{"id":142460,"date":"1979-09-13T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1979-09-12T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mathuralal-vs-bhawarlal-anr-on-13-september-1979"},"modified":"2017-01-15T01:53:24","modified_gmt":"2017-01-14T20:23:24","slug":"mathuralal-vs-bhawarlal-anr-on-13-september-1979","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mathuralal-vs-bhawarlal-anr-on-13-september-1979","title":{"rendered":"Mathuralal vs Bhawarlal & Anr on 13 September, 1979"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Mathuralal vs Bhawarlal & Anr on 13 September, 1979<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1980 AIR 242, \t\t 1980 SCR (1) 620<\/div>\n
Author: O C Reddy<\/div>\n
Bench: Reddy, O. Chinnappa (J)<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nMATHURALAL\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nBHAWARLAL & ANR.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT13\/09\/1979\n\nBENCH:\nREDDY, O. CHINNAPPA (J)\nBENCH:\nREDDY, O. CHINNAPPA (J)\nDESAI, D.A.\n\nCITATION:\n 1980 AIR  242\t\t  1980 SCR  (1) 620\n 1979 SCC  (4) 665\n\n\nACT:\n     Code of  Criminal Procedure, 1973-Ss. 145 and 146-Scope\nof-Magistrate if  competent to\tproceed with  enquiry  after\nattaching the property in dispute.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n     Apprehending breach  of peace  on account\tof a dispute\nover a\thouse between  the appellant  and the respondent the\nSub-Divisional Magistrate  passed a  preliminary order under\ns. 145(1),  Cr.P.C., 1973  and later  attached\tthe  subject\nmatter of  dispute under s. 146(1) on the ground that it was\na case of emergency. The appellant's objection that once the\nsubject of  the dispute\t had been  attached under s. 146, he\nwas not\t competent to  proceed with the enquiry under s. 145\nwas overruled  by  the\tMagistrate.  Having  failed  in\t his\nrevision petitions  before the\tSessions Judge\tand the High\nCourt the appellant preferred an appeal to this Court.\n     It was  contended on behalf of the appellant that while\nunder the  previous Code  it was  permissible to  attach the\nsubject of  dispute pending  enquiry by\t the  Magistrate  as\ncontemplated by\t s. 145\t such attachment pending decision by\nthe Magistrate\twas not\t permissible under  the present Code\nand that  once the  Magistrate effected an attachment he had\nnothing further\t to do\texcept await  the  decision  or\t the\ndirection of the civil court.\n     Dismissing the appeal,\n^\n     HELD:  It\t is  wrong  to\tsay  that  the\tMagistrate's\njurisdiction ends  as soon  as an  attachment is made on the\nground of emergency. [632 C]\n     1. (a)  Sections 145  and 146 of the Criminal Procedure\nCode together  constitute a  scheme for\t the resolution of a\nsituation where\t there is  a likelihood\t of a  breach of the\npeace because  of a  dispute concerning any land or water or\ntheir boundaries.  If s.  146 is torn out of its setting and\nread independently  of\ts.  145,  it  is  capable  of  being\nconstrued to mean that once an attachment is effected in any\nof the\tthree situations  mentioned therein, the dispute can\nonly be\t resolved by  a\t competent  Court  and\tnot  by\t the\nMagistrate effecting the attachment. But s. 146 cannot be so\nseparated from s. 145. It can only be read in the context of\ns.  145.   Contextual\tconstruction   must   prevail\tover\nisolationist  construction.   That  is\t one  of  the  first\nprinciples of construction. [629 A-C]\n     (b) On being satisfied about the existence of a dispute\nlikely to  cause a  breach of peace, the Magistrate issues a\npreliminary order  stating the\tgrounds of  his satisfaction\nand calling upon the parties to appear before him and submit\ntheir  written\t statement.  On\t  perusal  of\tthe  written\nstatements he  would proceed  to record\t evidence to  decide\nwhich of  the parties  was in  possession on the date of the\npreliminary order. If he decides that one of the parties was\nin possession  he declares  possession of  such party. If on\nthe other\n621\nhand he\t is unable  to decide who was in possession or if he\nis  of\topinion\t that  none  of\t the  parties  was  in\tsuch\npossession, he\tmay say\t so. If\t he decides  that one of the\nparties was in possession he declares the possession of such\nproperty. In  the  other  two  situations  he  attaches\t the\nproperty. Thus\ta proceeding  begun with a preliminary order\nmust  be  followed  up\tby  an\tenquiry\t and  end  with\t the\nMagistrate  deciding   in  one\tof  three  ways\t and  making\nconsequential orders. [630 A-D]\n     (c) The  Magistrate may,  however, stop the proceedings\nat any time if one or the other of the parties satisfies him\nthat there  has never  been or\tthat there  is no longer any\ndispute\t likely\t  to  cause  a\tbreach\tof  the\t peace.