Judgment :- 1. The question that arises for decision in this Criminal Revision Petition is whether the Magistrate exercising jurisdiction under S.145 Cr. P. C is competent to vary the conclusion of a civil court's finding regarding declaration of title or possession over immovable property even after the operation of such finding by the civil court is stayed or suspended by the courts superior to such civil court in appeal or revision. 2. The Executive First Class Magistrate, Trivandrum, passed a preliminary order under S.145 Cr. P. C. on 24 71970 directing the petitioner and the respondents to appear before him and to file written statements of their respective claims regarding the actual possession of the property in dispute. The Magistrate also attached the property and placed the same under the receivership of the village officer who was directed to take possession of the property and to manage it in accordance with law. Accordingly, the village officer took possession of the property. Thereafter, an enquiry was conducted as a result of which the Magistrate held that the petitioner did not get actual possession of the property and the possession has been with the respondents, who are described as B party and the petitioner as the A party. It is against this order that the present revision petition is filed. 3. The property in dispute is 2 acres 92 cents in extent which originally belonged to the respondents. They executed two mortgages, one on 1st October, 1955 and the other on the 14th March, 1956 in favour of the petitioner's predecessor-in-title who in turn assigned those mortgages to the petitioner. The dispute arose as to whether the actual possession of the property had passed to the mortgagees or whether the actual possession was retained by the mortgagees. So, the petitioner filed O. S.575 of 1963 in the Munsiff's Court, Trivandrum for a permanent injunction restraining the respondents from entering upon the property. That suit was decreed as prayed for on 15th June, 1967. An appeal filed by the respondents was also dismissed on 10th March, 1970. In both these proceedings the courts found that the possession of the property has been with the petitioner on the basis of the two mortgages. Even after the finding, there has again been disputes between the petitioner and the respondents as regards possession. An appeal filed by the respondents was also dismissed on 10th March, 1970. In both these proceedings the courts found that the possession of the property has been with the petitioner on the basis of the two mortgages. Even after the finding, there has again been disputes between the petitioner and the respondents as regards possession. So, the petitioner moved the Executive First Class Magistrate to take action under S.145 Cr. P.C. In the meanwhile, the respondents filed second appeals to the High Court against the decree and judgment of the two courts below. In that appeal, the High Court passed an order staying the operation of the injunction order passed by the courts below on 9 71970.On the strength of that slay, the learned Magistrate held that it would be unsafe to act upon the judgments of the courts below unless and until it is confirmed by the High Court. The Magistrate had also taken into consideration the documents which both parties filed before the civil courts in coming to the conclusion that possession of the property has been with the respondents. Anyway, the learned Executive First Class Magistrate was influenced by the order of the High Court in coming to the conclusion that the respondents have been in actual possession of the property. 4. It is well settled that where the civil court declares the title of a person to a land confirming his possession, the Magistrate cannot hold otherwise in proceeding under S.145 Cr. P.C, especially when no change in the situation and the circumstances had taken place since the filing of the suit. This view has been uniformly followed by all the High Courts. In Imambu v. Hussenbi AIR. 1960 Mysore 203, it is stated as follows: decision as well. But the mere pendency of a suit in a Civil Court is wholly an irrelevant circumstance and does not take away the dispute which bad necessitated a proceeding under S.145." 5. In Tekchand v. Sabir Husain, AIR. 1955 Hyderabad 65 it is held as follows: " in the case of an order of a Civil Court of possession of a very recent date where there is no evidence to show disturbance or change of that possession had occurred, the Magistrate is bound to respect the civil Court's order and if he does not do so he would be acting without jurisdiction." 