N. M. KASLIWAL, J. - (1.) THIS revision by Gujar Mal is directed against an order of learned Sessions Judge, Alwar, dated 3rd June, 1983 whereby he allowed the revision and set aside the order dated 18th May, 1983 passed by learned Assistant Collector, Alwar, in proceedings under section 145 Cr. P. C.
(2.) THE dispute relates to Khasra No. 210 measuring 4 Bighas 13 Biswas situated in village Chandpuri Tehsil Thanagazi. THE dispute was initially raised by Mst. Shyokori (now deceased) against Gujarmal by initiating proceedings under section 145 Cr. P. C. On a complaint lodged by Smt. Shyokori the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Rajgarh, passed a preliminary order on 4th February, 1975, and thereafter attached the land and a receiver was appointed over the land in dispute. It appears that the proceedings continued for sufficiently long time and in the mean time Smt. Shyokori sold the land in question to Ramji Lai by a registered sale-deed dated August 7, 1982. It appears that sometime thereafter dispute arose between Shyokori and Ramji Lal and as such Shyokori entered a compromise with Gujar Mal on 13th January, 1983 in the present proceedings pending under section 145 Cr. P. C. Shyokori also filed a suit on 14th January 1983 for cancellation of the sale-deed made in favour of Ramji Lal, on the ground of fraud. THE learned trial court took note of the compromise filed by Shyokori and passed an order on 18th May, 1983 declaring the petitioner Gujar Mal to be in possession over the disputed land Aggrieved against the aforesaid order of the learned trial Court, Ramji Lal went in revision. Learned Sessions Judge, Alwar took the view that Ramji Lal, in whose favour the land in question have been transferred, was a necessary party and in these circumstances he set aside the order of the learned trial Court and remanded the case for deciding afresh after impleading Ramji Lal as party. Aggrieved against the aforesaid order of the learned Sessions Judge, Gujar Mal has filed the present revision petition. It may be further mentioned that Shyokori died during the pendency of the revision petition before this Court. It was contended by Mr. Dave, learned counsel for the petitioner, that in the proceeding under section 145 Cr. P. C. the only question to be decided about the possession of a party on the date of preliminary order or within two months prior to that. It is contended that this dispute was between Shyokori and his client Gujar Mal and if such matter had come to an end by way of compromise made between these two parties on 13th January, 1983, or subsequently on account of death of Smt. Shyokori, there was no question of continuance of dispute with any other person. It is submitted that it is an admitted fact that Ramji Lal who is a transferred by a sale-deed dated 7th August, 1982, was never in actual possession over the land in dispute either on the date of preliminary order or within two months prior to that and as such the learned Sessions Judge committed a clear error of jurisdiction in impleading him as a party and in remanding the case. It was further submmitted that the rulings relied upon by the learned Sessions Judge, were of such cases where the persons, who were allowed to be impleaded as parties were claiming to be in actual possession over the land in dispute and in respect of such persons an order was passed to implead them as parties in proceedings under section 145 Cr. P. C. It was also contended by Mr. Dave that even the scheme of Section 145 Cr. P C. shows that under sub-section (7) of Section 145 Cr. P. C. only the legal representatives of a deceased party have been allowed to be made a party to be proceedings but it does not include the case of a transferer like that of Ramji Lal; and this shows the intention of the legislature that it never wanted to include the case of a transferee to continue the proceeidings after the death of the transferor. On the other hand, learned counsel on behalf of Ramji Lal contended that by the sale-deed dated 7th August, 1982, all rights, title and interest including the result of the present litigation between Shyokori and Gujar Mal was transferred in favour of Ramji Lal by a registered sale-deed dated 7th August, 1982 and in these circumstances, Ramji Lal was entitled to continue the proceedings. It was also contended that even if Ramji Lal is not in actual possession over the land in dispute, he is entitled to show that on the date of preliminary order or within two months prior to that Smt. Shyokori was in actual possession of the land in question and if that be so, then Ramji Lal is entitled to continue these proceedings as he is a person, who is intimately concerned and directly affected by