JUDGMENT 1. This is an application in a proceeding under sec. 144 of the Code. The Sub-divisional Magistrate of Dinapur came to the conclusion, on the evidence of kabuliyats filed by the first party, that the first party was in possession, and directed the second party to refrain from interfering with their possession. The order of the Sub-divisional Magistrate cannot be sustained inasmuch as, when the question of possession was disputed, it should have been decided in a proper proceeding under sec. 144 of the Code. However, the District Magistrate, in the exercise of the power vested in him under sub-sec. (4) of sec 144 came to a conclusion quite different from that of the Sub-divisional Magistrate. He held that, according to his own experience, kabuliyats were of very little value and he thought that the tenants had rights of occupancy and they were entitled to possession, and he set aside the order of the Sub-divisional Magistrate and directed the second party to continue in possession and prohibited the first party from interfering with that possession. 2. This order is equally bad. It is clear that the matter of possession was taken into consideration without any evidence at all. The Magistrate proceeded entirely on the view of the effect of kabuliyats in this part of the country. The Magistrate ought, if necessary, to have proceeded under sec. 145 of the Code and decided the question of possession on evidence taken before the Court. That order must also be set aside. The result is that the order passed under sec. 144 of the Code by the Sub-divisional Magistrate as well as that by the District Magistrate must be set aside and the Sub-divisional Magistrate or the District Magistrate may, if he thinks proper, proceed under the law and decide the question of possession in a proceeding under sec. 145 of the Code.