JUDGMENT M.N. Shukla, J. - This reference arises out of proceedings u/S. 145 CrPC disposed of by Sri A.K. Das SDM Padrauna at Kasia by his order dated 24-6-1968 whereby he made a reference u/S. 145 CrPC to the civil court for a finding on the question of possession. Chandrika Singh challenged this reference to the civil court by filing a revision before the learned Sessions Judge, who accepting his contention, has referred the matter to the matter to this Court. 2. Briefly stated, the facts are that there was a dispute with regard to a land situate in village Dhokraha, police station Bisunpura, district Deoria. The proceedings were started on a report of the police and the property in dispute was attached after the passing of the preliminary order. The contestants, who filed the written statements, were Chandrika Singh an the one hand and Jagdeo on the other. Both the parties claimed to be the owners of the said land on the basis of the respective sale-deeds whereby the property was alleged to have been sold to them. Charan Singh claimed to be the owner of only half share towards the east, and Jagdeo laid the claim of ownership in respect of the entire land. The parties filed their affidavits and tendered other evidence. The learned Magistrate after considering the evidence of the parties eventually came to the following conclusion: "So it is evident that the disputed land is one and indivisible on the spot and neither of the parties is in possession of the whole. But I am unable to decided the actual sphere of possession." 3. On this finding the Magistrate made a reference to the civil court for decision on the question of possession u/S. 145, CrPC. It is this reference which has been challenged before me. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. 4. The above finding of the learned magistrate, when analysed, indicates that in his opinion none of the parties was in exclusive possession of the plot, that probably the parties were in possession of different portions of the land and the Magistrate was unable to precisely specify the extent and consequences of their possession. 4. The above finding of the learned magistrate, when analysed, indicates that in his opinion none of the parties was in exclusive possession of the plot, that probably the parties were in possession of different portions of the land and the Magistrate was unable to precisely specify the extent and consequences of their possession. This cannot, there-force, by deemed to be a case where the Magistrate was unable to record any finding with regard to the possession of the parties in respect of the subject matter of the dispute. Hence, the impugned order does not come within the scope of S. 146 of the CrPC and the reference was not competent. There is, however, another aspect of the case which has been placed before me and I think there is force in the point raised by the learned counsel for the parties. It was said that if in any proceeding u/S. 145 CrPC the Magistrate comes to the conclusion that the parties were in joint possession he becomes functus officio and the proceedings must be dropped. This view finds supports from a decision of this Court in Khem Chand v. Balwant (1967 AWR (HC) 113). I am in respectful agreement with the view taken in that decision and I accordingly hold that the impugned order was illegal. 5. Therefore, I accept this reference and set aside the order of the learned Magistrate dated 24.6.1968.