JUDGMENT Gyanendra Kumar, J. - This revision arises out of proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. The facts unfolded by the evidence on record are that in plot No. 4 situate in village Dubki there was a Bhumidari grove of one Pitambar measuring 1 bigha 11 biswas. On April 29, 1954 (1361 F.) the said Pitamber mortgaged the grove land with possession with the applicant. Later on the said Pitambar sold the plot along with the grove to Triloki Nath, first party, and his two brothers Kar Nath and Gopi Nath by means of a sale deed dated October 20, 1954. (1362F.) Thereafter there was litigation between the parties regarding the grove land (being suit no. 53 of 1959 of the court of J.O. Phulpur) which was decided on April 1, 1959. In pursuance hereof joint possession of the land was delivered to both the parties on June 30, 1960. Subsequently on December 1, 1962 an agreement was arrived at between Triloki Nath and Har Nath on the one hand and Ram Lakhan Pandey on the other, wherein the vendees admitted the right and possession of the mortgagee over the disputed land. The vendees accordingly promised to redeem the mortgage by selling a portion of the land measuring 13 biswas in favour of the applicant. On July 11, 1963 Triloki Nath first party made an application under Section 145 Cr.P.C. in the court of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Handia. The said Magistrate allowed the application by his order dated December 10. 1983 holding Triloki Nath to be, in possession of the disputed land and ordering the applicant to desist from interfering with his peaceful possession meanwhile. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order the applicant went up in revision before the Sessions Judge, which was also dismissed on July 8, 1964; hence this revision. 2. Apart from filing affidavits in support of their respective cases there are Khasras as well on the record for the years 1359, 1363, 1364, 1370 and 1371 Faslis. In Khasra 1359 F. the names of vendees have been shown in the main column, while the name of the mortgagee-applicant has been shown in the remarks column, relating to actual possession. Similar is the case with respect to the entries in Khasra of 1363, 1384 and 1371 Faslis. However, in the Khasras of 1370 F. there is no entry at all in the remarks column. Similar is the case with respect to the entries in Khasra of 1363, 1384 and 1371 Faslis. However, in the Khasras of 1370 F. there is no entry at all in the remarks column. The court below, principally acting upon this entry has held that it was Triloki Nath vendee who was in possession of the plot at the relevant time and as such upheld the order of the learned Magistrate. 3. I am afraid both the courts below have failed to appreciate the facts, and law in their proper perspective. It has to be remembered that Ram Lakhan Fandey was admittedly the mortgagee in possession of the plot in question since April 20, 1954 (1361F.). Therefore the mere sale of the plot to Triloki Nath and his brothers six months later on October 20, 1954 (1362 F.) would not make any difference, so far as the actual possession over the grove-land is concerned, inasmuch as the mortgage of the plot remained unaffected by the sale deed in question. There is also the deed of possession dated June 30, 1960 on the record, whereby joint possession was delivered to the two rival parties. If the possession of the parties had become joint on June 30, 1980, there was no question of launching proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C., for they have no application to cases of joint possession. 4. At any rate, even if there was no joint possession, it has to be remembered that in the agreement dated December 1, 1962 Triloki Nath and his brother Har Nath had admitted the possession of the applicant as mortgagee of the plot in question. The Khasra of 1359, 1363, 1364 and 1371 Faslis clearly prove physical possession of the mortgagee over the grove land, although in the main column the possession of the vendees has been shown as owners. In proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. the courts are concerned only with the actual possession over the land and not constructive possession thereof. It is true that in the Khasra of 1370 F. the name of Ram Lakhan Pandey mortgagee does not find place. In proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. the courts are concerned only with the actual possession over the land and not constructive possession thereof. It is true that in the Khasra of 1370 F. the name of Ram Lakhan Pandey mortgagee does not find place. But it appears to be a case of mere omission, inasmuch, as his name had been regularly recorded not only in the year 1359, 1363 and 1364 Faslis but also in the year immediately following 1370 F., that is, 1371 F. It is a well recognised principle of evidence that if certain set of facts is proved to have existed at a particular time it shall be deemed to continue till the contrary is established. Hence if the applicant was in possession of the plot since the date of mortgage, that is, 1361F. the possession of the mortgagee shall be deemed to continue till the mortgage is redeemed. The mortgage in favour of the applicant has not been redeemed so far, as is also clear from the deed of agreement dated December 1, 1962 executed by Triloki Nath and his brother, in which the existence of a valid mortgage in favour of the applicant and his possession over the disputed grove land have clearly been admitted. There is no evidence on record to show as to how all of a sudden Triloki Nath had his brother managed to dispossess the mortgagee and enter into possession of the grove land. 5. In the result, I allow the revision, set aside the orders of the courts below and hold that it was Ram Lakhan Pandey applicant, who was in possession of the plot in question at all material times. The property shall be released in his favour. Triloki Nath (opposite party) is restrained from interfering with his possession till the applicant is evicted therefrom by due process of law.