JUDGMENT : K.P. Mohapatra, J. - This appeal is directed against the order passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Sonepur reversing an order passed by the learned Munsif, Sonepur, and directing restitution u/s 144 of ~he Code of CPC ('Code' for short). 2. Facts not in dispute are stated-in brief. The Appellant instituted Title Suit No. 87 of 1966 in the Court of the learned Munsif, Sane pur, for declaration of her title in respect of Schedule 'B' land and in the alternative for partition of Schedule 'A' land of the plaint. The suit was decreed and her title in respect of Schedule 'B' land was declared. The alternative prayer for partition of Schedule 'A' land was refused. Rahas Rana the predecessor-in-interest of the Respondents who was one of the Defendants appealed before the learned. Subordinate Judge, Sonepur, in Title Appeal No. 57/42 of 1970/71, but without any success. He thereafter preferred Second Appeal No. 161 of 1973 in this Court in which the judgments and decrees passed by the learned Courts below were set aside and it was declared that both the Appellants and Rahas Rana were entitled to joint possession of Schedule 'B' land of the plaint. 3. Before disposal of the Second Appeal in the manner stated above, however, the Appellant -had taken possession of Schedule 'B' land in Execution Case No. 11/53 of 1973, On account of the aforesaid reason, after disposal of the Second Appeal in his favour, Rahas Rana filed a petition u/s 144 of the Code in the Court of the learned Munsif for restitution of the said land in his favour. The Appellant in her counter stated that Rahas Rana was not entitled to restitution because of the decree for joint possession passed in the Second Appeal. He could, however, institute a suit for partition for allotment and separate possession of his legitimate share. 4. The leaned Munsif held as follows: Accordingly the possession of the O.P.-Plff. over the B schedule property is doubtless the possession not only for himself alone but also for the deftPetitioner as well and in view of the findings of the Hon'ble High Court." He, therefore, refused restitution. The learned Subordinate Judge in the impugned order, however, took, a different view and held: .... over the B schedule property is doubtless the possession not only for himself alone but also for the deftPetitioner as well and in view of the findings of the Hon'ble High Court." He, therefore, refused restitution. The learned Subordinate Judge in the impugned order, however, took, a different view and held: .... In the circumstances, it cannot be said that Appellants are not entitled to restitution as they were not in possession of the 'B' schedule lands. In view of the observations of the Hon'ble Court in favour of the deceased Rahasa Rana that he was in joint possession with the Respondent of the 'B' schedule lands. I have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that the Appellants are entitled to restitution. Accordingly, he allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the learned Court below and directed restitution. 5. The doctrine of restitution is that on the reversal of a judgment the law imposes an obligation on the party to the suit, who received the benefit of the erroneous decree, to make restitution to the other party for what he, had lost and it is the duty of the Court to enforce that obligation unless it is shown that restitution would be clearly contrary to the interest of justice (See AIR 1943 189 (Privy Council), Lal Bhagwant Singh Vs. Rai Sahib Lala Sri Kishen Das Binayak Swain Vs. Ramesh Chandra Panigrahi and Another Kusun Samal and Others Vs. Banamali Roul and Others, and Banchhanidhi Das v. Bhanu Sahuani and Ors. AIR 1974 Ori 148 respectively. This is a peculillr case in which the Appellant had taken possession of Schedule 'B' land, as a consequence of which the predecessor-in-interest of the Respondents had been dispossessed. But in the Second Appeal the decree was not reversed in the entirety. On the other hand it was held that both the parties were entitled to joint possession. According to the decree in the Second Appeal, the possession of the Appellant shall be deemed to be the possession of the Respondents. By way of restitution the Appellant cannot be entirely dispossessed from Schedule 'B', land, nor are the Respondents entitled to be delivered possession of the same fully. It is also not possible to make a division of Schedule 'B' land at this stage and allow restitution of a specific portion thereof in favour of the Respondents. By way of restitution the Appellant cannot be entirely dispossessed from Schedule 'B', land, nor are the Respondents entitled to be delivered possession of the same fully. It is also not possible to make a division of Schedule 'B' land at this stage and allow restitution of a specific portion thereof in favour of the Respondents. At such a juncture, as rightly urged by Mr. S. S. Das, learned Counsel for the Appellant, the best course available to either party would be to file a suit for partition so as to divide Schedule 'B' land of the plaint according to their respective shares. It would not serve anybody's purpose if symbolical delivery of possession is effected in' favour of the Respondents according to the submission of Mr. Pradipta Mohanty, learned Counsel for the Respondents, because joint possession has already been authoritatively declared in the Second Appeal in their favour. That apart, the dispute between the parties will not cease. Symbolical delivery of possession in the circumstances will not improve the Respondents possession vis-a-vis Schedule 'B' land of the plaint. 6. For the aforesaid reasons, the appeal is allowed and the judgment passed by the learned Subordinate, Judge is set aside, I make no order as to costs. Final Result : Allowed