\t The\nMagistrate then cancels the preliminary order vide s. 145(5)\nexcept in this event a proceeding initiated by a preliminary\norder under s. 145(1) must run its full course. [630 E]\n     (d) One  of the  situations provided under s. 146(1) is\nthat in\t a case\t of emergency  a Magistrate  may attach\t the\nproperty at  any time  after making  the preliminary  order.\nThere  is   no\texpress\t stipulation  in  s.  146  that\t the\njurisdiction of the Magistrate ends with the attachment. Nor\nis it implied. The obligation to proceed with the enquiry as\nprescribed by  s. 145(4)  is against  any such\timplication.\n[630 G]\n     2. The  position under the section before its amendment\nin 1955\t was that  the parties\tthat  the  right  to  adduce\nevidence and  the Magistrate  could take further evidence if\nhe so  desired. There  were two\t principal  changes  in\t the\nsection as  a result  of the  amendment\t in  1955:  (1)\t the\npreliminary order  was also to require the parties to put in\ndocuments and affidavits of such persons as they intended to\nrely upon  in support of their claims. The Magistrate was to\ndecide\tthe   case  on\t a  consideration   of\tthe  written\nstatements, the\t documents and\taffidavits  put\t in  by\t the\nparties and  after hearing  them come  to a  conclusion. (2)\nWhere he  was unable  to satisfy  himself as to which of the\nparties was  in possession  or where he decided that none of\nthe parties  was in possession after attaching the property,\nthe Magistrate was himself to refer the dispute to the civil\ncourt instead  of leaving  it to  the parties  to go  to the\ncivil court.  He was  to obtain a finding of the civil court\nand thereafter\tconclude the  proceeding  under\t s.  145  in\nconformity with the decision of the civil court. The revised\nprocedure having been found to be unsatisfactory ss. 145 and\n146 were  again amended\t so as\tto revert  to  the  position\nobtaining before  the 1955  amendment. In the present s. 146\nall situations\tin which  an attachment\t may be made are now\nmentioned together. [631 D-F]\n     Chandu Naik  & Ors.  v. Sitaram B. Naik & Anr.<\/a> [1978] 2\nSCR 353=1978 Crl. L. J. 356 distinguished.\n     Kshetra Mohan Sarkar v. Puran Chandra Mandal, 1978 Crl.\nL.J. 936, approved.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
     CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 10
\nof 1979.\n<\/p>\n
     Appeal by\tSpecial Leave  from the\t Judgment and  Order
\ndated  12-10-1978  of  the  Madhya  Pradesh  High  Court  in
\nCriminal Revision No. 336 of 1978.\n<\/p>\n
622<\/span><\/p>\n
     D. N. Mukherjee and N. R. Choudhary for the Appellant.
\n     Dalveer Bhandari for Respondent No. 1.\n<\/p>\n
     The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\n     CHINNAPPA REDDY,  J. On the report of the Station House
\nOfficer, Manak\tChowk, Ratlam,\tthat  there  was  a  dispute
\nbetween\t Mathuralal   and  Bhanwarlal\tconcerning  a  house
\nsituated in  Kambalpatti,  Ghas\t Bazar,\t Ratlam,  which\t was
\nlikely to  cause a  breach of  the peace, the Sub Divisional
\nMagistrate, Ratlam, passed a preliminary order under Section
\n145(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973, on Ist March,
\n1978. On  2nd March,  1978, the\t learned Magistrate attached
\nthe  subject   of  dispute  under  Section  146(1)  Criminal
\nProcedure Code\tconsidering the case to be one of emergency.
\nThereafter, when  the learned  Magistrate wanted  to proceed
\nwith the  enquiry under Section 145 Criminal Procedure Code,
\nan objection  was raised  by Mathuralal that such an enquiry
\nwas incompetent\t once the  subject of  the dispute  had been
\nattached under\tSection 146  Criminal  Procedure  Code.\t The
\nobjection  was\t overruled  by\t the   learned\t Magistrate.
\nSuccessive Revisions taken before the Sessions Judge and the
\nHigh Court  having borne  no fruit, Mathuralal has filed the
\npresent appeal\tby special  leave of  this Court.  The\tHigh
\nCourt, we  may mention\there, thought  that the\t matter\t was
\nconcluded against  the appellant  by the  decision  of\tthis
\nCourt in Chandu Naik & Ors. v. Sitaram B. Naik & Anr.<\/a>(1)
\n     Shri Mukherji,  learned counsel for the appellant urged
\nthat under  Section 146\t of the\t Criminal Procedure  Code of
\n1973, an  attachment of\t the subject  of  dispute  could  be
\neffected in  three situations:\t(i) if the Magistrate at any
\ntime after  making the order under Section 145(1) considered
\nthe case  to be one of emergency, or (ii) if he decided that
\nnone of\t the parties  was then\tin such\t possession  as\t was
\nreferred to  in Section\t 145, or  (iii) if  he was unable to
\nsatisfy himself\t as to\twhich  of  them\t was  then  in\tsuch
\npossession of  the subject  of dispute.\t The  attachment  so
\neffected, regardless  of the situation consequent upon which
\nit was\teffected, was  to subsist  until a  competent  Court
\ndetermined the\trights of  the parties\twith regard  to\t the
\nperson entitled\t to  possession.  This,\t he  urged,  clearly
\nindicated that\tafter an  attachment was effected it was the
\nCivil Court  and not the Magistrate that was to have further
\njurisdiction in\t the matter. He contrasted the provisions of
\nSection 146(1)\tof the\tpresent code  with the provisions of
\nSection 146(1)\tand the\t third proviso\tto Section 145(4) of
\nthe Criminal  Procedure Code of 1898 as amended by Act 26 of
\n1955. He drew our
\n623<\/span>
\nattention to  the circumstance\tthat the  third\t proviso  to
\nSection 145(4)\tof the old Code empowered the Magistrate, if
\nhe considered  the case\t one of\t emergency,  to\t attach\t the
\nsubject of  dispute pending his decision under that Section,
\nwhile Section  146(1) of  the previous\tCode  empowered\t the
\nMagistrate  to\t attach\t the   subject\tof  dispute  if\t the
\nMagistrate was\tof the\topinion that none of the parties was
\nthen in possession or if the Magistrate was unable to decide
\nas to which of them was in such possession and thereafter to
\nrefer to  the Civil  Court for decision the question whether
\nany and\t which of  the parties\twas  in\t possession  of\t the
\nsubject of  dispute. Therefore,\t he said, under the previous
\nCode, in  the case  of attachment  because of  emergency the
\nMagistrate was\thimself competent  to decide the question of
\npossession and\tin the\tother two  cases he was to refer the
\ndispute to the Civil Court, whereas, under the present Code,
\nin all\tthe three situations the Magistrate was to leave the
\nmatter for  adjudication  by  the  Civil  Court.  Thus,\t the
\nsubmission  of\tShri  Mukherji\twas  that  while  under\t the
\nprevious Code  it was  permissible to  attach the subject of
\ndispute pending enquiry by the Magistrate as contemplated by
\nSection\t 145,\tsuch  attachment  pending  decision  by\t the
\nMagistrate was\tnot permissible\t under the provisions of the
\npresent Code.  According to  him so  soon as  the Magistrate
\neffected an  attachment he  had nothing further to do except
\nawait the decision or the directions of the Civil Court.\n<\/p>\n
     Though at first blush there appeared to be force in the
\nsubmissions of\tShri Mukherji,\ta  closer  scrutiny  of\t the
\nprovisions  of\t Sections  145\t and   146   exposes   their
\nunsoundness. It\t may perhaps  be desirable, at this stage to
\nextract the  provisions of  Sections 145  and  146,  to\t the
\nextent that they are relevant, in the Code of 1898 before it
\nwas amended  in 1955,  in the  Code of\t1898  after  it\t was
\namended in 1955 and in the Code of 1973:\n<\/p>\n
624<\/span><\/p>\n
\t\t\t    (a)
\n     145 (1)  Whenever a District Magistrate, Sub-divisional
\nMagistrate or  Magistrate of  the first\t class is  satisfied
\nfrom a\tpolice report  or other\t information that  a dispute
\nlikely to  cause a breach of the peace exists concerning any
\nland or\t water or  the boundaries  thereof, within the local
\nlimits of  his jurisdiction,  he  shall\t make  an  order  in
\nwriting, stating  the grounds of his being so satisfied, and
\nrequiring the  parties concerned  in such  dispute to attend
\nhis Court  in person  or by pleader, within time to be fixed
\nby such\t Magistrate, and  to put  in written  statements  of
\ntheir respective  claims as  respects  the  fact  of  actual
\npossession of the subject of dispute.\n<\/p>\n
     (2)……..\n<\/p>\n
     (3) A  copy of  the order\tshall be  served  in  manner
\nprovided by this Code for the service of a summons upon such
\nperson or persons as the Magistrate may direct, and at least
\none copy shall be\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t    (b)
\n     145 (1)  Whenever a District Magistrate, Sub-divisional
\nMagistrate or  Magistrate of  the first\t class is  satisfied
\nfrom a\tpolice report  or other\t information that  a dispute
\nlikely to  cause a breach of the peace exists concerning any
\nland or\t water or  the boundaries  thereof, within the local
\nlimits of  his jurisdiction,  he  shall\t make  an  order  in
\nwriting, stating  the grounds of his being so satisfied, and
\nrequiring the  parties concerned  in such  dispute to attend
\nCourt in  person or by pleader, within a time to be fixed by
\nsuch Magistrate\t and to\t put in\t written statements of their
\nrespective claims  as respects the fact of actual possession
\nof the\tsubject of dispute and further requiring them to put
\nin such\t documents, or\tto adduce, by putting in affidavits,
\nthe evidence  of such  persons, as they rely upon in support
\nof such claims.\n<\/p>\n
     (2)…….\n<\/p>\n
     (3) A  copy of  the order\tshall be  served  in  manner
\nprovided by this Code for the service of a summons upon such
\nperson or persons as the Magistrate may direct, and at least
\none copy shall be\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t    (c)
\n     145 (1)  Whenever an  Executive Magistrate is satisfied
\nfrom a\treport of a police officer or upon other information
\nthat a\tdispute likely to cause a breach of the peace exists
\nconcerning any\tland or\t water or  the\tboundaries  thereof,
\nwithin his  local jurisdiction,\t he shall  make an  order in
\nwriting, stating  the grounds of his being so satisfied, and
\nrequiring the  parties concerned  in such  dispute to attend
\nhis Court  in person  or by pleader, on a specified date and
\ntime, and  to put  in written statements of their respective
\nclaims as  respects the\t fact of  actual possession  of\t the
\nsubject of dispute.\n<\/p>\n
     (2)…….\n<\/p>\n
     (3) A  copy of  the order\tshall be  served  in  manner
\nprovided by this Code for the service of a summons upon such
\nperson or persons as the Magistrate may direct, and at least
\none copy shall be
\n625<\/span>
\npublished by  being affixed  to some conspicuous place at or
\nnear the subject of dispute.\n<\/p>\n
     (4) The Magistrate shall then, without reference to the
\nmerits or  the claims  of any  of such parties to a right to
\npossess the subject of dispute, peruse the statements so put
\nin, hear  the parties,\treceive all  such evidence as may be
\nproduced by  them, respectively, consider the effect of such
\nevidence, take\tsuch further  evidence (if any) as he thinks
\nnecessary, and, if possible, decide whether any and which of
\nthe parties was at the date of the order before mentioned in
\nsuch possession of the said subject:\n<\/p>\n
     Provided that………\n<\/p>\n
     Provided also  that, if  the Magistrate  considers\t the
\ncase one of emergency, he may at any time attach the subject
\nof dispute, pending his decision under this section.\n<\/p>\n
     (5) Nothing in this section shall preclude any party so
\nrequired to  attend, or\t any other  person interested,\tfrom
\nshowing that  no such  dispute as aforesaid exists published
\nby being  affixed to  some conspicuous\tplace at or near the
\nsubject of dispute.\n<\/p>\n
     (4) The Magistrate shall then, without reference to the
\nmerits or  the claims  of any  of such parties to a right to
\npossess the  subject  of  dispute,  peruse  the\t statements,
\ndocuments and  affidavits, if  any,  so\t put  in,  hear\t the
\nparties\t and   conclude\t the  inquiry,\tas  far\t as  may  be
\npracticable, within  a period of two months from the date of
\nthe appearance\tof the\tparties before him and, if possible,
\ndecide the question whether any and which of the parties was
\nat the date of the order before mentioned in such possession
\nof the said subject:\n<\/p>\n
     Provided that……..
\n     Provided further that……..<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     Provided also  that, if  the Magistrate  considers\t the
\ncase one of emergency, he may at any time attach the subject
\nof dispute, pending his decision under this section.\n<\/p>\n
     (5) Nothing in this section shall preclude any party so
\nrequired to  attend, or\t any other  person interested,\tfrom
\nshowing that  no such  dispute as aforesaid exists published
\nby being  affixed to  some conspicuous\tplace at or near the
\nsubject of dispute.\n<\/p>\n
     (4) The Magistrate shall then, without reference to the
\nmerits or  the claims  of any  of such parties to a right to
\npossess the subject of dispute, peruse the statements so put
\nin, hear  the parties,\treceive all  such evidence as may be
\nproduced by  them, take such further evidence, if any, as he
\nthinks necessary,  and, if  possible, decide whether any and
\nwhich of  the parties  was, at the date of the order made by
\nhim under  sub-section (1),  in possession of the subject of
\ndispute:\n<\/p>\n
     Provided that………\n<\/p>\n
     (5) Nothing in this section shall preclude any party so
\nrequired to  attend, or\t any other  person interested,\tfrom
\nshowing that no such dispute as aforesaid exists
\n626<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t    (a)
\nor has existed; and in such case the Magistrate shall cancel
\nhis said order, and all further proceedings thereon shall be
\nstayed, but,  subject to such cancellation, the order of the
\nMagistrate under sub-section (1) shall be final.\n<\/p>\n
     (6) If  the Magistrate  decides that one of the parties
\nwas or\tshould under the first proviso to sub-section (4) be
\ntreated as  being in such possession of the said subject, he
\nshall issue  an order declaring such party to be entitled to
\npossession thereof  until evicted therefrom in due course of
\nlaw, and forbidding all disturbance of such possession until
\nsuch eviction  and when\t he proceeds under the first proviso
\nto sub-section\t(4), may  restore to  possession  the  party
\nforcibly and wrongfully dispossessed.\n<\/p>\n
     (7)……..\n<\/p>\n
     (8)……..\n<\/p>\n
     (9)……..\n<\/p>\n
     (10)……..\n<\/p>\n
     (146) (1)\tIf the\tMagistrate descides that none of the
\nparties was then in such possession, or is unable to satisfy
\nhimself\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t    (b)
\nor has existed; and in such case the Magistrate shall cancel
\nhis said order, and all further proceedings thereon shall be
\nstayed, but,  subject to such cancellation, the order of the
\nMagistrate under sub-section (1) shall be final.\n<\/p>\n
