Short Note : 1. The revision is by the applicant-party No.1 against the orders of the Courts below holding the non-applicant No. 1 to be in possession of the suit lands in a proceeding under section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Held: After hearing the parties, I am of the opinion that the orders passed by the Courts below cannot be sustained and the conclusions reached are perverse and contrary to law. The Courts below have not considered the orders of the revenue Courts conferring Bhumiswami rights on the applicant under S. 190 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code 1959. The S.D.M. has not considered the Khasra entries from the year 1950 to 1974 showing possession of the applicant over the suit lands as Shikmi because the Patwari has not been examined. Though the Addl. Sessions Judge has held that the Khasra entries could not have been rejected for non-examination of Patwari but he also failed to place any reliance on these entries and instead preferred the Khasra entry for the year 1973-74 produced by the non-applicant No. 1 showing his possession recorded in the remark column of the Khasra, It may be mentioned that the possession of the N.A No. 1 has been recorded on the basis of registered sale-deed dated 21-11-1971 It has been overlooked that presumption, if any, is in favour of continuity of possession and the non-applicants have not let any evidence to show as to now the previous owner Ghhesa, who was not in possession, could have put the N.A. No. 1 in possession on the date of the execution of the sale deed. The recording of the name of the N.A. No. 1 in the remark column of the Khasra neither proves his title nor his possession. It bas not been explained in the Khasra as to how the possession of the N. A. 1 came to be recorded when in the earlier years the possession of the applicant has been shown all through. The Addl. Sessions Judge has also presumed the possession of the N.A. No.1 in view of the fact that he has produced revenue receipts for the years 1972 to 1974. These revenue receipts at the most can show. that the N.A. No.1 has been paying land revenue after he got suit lands mutated in his name. The Addl. Sessions Judge has also presumed the possession of the N.A. No.1 in view of the fact that he has produced revenue receipts for the years 1972 to 1974. These revenue receipts at the most can show. that the N.A. No.1 has been paying land revenue after he got suit lands mutated in his name. Non-production of the revenue receipts by the applicant will not disprove his case that he was in possession, when there are clinching evidence and the orders of the revenue Courts showing his possession. over the suit lands. This apart, in Civil Suit No. 21-A/1972 filed by the non-applicant No.1 the civil Court gave a finding that the applicant was in possession and so the previous temporary injunction by the N.A. No.1 was refused. The order of the civil Court has been affirmed by the District" Judge in misc. Civil Appeal No. 11/1974. In the order of the appellate Court a clear finding has been given that the applicant is in possession which is binding on the criminal Court. The Courts below have also not considered certified copy of the extract of the mutation register for the year 1973-74 showing that the applicants has been recorded to be the Bhumiswami of the suit lands on the basis of the orders of the revenue Courts. Therefore, there is overwhelming evidence on record to show that it is the applicant who is in possession of the suit lands. Simply because the Station House Officer reported that the non-applicant No.1 was in possession of the suit lands cannot prove the possession of the non-applicant No. 1. The Station House Officer has neither been examined nor he has filed any affidavit to show as to how he came to the conclusion-that it was the non-applicant No.1 who was in possession. The Courts below were, therefore, in error in simply relying on the report of the Station House Officer in preference to the orders of the revenue Courts and-also of the Civil Court. 2. The revision is allowed, the orders of the Courts below are set aside and it is held that the applicant was in possession of the suit Khasra Nos 16 and 134/41 on the date of the preliminary order the non-applicants are restrained from disturbing his possession until he is evicted therefrom in due course of laws. The applicant be placed in possession of the suit lands. The applicant be placed in possession of the suit lands. Revision allowed.