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: Lingaraja Misro

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Jan 06, 1916
~1 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/814669

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
Land Acquisition

Case Summary

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

Criminal Procedure Code (Act V of 1898), Section 145, object of - Factum of possession--Magistrate, whether can refer to other proceedings--Interference in revision. -

Key legal issue
Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

In Re: Lingaraja Misro

Legal References

Reported In
33Ind.Cas.319

Excerpt

criminal procedure code (act v of 1898), section 145, object of - factum of possession--magistrate, whether can refer to other proceedings--interference in revision. - ordercoutts-trotter, j.1. orders under this section (section 145 of the code of criminal procedure) should not, in my opinion, be lightly disturbed. they are made for the purpose of keeping the peace pending the parties' legitimate appeal to the proper civil tribunal. in this case the magistrate who made the order undoubtedly in paragraph 5 of his order, makes reference to other proceedings before himself' which, no doubt, he had better not have concerned states that each party adduced oral evidence in support of their case, and i must assume, until the contrary is shown, that that oral evidence contained evidence on behalf of the counter petitioners that they were in possession of the lands in dispute. i, therefore, dismiss this petition.

Full Judgment

ORDER

Coutts-Trotter, J.

1. Orders under this Section (Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure) should not, in my opinion, be lightly disturbed. They are made for the purpose of keeping the peace pending the parties' legitimate appeal to the proper civil tribunal. In this case the Magistrate who made the order undoubtedly in paragraph 5 of his order, makes reference to other proceedings before himself' which, no doubt, he had better not have concerned states that each party adduced oral evidence in support of their case, and I must assume, until the contrary is shown, that that oral evidence contained evidence on behalf of the counter petitioners that they were in possession of the lands in dispute. I, therefore, dismiss this petition.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial