JUDGMENT : P.K. Mohanti, J. - Both the criminal revisions are directed against preliminary orders u/s 145, Code of Criminal Procedure and will be governed by this common judgment. 2. The opposite parties filed Title Suit No. 32 of 1972 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Nayagarh against the Petitioners for partition of joint family immovable properties. They filed a petition for appointment of a receiver, or in the alternative for issue of a temporary injunction restraining the Petitioners from entering upon the suit lands. Both the prayers were rejected by the learned Subordinate Judge on 29-9-1973, Thereafter the opposite parties filed petitions before the learned Magistrate alleging that though there was no partition of the properties by metes and bounds they were in separate possession of portions of the properties and that the Petitioners were attempting to disturb their possession over the same. The learned Magistrate was satisfied that there was likelihood of breach of peace and, accordingly, passed the preliminary orders tinder Section 145, Code of Criminal Procedure which are challenged in these criminal revisions. 3. Admittedly the lands in dispute are the subject matter of the suit and a preliminary decree for partition of the same has been passed in the meantime. Unless there is a partition, any member of the family who is in separate possession of any part of the joint family properties can only be in possession on behalf of other family members. No member of the joint family can claim any part of the joint family property exclusively for himself, because every member of the joint family has a right in the property, though some portion thereof may be in possession of one of the members of the joint family. In a proceeding u/s 145 Code of Criminal Procedure the dispute must be between the parties each of whom claims exclusive possession of the property in dispute. Where the dispute is with regard to the property in the joint possession of the parties, a proceeding cannot be initiated u/s 145 Code of Criminal Procedure. This view is supported by the decisions reported in Sham Lal Mahton v. Rajendra Lal AIR 1920 Pat. 513 and K. Janardhan Reddy and Another Vs. The VIth City Magistrate Criminal Court, Hyderabad and Others. This view is supported by the decisions reported in Sham Lal Mahton v. Rajendra Lal AIR 1920 Pat. 513 and K. Janardhan Reddy and Another Vs. The VIth City Magistrate Criminal Court, Hyderabad and Others. In case the parties find it inconvenient to continue in joint possession, they may approach the Civil Court for partition of the properties in accordance with the preliminary decree and in case they appear to be sent on committing a breach of peace, the Magistrate may start a proceeding u/s 107, Code of Criminal Procedure against both or one of the parties, as may appear to him to be expedient. 4. For the aforesaid reasons, I allow the criminal revisions and set aside the orders of the learned Magistrate. Revisions allowed. Final Result : Allowed