6. In Venkatachalam v. Palayam AIR. 1953 Madras 594 a similar view is upheld. It runs as follows: "In a case where the petitioner after going to civil Courts several times and obtaining an order in his favour, is frustrated in his attempts to be in possession by the high handed action of the counter petitioners, it is the duty of the Magistrate to support the decisions of the civil Courts and see. as far as possible, that the decrees of the civil Courts are maintained by declaring the petitioner to be in possession of the property. Otherwise it would only amount to putting a premium upon the high handed and unlawful activities of the other side." 7. It is also relevant in this regard to point out the observation made in another decision reported in Malkappa v. Padmanna, AIR. 1959 Mysore 122. It runs as follows: "The duty is to see that the parties actually go to a civil court and not fight about the land. If the parties have already gone there, the Magistrate has no longer any duty to perform. It is also necessary to state that one of the pillars of public peace is the respect for orders of the Civil Courts and the proceedings before a Civil Court." In Indra Bahadur v. State of Vindhya Pradesh, AIR. 1952 Vindhya Pradesh 67 the view is expressed as follows: ' Where the highest Civil Court declares the title of a person to a land and confirms his possession, the magistrate cannot only two days after the decree, hold otherwise in a proceeding under S.145 Cr. P C. specially when no change in the situation and the circumstances have taken place since the filing of the civil suit. Proceedings under S 145 are not of the nature of criminal proceedings properly so called, where the Criminal Court has to arrive at a finding independently of any decision of a Civil Court." 9. In M C.Pally v. Rev. B. Kambil and others, 1968 KLT. 503 this court also made a similar observation. It is at page 507. The observations take into account different stages of the enquiry when the civil court's conclusion is to prevail. In M C.Pally v. Rev. B. Kambil and others, 1968 KLT. 503 this court also made a similar observation. It is at page 507. The observations take into account different stages of the enquiry when the civil court's conclusion is to prevail. It reads: "The civil court has the power primarily to decide disputes regarding immovable property and the criminal court must give effect to the decision of the civil court: the criminal court must always treat the order of the civil court, if one is in existence though it be an interim order, as to have settled the dispute between the parties: but, if subsequent to that order (it is here that the question whether the order of the civil court is recent or old becomes relevant) there has been a change in the situation, the criminal court may take that also into consideration in shaping its order: and in taking the last mentioned course, the criminal court must always act cautiously bearing in mind that its function is only to prevent a breach of the peace and it is the function of the civil court to settle disputes regarding possesion or user of immovable property." 10. Thus, when there is a recent decision of a Civil Court regarding possession of the property in dispute, the criminal court in proceeding under S.145 Cr. P.C. should act in support of that decision. The decision of the Civil Court is not to be confined to the final decisions ion the suits by way of decrees. Even when an interim injunction is granted for the duration of 'a pending suit for perpetual injunction the civil court does come to a prima facie finding that the party in whose favour it grants the injunction is in possession of the property, in respect of which the injunction is granted. Although on an appeal preferred against, the injunction granted by the trial court has been stayed or its operation suspended, such stay does not amount to setting aside the finding of the trial court on the question of possession; at the conclusion of the appeal the appellate court may vacate that finding in which case also there will be a finding on the question of possession though it may be different from the one recorded by the trial court. There is, therefore, in such a case, a decision of a civil court which the Magistrate is expected to respect and sustain without prejudice, no doubt, to his duty of preserving public peace. 11. In this case, the finding by the Munsiff was that the respondents herein failed to prove that they are in possession of the property in dispute. The relevant issues were: Issue No. 4: Were the mortgages followed with possession? "5: Is the plaintiff in possession of the suit properties? "6: Is the injunction claimed allowable? The Munsiff found all these issues in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants. The District Judge dismissed the appeals preferred by the respondents holding that the possession of the property has been with the petitioner. The fact that the High Court has issued an order suspending the operation of the injunction did not vacate the concurrent finding of fact arrived at by the two courts below that the property has been in the possession of the petitioner. Since the Magistrate depended upon the said order of the High Court and bis conclusion was influenced on that account, it cannot be said that the Magistrate has taken into consideration the finding of fact that the property has been in the possession of the petitioner. The Magistrate is bound to respect and sustain the finding arrived at by the civil court as regards possession inspite of the stay orders by the High Court. Accordingly, I find that the order is not sustainable and as such it has to be set aside. 12. In the result, the revision petition is allowed. The order by the Executive First Class Magistrate that the respondents are in possession of the property is set aside. A. N. K. Allowed.