JUDGMENT R. N. Lal J. This petition is directed against the order of the Sub-divisional Magistrate, Jamui, in case No. 46M of 1975 under section 145 Cr. P. C. dated the 26th June, 1975 declaring the possession of the 1st party-opposite party over the disputed land measuring 24.27½ acres situated in village Telar and forbidding the second party-petitioners from disturbing the peaceful possession of the 1st party-opposite party till evicted by a competent court. 2. The 2nd party-petitioners are the cousins of the 1st party-opposite party Md. Moosa. A piece of land measuring 31.10½ acres had been purchased in the names of the petitioners by a registered sale deed from one Bibi Saleeman. The opposite party is the resident of village Telar whereas the petitioners are residents of village Arha in the subdivision of Jamui and the two villages are 3 miles apart. The 1st party-opposite party claimed to be in peaceful possession and cultivation of the entire land through his own bullocks and agricultural implements. According to him, the 2nd party-petitioners are only Farzidars as the said purchase itself was Benami by him in their names. A proceeding under section 144 Cr. P. C. was started between the parties which later on expired. The petitioners sold away about 6.05 acres of land to different purchasers out of the total area of 31.10½ acres and the sold away lands are not involved in the proceeding rather the proceeding was with regard to 24.29½ acres of land only. The petitioners had claimed that they are real purchasers and not Farzidars and they had cultivated the land through their men and bataidars of village Telar and the 1st party-opposite party had no concern therewith. 3. There was another proceeding under section 144 Cr. P. C. between the parties which was later converted into a proceeding under section 145 Cr. P. C. on 14.10.1981 The parties were directed to move the competent civil court for a decision under section 146 Cr P. C. The matter came up before this Court in Criminal Revision No. 1184 of 1981 and the aforesaid order of the court below was set aside with an observation that the proceeding had to be decided by the Sub-divisional Magistrate on the basis of the oral evidences produced before him. Thereafter, the Sub-divisional Magistrate recorded the oral evidences produced by the parties heard their arguments and passed the impugned order. 4. Thereafter, the Sub-divisional Magistrate recorded the oral evidences produced by the parties heard their arguments and passed the impugned order. 4. Admittedly, no registered sale deed or no proper rent receipts were produced by either of the parties in the court below. So there is no documentary evidence available on the record in favour of either of the parties. The parties have claimed loss of documents on one ground or the other. The learned court below could not have decided the question of Benami purchase as it had no jurisdiction to do the same nor it was the competent court to decide the said matter which can only be decided by a civil court of competent jurisdiction. The question of Benami purchase requires thorough consideration and intricate questions of law are involved therein which is beyond the scope of the proceeding under section 145 Cr. P. C. 5. 27 P.Ws. were examined on behalf of the Ist party-opposite party in the court below and similarly 27 D.ws. were examined on behalf of the petitioners. 6. The petitioners produced the sale deeds executed by them to the different purchasers regarding those sales by them of 6.05 acres of land after the year 1970 but that area of land is not in dispute in this proceeding some canal parches were produced issued to the original khatadar and the learned court rightly held that it was difficult to decide the position of that possession in favour of either of the parties. Admittedly the khata stands in the names of 2nd party petitioner called as Benamidars of the Ist party-opposite party. So the court was left with only deciding the matter of possession on the basis of oral testimony adduced by the parties. Now it is a case of oath against oath wherein the P.ws. are supporting the case of the 1st party and the D.ws. are supporting the case of the 2nd party. The 1st party opposite party lives in village Telar in which the land situates whereas the petitioner live in village Arha, 3 miles there from and claimed to be cultivating the land through their bataidars. 7. are supporting the case of the 1st party and the D.ws. are supporting the case of the 2nd party. The 1st party opposite party lives in village Telar in which the land situates whereas the petitioner live in village Arha, 3 miles there from and claimed to be cultivating the land through their bataidars. 7. The learned Magistrate has stated that after examining the oral evidence he has found that majority of the witnesses produced by the Ist party-opposite party were independent and they supported the possession of the opposite party and most of them are from that village whereas majority of the witnesses examined by the 2nd party-petitioners were interested being the purchasers from the 2nd party. Other witnesses also are not of that village but of village Arha. Some of the D.ws. have admitted enmity with the 1st party. The learned Magistrate has further stated that the boundary raiyats have been examined by the 1st party-opposite party supporting the claim of the opposite party but no such witnesses has been examined on behalf of the 2nd party-petitioners. The 1st party has his agricultural implements and bullocks for the cultivation of the lands in dispute in village Telar, whereas the 2nd party-petitioners do not have any house in village Telar, rather they claimed to give the lands to be cultivated through bataidars some of the D.Ws. have stated that the bullocks and ploughs are brought from village Arha and labourers are engaged. In village Telar only to cultivate the land. Thus, the learned Magistrate found that the testimony adduced by the 1st party-opposite party was more probable and convincing as compared to the testimony or D.Ws. and accordingly he declared the possession of the 1st party opposite party until the matter is decided by a civil court of competent jurisdiction. 8. It has been rightly said the learned Magistrate was not competent to decide the question of Benami purchase. After looking at the evidence produced by the parties I find the testimony of the P.Ws. more reliable and convincing for the reasons given above as compared to those produced by the second party-petitioners. I think, there is nothing wrong in the impugned order. Since the matter involves the question of Benami purchase, it can be better decided in a civil court of competent jurisdiction only. I find no reason to interfere with the impugned order. more reliable and convincing for the reasons given above as compared to those produced by the second party-petitioners. I think, there is nothing wrong in the impugned order. Since the matter involves the question of Benami purchase, it can be better decided in a civil court of competent jurisdiction only. I find no reason to interfere with the impugned order. Accordingly, the petition has no merit and it is dismissed. Application dismissed.