     (6) If  the Magistrate  decides that one of the parties
\nwas or\tshould under  the 2nd  proviso to sub-section (4) be
\ntreated as  being in such possession of the said subject, he
\nshall issue  an order declaring such party to be entitled to
\npossession thereof  until elected therefrom in due course of
\nlaw, and forbidding all disturbance of such possession until
\nsuch eviction  and when he proceeds under the second proviso
\nto sub-section\t(4), may  restore to  possession  the  party
\nforcibly and wrongfully dispossessed.\n<\/p>\n
     (7)……..\n<\/p>\n
     (8)………\n<\/p>\n
     (9)………\n<\/p>\n
     (10)……..\n<\/p>\n
     (146) (1)\tIf the Magistrate is of opinion that none of
\nthe parties  was then  in such possession, of the subject of
\ndispute, he\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t    (c)
\nor has existed; and in such case the Magistrate shall cancel
\nhis said order, and all further proceedings thereon shall be
\nstayed, but,  subject to such cancellation, the order of the
\nMagistrate under sub-section (1) shall be final.\n<\/p>\n
     (6) (a)  If the  Magistrate decides  that\tone  of\t the
\nparties was  or should\tunder the proviso to sub-section (4)
\nbe treated  as being in such possession of the said subject,
\nhe shall  issue an order declaring such party to be entitled
\nto possession  thereof until evicted therefrom in due course
\nof law,\t and forbidding\t all disturbance  of such possession
\nuntil such  eviction and  when he  proceeds under  the first
\nproviso to  sub-section (4),  may restore  to possession the
\nparty forcibly and wrongfully dispossessed.\n<\/p>\n
     (b)………\n<\/p>\n
     (7)………\n<\/p>\n
     (8)………\n<\/p>\n
     (9)………\n<\/p>\n
     (10)……..\n<\/p>\n
     (146) (1)\tIf the\tMagistrate at  any time after making
\nthe order under sub-section (1) of Section 145 considers the
\ncase to be
\n627<\/span>
\nas to  which of\t them was  then in  such possession  of\t the
\nsubject of dispute, he may attach it until a competent Court
\nhas determined\tthe rights  of the  parties thereto,  or the
\nperson entitled to possession thereof:\n<\/p>\n
     Provided that the District Magistrate or the Magistrate
\nwho has\t attached the  subject of  dispute may\twithdraw the
\nattachment at  any time, if he is satisfied that there is no
\nlonger any  likelihood of a breach of the peace in regard to
\nthe subject of dispute.\n<\/p>\n
     (2)  When\t the  Magistrate  attaches  the\t subject  of
\ndispute, he  may, if he thinks fit and if no receiver of the
\nproperty, the  subject of dispute, has been appointed by any
\nCivil Court  appoint a\treceiver thereof, may attach it, and
\ndraw up a statement of the facts of the case and forward the
\nrecord of  the proceeding  to a\t Civil\tCourt  of  competent
\njurisdiction to decide the question whether any and which of
\nthe parties  was in  possession of the subject of dispute at
\nthe date  of the  order as  explained in  sub-section (4) of
\nsection 145;  and he  shall direct  the\t parties  to  appear
\nbefore the Civil Court on a date to be fixed by him:\n<\/p>\n
     Provided that the District Magistrate or the Magistrate
\nwho has\t attached the  subject of  dispute may\twithdraw the
\nattachment at  any time, if he is satisfied that there is no
\nlonger any  likelihood of a breach of the peace in regard to
\nthe subject of dispute.\n<\/p>\n
     (1A)…….\n<\/p>\n
     (1B)…….\n<\/p>\n
     (1C)…….\n<\/p>\n
     (1D)…….\n<\/p>\n
     (1E)…….\n<\/p>\n
     (2)  When\t the  Magistrate  attaches  the\t subject  of
\ndispute, he  may, if he thinks fit and if no receiver of the
\nproperty, the  subject of dispute, has been appointed by any
\nCivil Court appoint a receiver thereof, one of emergency, or
\nif he  decides that  none of  the parties  was then  in such
\npossession as  is referred  to in  section 145,\t or if he is
\nunable to  satisfy himself  as to  which of them was then in
\nsuch possession\t of the subject of dispute until a competent
\ncourt has  determined the rights of the parties thereto with
\nregard to the person entitled to the possession thereof :\n<\/p>\n
     Provided  that   such  Magistrate\t may  withdraw\t the
\nattachment at  any time\t if he is satisfied that there is no
\nlonger any  likelihood of breach of the peace with regard to
\nthe subject of dispute.\n<\/p>\n
     (2) When the Magistrate attaches the subject of dispute
\nhe may,\t if no\treceiver in  relation  to  such\t subject  of
\ndispute, has  been appointed  by any  Civil Court, make such
\narrangements as he considers proper for
\n628<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t    (a)
\nwho subject to the control of the Magistrate, shall have all
\nthe powers  of a  receiver appointed under the Code of Civil
\nProcedure.\n<\/p>\n
     Provided that,  in the  event  of\ta  receiver  of\t the
\nproperty,  the\t subject  of   dispute,\t being\tsubsequently
\nappointed by  any Civil Court, possession shall be made over
\nto him\tby the\treceiver appointed  by the  Magistrate,\t who
\nshall thereupon be discharge.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t    (b)
\nwho subject to the control of the Magistrate, shall have all
\nthe powers  of a  receiver appointed under the Code of Civil
\nProcedure.\n<\/p>\n
     Provided that,  in the  event  of\ta  receiver  of\t the
\nproperty,  the\t subject  of   dispute,\t being\tsubsequently
\nappointed by  any Civil Court, possession shall be made over
\nto him\tby the\treceiver appointed  by the  Magistrate,\t who
\nshall thereupon be discharge.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t    (c)
\nlooking after  the property  or if  he thinks fit, appoint a
\nreceiver thereof,  who shall have, subject to the control of
\nthe Magistrate\tall the powers of a receiver appointed under
\nthe Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908):\n<\/p>\n
     Provided  that   in  the  event  of  a  receiver  being
\nsubsequently appointed in relation to the subject of dispute
\nby any Civil Court, the Magistrate-\n<\/p>\n
     (a) shall\torder the  receiver appointed by him to hand
\nover the  possession  of  the  subject\tof  dispute  to\t the
\nreceiver appointed  by the  Civil Court and shall thereafter
\ndischarge the receiver appointed by him;\n<\/p>\n
     (b) may  make such\t other incidental  or  consequential
\norders as may be just.\n<\/p>\n
629<\/span><\/p>\n
     Quite obviously,  Sections 145  and 146 of the Criminal
\nProcedure  Code\t  together  constitute\t a  scheme  for\t the
\nresolution of  a situation  where there is a likelihood of a
\nbreach of the peace because of a dispute concerning any land
\nor water  or their boundaries. If Section 146 is torn out of
\nits setting  and read  independently of\t Section 145,  it is
\ncapable of  being construed  to mean that once an attachment
\nis  effected  in  any  of  the\tthree  situations  mentioned
\ntherein, the  dispute can  only be  resolved by\t a competent
\nCourt and  not by  the Magistrate  effecting the attachment.
\nBut Section  146 cannot be so separated from Section 145. It
\ncan only  be read  in the context of Section 145. Contextual
\nconstruction   must   surely   prevail\t over\tisolationist
\nconstruction. Otherwise,  it may mislead. That is one of the
\nfirst principles  of construction.  Let us therefore look at
\nSection 145  and  consider  Section  146  in  that  context.
\nSection 145  contemplates, first,  the satisfaction  of\t the
\nMagistrate that\t a dispute  likely to  cause a breach of the
\npeace  exists\tconcerning  any\t  land\tor  water  or  their
\nboundaries, and,  next, the  issuance of  an order, known to
\nlawyers practising  in the  Criminal Courts as a preliminary
\norder, stating the grounds of his satisfaction and requiring
\nthe parties  concerned to  attend his  Court and  to put  in
\nwritten statements of their respective claims as regards the
\nfact of\t actual possession  of the  subject  of\t dispute.  A
\npreliminary order  is considered  so basic  to a  proceeding
\nunder Section  145 that\t a failure  to draw up a preliminary
\norder has  been held  by several  High Courts to vitiate all
\nthe subsequent\tproceedings. It\t is by\tmaking a preliminary
\norder that  the Magistrate  assumes jurisdiction  to proceed
\nunder Sections\t145 and\t 146. In  fact,\t the  first  of\t the
\nsituations in  which an\t attachment may\t be  effected  under
\nSection 146  of the  1973 Code\thas to be “at any time after
\nmaking the order under sub-section (1) of Section 145” while
\nthe other  two situations  have, necessarily,  to be  at the
\nfinal stage  of the  proceeding initiated by the preliminary
\norder. Now,  the preliminary order is required to enjoin the
\nparties not  only to  appear  before  the  Magistrate  on  a
\nspecified date\tbut also to put in their written statements.
\nSub-section (3)\t of  Section  145  prescribes  the  mode  of
\nservice of the preliminary order on the parties. Sub-section
\n(4) casts  a duty  on the  Magistrate to  peruse the written
\nstatements of  the parties,  to receive the evidence adduced
\nby them,  to take  further evidence  if\t necessary  and,  if
\npossible, to  decide which  of the parties was in possession
\non the\tdate of\t the preliminary  order. If  the  Magistrate
\ndecides that  one of  the parties was in possession he is to
\nmake a\tfinal order  in the  manner provided  by sub-section
\n(6). Provision\tfor the\t two situations where the Magistrate
\nis unable  to decide  which of the parties was in possession
\nor where  he is\t of the\t view that  neither of\tthem was  in
\npossession is made in Section 146
\n630<\/span>
\nunder which  he may  attach the subject of dispute until the
\ndetermination of the rights of parties by a competent Court.
\nThe scheme  of Sections\t 145 and 146 is that the Magistrate,
\non being  satisfied about  the existence of a dispute likely
\nto cause  a breach  of the peace, issues a preliminary order
\nstating the grounds of his satisfaction and calling upon the
\nparties to  appear  before  him\t and  submit  their  written
\nstatements. Then  he proceeds  to peruse  the statements, to
\nreceive and  to take  evidence and  to decide  which of\t the
\nparties was  in possession  on the  date of  the preliminary
\norder. On  the other  hand if he is unable to decide who was
\nin such\t possession or if he is of the view that none of the
\nparties was  in such possession he may say so. If he decides
\nthat one  of the  parties was in possession, he declares the
\npossession of  such party.  In the  other two  situations he
\nattaches the  property.\t Thus  a  proceeding  begun  with  a
\npreliminary order  must be followed up by an enquiry and end
\nwith the Magistrate deciding in one of three ways and making
\nconsequential orders.  There is\t no half way house, there is
\nno question  of stopping  in  the  middle  and\tleaving\t the
\nparties to  go to the Civil Court. Proceeding may however be
\nstopped at any time if one or other of the parties satisfies
\nthe magistrate\tthat there  has never  been or\tthere is  no
\nlonger any dispute likely to cause a breach of the peace. If
\nthere is  no dispute  likely to cause a breach of the peace,
\nthe  foundation\t for  the  jurisdiction\t of  the  magistrate
\ndisappears. The\t magistrate  then  cancels  the\t preliminary
\norder. This  is provided  by Section  145  sub-section\t(5).
\nExcept for  the reason\tthat there  is no  dispute likely to
\ncause a\t breach of  the peace  and as  provided\t by  Section
\n145(5), a  proceeding initiated by a preliminary order under
\nSection 145(1)\tmust run  its full course. Now, in a case of
\nemergency, a magistrate may attach the property, at any time
\nafter making the preliminary order. This is the first of the
\nsituations provided in Section 146(1) in which an attachment
\nmay be\teffected. There is no express stipulation in Section
\n146 that  the jurisdiction  of the  magistrate ends with the
\nattachment. Nor\t is it\timplied. Far from it. The obligation
\nto proceed  with the  enquiry as  prescribed by\t Section 145
\nsub-section 4  is against  any such  implication. Suppose  a
\nmagistrate draws up a preliminary order under section 145(1)
\nand immediately\t follows it  up\t with  an  attachment  under
\nSection 146(1), the whole exercise of stating the grounds of
\nhis satisfaction  and calling  upon the\t parties  to  appear
\nbefore him  and\t submit\t their\twritten\t statements  becomes
\nfutile if  he is  to have  no further  jurisdiction  in\t the
\nmatter. And  yet he cannot make an order of attachment under
\nSection 146(1)\ton the\tground of  emergency  without  first
\nmaking a  preliminary order  in\t the  manner  prescribed  by
\nSection 145(1).\t There is  no reason  why we  should adopt a
\nconstruction which will lead to
\n631<\/span>
\nsuch  inevitable   contradictions.  We\tmentioned  a  little
\nearlier that  the only provision for stopping the proceeding
\nand cancelling\tthe preliminary\t order is  to  be  found  in
\nSection 145(5)\tand it\tcan only be on the ground that there
\nis no  longer any  dispute likely  to cause  a breach of the
\npeace. An  emergency is\t the basis  of attachment  under the
\nfirst limb  of Section\t146(1) and if there is an emergency,
\nno one\tcan say\t that there  is no dispute likely to cause a
\nbreach of the peace.\n<\/p>\n
     Let us examine if a comparative study of the provisions
\nas they stood, before 1955 and after 1955 under the old Code
\nand as\tthey now  stand under  the 1973\t Code lead  us to  a
\nconclusion  other  than\t that  indicated  in  the  preceding
\nparagraph. From\t the comparative table of the provisions, it
\nis seen\t that there  were two  principal changes made by the
\n1955 amendment. The first was that the preliminary order was
\nalso to\t require the  parties to  put in  documents and\t the
\naffidavits of  such persons as they intended to rely upon in
\nsupport of  their claims.  The magistrate  was to decide the
\ncase on\t a  consideration  of  the  written  statements\t the
\ndocuments and the affidavits put in by the parties and after
\nhearing them.  The position earlier was that the parties had
\nthe right  to adduce  evidence and the magistrate could take
\nfurther evidence  if he\t so desired.  The second  change was
\nthat in\t the two  situations where  he was unable to satisfy
\nhimself as  to which  of the  parties was  in possession  or
\nwhere he decided that none of the parties was in possession,
\nafter attaching\t the property, the magistrate was himself to
\nrefer the  dispute to  the Civil Court instead of leaving it
\nto the\tparties to  go to  the Civil Court. He was to obtain
\nthe finding  of the  Civil Court and thereafter conclude the
\nproceeding under  Section 145  Criminal\t Procedure  Code  in
\nconformity with the decision of the Civil Court. The revised
\nprocedure introduced  by the 1955 amendment was not found to
\nwork satisfactorily  and,  therefore,  it  was,\t apparently,
\nthought desirable  to  revert  to  the\told  procedure.\t The
\nprovisions of  Sections 145  and 146  of the  1973 Code\t are
\nsubstantially  the  same  as  the  corresponding  provisions
\nbefore the  1955 amendment.  The only  noticeable change  is
\nthat the  second proviso  to Section  145(4)  (as  it  stood
\nbefore the  1955  amendment)  has  now\tbeen  transposed  to
\nSection 146  but without  the words  “pending  his  decision
\nunder this  Section” and  with the  words “at any time after
\nmaking the  order under\t Section  145(1)”  super-added.\t The
\nchange,\t clearly,   is\tin   the  interests   of  convenient
\ndraftsmanship. All  situations in which an attachment may be
\nmade are  now mentioned\t together in  Section 146. The words
\n“pending his  decision under  this section”  have apparently
\nbeen omitted  as unnecessary  since Section 145 provides how
\nthe proceeding initiated by a preliminary order must pro-\n<\/p>\n
632<\/span><\/p>\n
ceed and  end and  therefore an attachment made ‘at any time
\nafter making  under Section  145(1)’ can only continue until
\nthe termination of the proceeding. At the termination of the
\nproceeding, if he finds one of the parties was in possession
\nas stipulated, the magistrate must make an order as provided
\nin Section 145(6) and withdraw the attachment as provided in
\nSection 146(1) since there can be no dispute likely to cause
\na breach  of the  peace once  an order\tin terms  of Section
\n145(6) is made.\n<\/p>\n
     In our  view, it is wrong to hold that the magistrate’s
\nJurisdiction ends  as soon  as an  attachment is made on the
\nground of  emergency. A\t large number  of cases\t decided  by
\nseveral High  Courts some  taking one  view and\t the other a
\ndifferent view\twere read  to us.  We  do  not\tconsider  it
\nnecessary to  refer to\tthem except  to acknowledge  that we
\nderived considerable assistance from the judgment of Lahiri,
\nJ., in\tKshetra Mohan  Sarkar v. Paran Chandra Mandal(1), in
\narriving at  our  conclusion.  We  may\talso  add  that\t the
\nquestion now  at issue\tdid not\t arise for  consideration in
\nChandu Naik  & Ors.  v. Sitaram B. Naik & Anr.<\/a> (supra). What
\nwas decided  there was\tthat a\tproceeding under Section 145
\nCriminal Procedure  Code did  not abate because of Section 8
\nof the\tMaharashtra Vacant Land (Prohibition of unauthorised
\nOccupation and\tSummary Eviction)  Act, 1975.  In the result
\nthe appeal is dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
P.B.R.\t\t\t\t\t   Appeal dismissed.\n633<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Mathuralal vs Bhawarlal & Anr on 13 September, 1979 Equivalent citations: 1980 AIR 242, 1980 SCR (1) 620 Author: O C Reddy Bench: Reddy, O. Chinnappa (J) PETITIONER: MATHURALAL Vs. RESPONDENT: BHAWARLAL & ANR. DATE OF JUDGMENT13\/09\/1979 BENCH: REDDY, O. CHINNAPPA (J) BENCH: REDDY, O. CHINNAPPA (J) DESAI, D.A. CITATION: 1980 […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-142460","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nMathuralal vs Bhawarlal & Anr on 13 September, 1979 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mathuralal-vs-bhawarlal-anr-on-13-september-1979\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Mathuralal vs Bhawarlal & Anr on 13 September, 1979 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mathuralal-vs-bhawarlal-anr-on-13-september-1979\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1979-09-12T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-01-14T20:23:24+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"27 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mathuralal-vs-bhawarlal-anr-on-13-september-1979#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mathuralal-vs-bhawarlal-anr-on-13-september-1979\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Mathuralal vs Bhawarlal & Anr on 13 September, 1979\",\"datePublished\":\"1979-09-12T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-01-14T20:23:24+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mathuralal-vs-bhawarlal-anr-on-13-september-1979\"},\"wordCount\":4508,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mathuralal-vs-bhawarlal-anr-on-13-september-1979#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mathuralal-vs-bhawarlal-anr-on-13-september-1979\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mathuralal-vs-bhawarlal-anr-on-13-september-1979\",\"name\":\"Mathuralal vs Bhawarlal & Anr on 13 September, 1979 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1979-09-12T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-01-14T20:23:24+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mathuralal-vs-bhawarlal-anr-on-13-september-1979#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mathuralal-vs-bhawarlal-anr-on-13-september-1979\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mathuralal-vs-bhawarlal-anr-on-13-september-1979#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Mathuralal vs Bhawarlal & Anr on 13 September, 1979\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Mathuralal vs Bhawarlal & Anr on 13 September, 1979 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mathuralal-vs-bhawarlal-anr-on-13-september-1979","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Mathuralal vs Bhawarlal & Anr on 13 September, 1979 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mathuralal-vs-bhawarlal-anr-on-13-september-1979","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1979-09-12T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-01-14T20:23:24+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"27 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mathuralal-vs-bhawarlal-anr-on-13-september-1979#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mathuralal-vs-bhawarlal-anr-on-13-september-1979"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Mathuralal vs Bhawarlal & Anr on 13 September, 1979","datePublished":"1979-09-12T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-01-14T20:23:24+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mathuralal-vs-bhawarlal-anr-on-13-september-1979"},"wordCount":4508,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mathuralal-vs-bhawarlal-anr-on-13-september-1979#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mathuralal-vs-bhawarlal-anr-on-13-september-1979","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mathuralal-vs-bhawarlal-anr-on-13-september-1979","name":"Mathuralal vs Bhawarlal & Anr on 13 September, 1979 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1979-09-12T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-01-14T20:23:24+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mathuralal-vs-bhawarlal-anr-on-13-september-1979#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mathuralal-vs-bhawarlal-anr-on-13-september-1979"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mathuralal-vs-bhawarlal-anr-on-13-september-1979#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Mathuralal vs Bhawarlal & Anr on 13 September, 1979"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/142460","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=142460"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/142460\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=142460"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=142460"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=142460"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}