'*«»**rie*4Biya»tf8!n.iAaeiB 's^' HIGH COURT OF CHHATT1SGARH AT BILASPUR rSB: Hon'ble Mr.T.P.Sharma.J.I Criminal Appeal No. 640/1990 APPELLANTS RESPONDENTS 2. VERSUS 1. 2. 3. Smt. Bedubai, widow of Gangaprasad Sahu, aged 5Q years, resident of village i-1ardi, P.S. Lalbag (Rajnandgaon) Tahsil and District Rajnandgaon. Tulsiramson of Suklal Sahu aged 61 years, cultlvator, and M.ukhtyar of Bedubai, resident of viiiage Hardi, P.S. Lalbag, Rajnandgaon. The State of Madhya Pradesh through the District Magistrate, Rajnandgaon. Bhagirathi son of Hagru Chandrakar aged 58 years Sooraj son of Bhagirathi Chandrakar aged 35 years, Respondents 2 anc|! 3 are residents of Mohad, P.S. Lalbag, Rajnandgaon, Tahsll and distriot Rajnandgaon. APPEAL. UNDER^SECTION 454 OF THE CQDE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. 1973 Shri Anand Shukta counsel for the appellants Shri P.K.C. Tiwari iearned Sr. counsel with Shri Shashi Bhushan for respondents 2 and 3. Shri Vinod Tekam forthe respondent No.l/State. (ORALV J U DGM E N T (29.7.2008) Thisappeal is directed agajnst theorder dated 7.6.1990 passedbythe Additional Sessions Judge, Rajnandgaon; in Sessions Case No. 32/1990 whereby learned Additionat Sessions Judge, passed order to the effect that respondente 2 and 3 are best entitled for possession of fractor trolley urider section 452 ofthe Code ofCriminal Procedure. 2. The order is challenged on the ground that the tractor was purch^ed by Gangaram - husband of the appellant and after his death the appellant inherited his property. At the time of, alleged seizure of the property the appellant was in possession of the tractor in thecapacity of owner and therefore, she is best entitled forpossession of the property and the trial has committed an illegality by passing the impugned order. eourt , %: \..J 'ij^^ss@^ ^saiaay — z. - 3. l-1eard counsel for the partles and perused the record of the trial court inciuding the impugned order. ' 4. It is argued on behalf of the appellants that tractor bearing registration No. MKR 819 with frolley vias purehased by deceased Ganga Prasad on loan. Its possession was transferred to respondents No. 2 and 3 for their use and payment of installment but they failed to do so. Since the appeilant inherited the property of her husband after his dealh, she being the owner ofthe fractor and trolley is best entitled for possession ofthe same. 5. On the other hand~order impugned is supported on behalf of the respondente and it is argued that the appellant and the respondent Bhagirathi (respondent No.2) were close friends and the tractor was purohased by Ganga fead. It was agreed that respondents No. 2 and 3 wiil pay the amount of loan and will be the owner ofthe tractor. 6. According to the record of the frial Court and argiunents advanced by the parties, it is not disputed that the alleged tractor was jiurchased by Ganga Prasad, possession ofthe-tractor was parted with respondente 2 and 3, they were using the tractor and they paid the loan amount to some extent probably Rs.74,000/-. 7. Ganga Prasad committed suicide and the offence under section 306 of the IPC was registered against respondents 2 and 3. Under the provisions of section 452 ofthe Code of Criminal Procedure the Court is required to decide as to who isthe person best entitled for possession of the property. It is not disputed that the property was purehased by Ganga Prasad and the appellant namely Bedubai who is successor of Ganga Prasad inherited the property and became owner thereof. According to her statement; after the death of Ganga Prasad tractor trolley were taken away Trom her possession by respondents 2 and 3 and lastly the same were seiz?d and given to the custody of Bedubai on Supurdnama. Ex. P-2 is a letter written by deceased Ganga Prasad to respondent No.2 Bhagirathi which reveals that the tractor was purehased by Ganga Prasad on the basis of some agreement with respondent No.2 but respondent No.2 had failed to perform his part of agreement although the agreement is not in writing but it is revealed from Ex-2 and also from the statement of Bedubai wife of Ganga Prasad that she told the accused persons to deposit the loan amount and get the tractor redeemed from mortgage. But even after receipt of notice from the Bank respondents 2 and 3 have failed to deposit the loan amount in accordancewith the demand and they have paid only Rs. 74,000/- and accordingto paragraph 12 ofthe judgment Rs. 55,066/- were remaining Tor payment. Admittedly Ganga Prasad was the recorded 's^ owner of theproperty, Bedubai is his wife. There is no document of ownership in favour of the respondents 2 and 3. Thus appellant Bedubai is the person best entitled for possession of the property of Ganga Prasad. Taking into consideration the fact that respondents 2 and 3 have paid the !oan amount of Rs. 74,000/- and they were using the tractor in terms of the oral agreement, the order impugned is not sustainable in law and requires some modification. 8. Accordingly, the impugned order is modified and it is directed that on the condition that the loan amount of Rs. 74,000/- already paid by the respondents 2 and 3 shall be given to them and the property in question i.e. tractor bearing registration No. MKR 819 with trolley shall be glven to the appellant Bedubai as she is best entitied for possession of the same. Said amount of Rs. 74,000/- shall be returned to respondents 2 and 3 within a period ofsix months to make the order absolute. Sd/-;, :.' i T. P. Sharma Judge Q>