Short Note : 1. Non-applicant No.1 Yagyasaran Ram filed an application on 15-12-1970 under section 145 of the old Code against non-applicants 2 to 7, in the Court of Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Gopad Banas (Sidhi). The Sub-Divisional Magistrate passed the preliminary order and even attached the land in dispute. He ultimately decided that both the parties were owners of the land in dispute and were in joint possession thereof. He, therefore, dismissed the application, released the property from attachment and directed that the land including the crop be given in the joint possession of the parties. The Additional Sessions Judge, Sidhi found that the copies of the revenue records clearly make out that the land in dispute was in possession of the applicant Yagyasaran Ram. According to him it was not open to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate to disbelieve undisputed Khasra entries for mechanical reasons. He further observed that the order of delivery of joint possession was such which could not be sustained in law. Held: A perusal of the order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate clearly goes to show that on a consideration that both the parties had a common ancestor and belong to the same family he felt that they were entitled to joint possession of the land in dispute. It was entirely a wrong approach. He does not seem to have considered the question of possession as is contemplated by section 145 of the old Code. The entries regarding possession in favour of the non-applicant No. 1 was for quite a good number of years prior to the filing of the application under section 145 of the old Code. These entries for all those years could not have been negatived by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate just because he felt that the action of the Patwari in making those entries was unauthorised one. The findings that have been arrived at by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate are perverse and suffer from material illegality which certainly call for interference. B.S.V. Temple v. P. Krishna Murthi, AIR 1973 SC 1299 relied on. State of M. P. v. Satya Narayan, Cr. Revn. No. 30 of 1969 decided on 17-3-1975, State of M.P. v. Shobha Nath & others, distinguished Revision allowed.