually issuing an order, disobedience to which is ipso facto a criminal offence'.

3. Also it does not appear that he issued any order, as is required by Section 145(6) forbidding all disturbance of the possession, of the successful party until eviction, in, due course of law.

4. The Magistrate in fact stopped the proceedings that he commenced under Section 145, and stated in writing what his opinion was as to the documents produced in the case and as to their legal effect; but I do not find that he exercised his powers as a Magistrate and passed any order authorised by, any section of the Code of Criminal Procedure, There is no award of possession to either party. Under these circumstances, I must decline to interfere under Sections 435 and 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, I dismiss the petition.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial