JUDGMENT 1. This appeal has been filed at the instance of defendant assailing the impugned judgment and decree passed by learned First Appellate Court partly decreeing the plaintiffs suit by reversing the judgment and decree passed by learned Trial Court dismissing the suit. 2. Looking to the substantial question of law which has been framed the facts necessary for the disposal of this second appeal lie in a narrow compass. The plaintiff filed suit for declaration of Bhumiswami right and permanent injunction in respect of certain agricultural land, the description whereof is mentioned in the plaint and which is subject matter of the suit. 3. According to the plaintiff he is possessing the suit property for last 15 years prior to the date of filing of the suit which was filed on 3.6.1982. The defendant was in need of money to pay the debt of one Cheetarlal, resultantly, he (defendant Puralal) obtained a sum of Rs. 16,000/- from plaintiff and orally sold the land in question to him. The possession of the suit property was also handed over to the plaintiff. Since then, the plaintiff is possessing the suit propetty as owner in the knowledge of the defendant continuously without any interruption and hence he has acquired Bhumiswami right by adverse possession. Further it has been pleaded by the plaintiff that defendant was convicted in a murder case and he was sentenced to suffer life imprisonment. But the suit property throughout remained in possession of the plaintiff. After serving out the entire sentence, the defendant came out from the jail but with an intention to take possession by illegal means, he tried to dispossess the plaintiff. Hence, the present suit has been filed for declaration of Bhumiswami right and injunction. 4. The defendant by filing written statement refuted the plaint averments and denied the factum of selling the suit property by an oral sale for a consideration of Rs. 16,000/- in favour of plaintiff. It has also been emphatically denied that plaintiff has perfected his Bhumiswami right by adverse possession on the suit property. According to the defendant although he is possessing suit property, but the plaintiff in collusion with the Police personnel got the suit property attached in the proceeding under Section 145 Cr.P.C. and the possession was given to receiver Premsingh who is his relative. According to the defendant although he is possessing suit property, but the plaintiff in collusion with the Police personnel got the suit property attached in the proceeding under Section 145 Cr.P.C. and the possession was given to receiver Premsingh who is his relative. Not only this, the plaintiff in collusion with the Patwari got his name endorsed in the column of the possession in the revenue record. Hence, it has been prayed by the defendant that the suit be dismissed. 5. The learned Trial Court on the basis of averments made in the plaint and the denial in the written statement framed necessary issues and after recording the evidence of the parties, dismissed the suit by holding that plaintiff has not perfected his Bhumiswami right by adverse possession. 6. The first appeal was filed by plaintiff has been partly allowed by the learned First Appellate Court and decreed his suit in part by passing a decree of permanent injunction. 7. In this manner, this second appeal has been filed by the defendant assailing the judgment and decree passed by learned First Appellate Court. 8. This Court on 23.9.1998 admitted the second appeal on the following substantial question of law: “Whether the appellate Court below erred in law in granting decree for permanent injunction even when as per plaintiff’s own showing the land is in possession of the receiver appointed in pursuance of an order passed by the S.D.M. U/s. 146 of Cr.P.C.”? 9. The contention of Shri Bhagwansingh, learned Counsel for the appellant-defendant is that learned First Appellate Court erred in substantial error of law in passing the decree of injunction in favour of plaintiff. According to learned Counsel the suit property was in possession of the receiver in a proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. and if that would be the position, in absence of seeking relief of possession the suit cannot be decreed since it is hit by Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act and further because plaintiff was not in possession of the suit property, therefore, passing of a decree of permanent injunction does not arise. 10. 10. On the other hand, Shri Kutumbale, learned Senior Counsel for respondent argued in support of the impugned judgment and submitted that looking to the admission of defendant in cross-examination that for last 20 years, the plaintiff is in possession of the suit property, the learned First Appellate Court did not err in passing the decree of injunction in his favour. Hence, it has been submitted by him that this appeal be dismissed. 11. Having heard learned counsel for the parties I am of the view that this appeal deserves to be dismissed. Reg Arding Substantial Question Of Law Framed : 12. Before answering the substantial question of law which has been framed I would like to mention here that learned First Appellate Court concurred with the view of the learned Trial Court holding that plaintiff did not perfect his Bhumiswami right by adverse possession. Indeed, learned Trial Court dismissed the suit of plaintiff in toto. The first appeal of plaintiff has been partly allowed to the extent of granting a decree of injunction only. However, learned First Appellate Court affirmed the judgment and decree passed by learned Trial Court dismissing his suit in respect of acquiring Bhumiswami right by adverse possession. No cross-objections have been filed by the plaintiffs in this Court, hence, the findings against the judgment and decree passed by learned two Courts below holding that plaintiff did not perfect his Bhumiswami right by adverse possession had attained finality. 13. I shall now deal the substantial question of law which has been framed. On bare perusal of the cross-examination of the defendant Roopsingh (who was brought on record as L.R. of deceased defendant) I find that there is an admission of the defendant in his testimony that after the deceased defendant Pura was convicted, the plaintiff took possession of the suit property illegally and since then, the parties are quarrelling with each other on the point of possession. After completing the entire jail sentence of 20 years when the defendant came out from the jail his father (deceased defendant) tried to take possession of the suit property from plaintiff against which plaintiff submitted a report in the Police Station. Further defendant has admitted that the Sub-Divisional Officer by attaching the suit property gave it in the supardagi of supurdgidar Premsingh. Further defendant has admitted that the Sub-Divisional Officer by attaching the suit property gave it in the supardagi of supurdgidar Premsingh. However, the order of attachment was assailed by plaintiff in Sessions Court which was decided in his favour and the possession of the suit property was delivered to him back from receiver Premsingh. Thereafter the order of Sessions Court was assailed in this Court by the defendant which was passed in his favour and again the suit property was attached and the possession was obtained back from the plaintiff and again it was given in the supardagi but this time to another supurdgidar Bhanwarlal. According to me this material piece of evidence and the admission of defendant if considered in proper perspective, it will be a determining factor to justify the impugned judgment of learned First Appellate Court. 14. On going through the admission of the defendant, this Court finds that before filing of the suit, the suit property was being possessed by plaintiff for last several years and the defendant tried to take possession of the suit property which culminated into the proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. The land in dispute was attached and its possession was taken from the plaintiff and was given to the supurdgidar. What ultimately happened in Section 145 Cr.P.C. proceedings there is no order on record. But looking to the admission of the defendant that suit property was being possessed by plaintiff for last several years before filing of the suit, and further admitting that in the proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. the possession of the suit property was taken from the plaintiff and was given to the supurdgidar, according to me in the eye of law it shall be deemed that the plaintiff was in possession of the suit property because a supurdgidar holds the possession for the person who is actually entitled to obtain the possession and, therefore, the plaintiff was not required to seek the relief of possession. In this context I may profitably place reliance on the decision of Supreme Court Deo Kuer and another v. Sheo Prasad Singh and others AIR 1966 Supreme Court 359 wherein it has been categorically held by the Apex Court that if the defendant is not in possession of property and is not able to deliver possession as for example when the property is attached by a criminal Court, in the proceedings of 145 Cr.P.C., it was not necessary for plaintiff to ask for relief of possession in a suit for declaration. By placing reliance on this decision for all practical purpose it is hereby held that plaintiff was possessing the suit property though it was in the supurdagi of the supurdgidar who was only a custodia legis and was holding the possession of the suit property for the plaintiff. 15. Unless and until, the actual possession of the land in dispute had taken away from the agency of the Court and the defendant is placed in actual possession of the same by the agency of the Court, he cannot resist the right of plaintiff to retain the possession of the suit property. The order of attachment under Section 146 Cr.P.C. is always subject to the decision of the civil Court. In the instant case, the possession of plaintiff has been found by the First Appellate Court and, therefore, rightly a decree of injunction has been granted in his favour. 16. The substantial question of law is thus, answered that learned First Appellate Court did not commit any error in granting decree of permanent injunction even though the possession of the suit property was with the receiver appointed in pursuance of an order passed by the S.D.M. under Section 146 Cr.P.C. 17. Resultantly, this appeal fails and is, hereby, dismissed with no order as to costs.