such proceedings. It was also submitted that there is no specific prohibition under section 145 Cr. P. C. for not impleading a transferee and in such circumstances in order to avoied multiplicity of proceedings and to do real justice between the parties, Ramji Lal has been rightly allowed to be impleaded as party by the learned Sessions Judge Learned counsel appearing for Ramji Lal also contended that the dispute in the present case was regarding the land in question and not between the persons and even if Shoykori has died still the right to continue these proceedings survives to Ramji Lal, who is a valid transferee. It was further submitted that the danger as to breach of peace is still continuing and the dispute regarding possession over the land in question also exists and Ramji Lal has a right to be impleaded as party in such proceedings. Reliance in support of the above arguments was placed on Hansraj Harjiwan Bhate vs. Emperor (1) State vs. Sohan Lal (2), People Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sardar Sardul Singh (3) Ram Lochan Misra v. Jibeshwar Jha (4) and Ganga Singh vs. Mohd. . Shah Khan (5 ). I have given my careful consideration to the arguments advanced by learned counsel for both the parties and have throroughly perused the record. The proceedings under section 145 Cr. P. C. are essentially of a summary nature and are meant for taking immediate steps where there is a danger as to breach of peace relating to an immovable property. The dispute relating to title cannot be decided in such proceedings and any order passed in these proceedings does not affect the right or title of any party over such immovable property and that can appropriately be decided in a competent revenue or civil court. Any order passed in these proceedings only declares the possession of a party over the disputed land on the day of preliminary order or within two months prior to that. It is not in dispute in the present case that the proceedings were initiated in February, 1975, at the instance of Smt Shyokori. She was claiming to be in actual possession over the land in dispute, while Gujar Mal, on the other hand was claiming his right of possession at the relevant period Shyokori had herself filed an application on 13th January, 1983, compromising the matter with Gujar Mal. The contention of the learned counsel for Ramji Lal in this regard is that such compromise will not have any affect as it was made subsequent to a registered sale made in favour of Ramji Lal on 7th August, 1982. He has further argued that such compromise was never in fact made by Smt. Shyokori and he has seriously disputed the genuineness of such compromise.
(3.) BE that as it may, we are not concerned about the genuineness or validity of such compromise made by Smt. Shyokori but the fact remains that the dispute relating to actual possession over the land on the date of preliminary order or two months prior to that has not continued pressed so far as Shyokori is concerned. Shyokori has now died during the pendency of the revision before this court. There is no provision for a transferee continue proceedings under section 145 Cr. P. C. on behalf of the transferer who was initially one of the parties in proceedings under section 145 Cr. P. C. The transaction of sale itself had been challenged by Smt. Shyokori herself during her life time by filing a suit for cancellation of such sale-deed on ground of fraud on 14th January, 1983. All these disputed and complicated questions cannot be decided in proceedings under section 145 Cr. P. C. The title of Ramji Lal to continue these proceedings on behalf of Shyokori itself is under cloud and such sale was challenged during the life time of Smt. Shyokori herself. The right of Ramji Lal if any, is based on title, which he has derived from Smt. Shyokori by a registered sale-deed dated 7th August, 1982 and he has his remedy by taking appropriate proceedings in a competent civil court or revenue court on the basis of such sale-deed made in his favour. So far as the proceedings under section 145 Cr. P. C. are concerned, the dispute relating to actual possession over the land in dispute between Shyokori and Gujar Mal in the facts and circumstances of this case is no longer in existence. It cannot be said that any danger as to breach of peace between them is still existing and Ramji Lal merely on account of a sale made in his favour, is not entitled to continue such litigation. Ramji Lal had purchased the land with full knowledge that proceedings under section 145 Cr. P. C. were continuing between Mst. Shyokori and Gujar mal, and he should thank his stars if Shyokori sided with Gujar Mal and was not prepared to continue the proceedings under section 145 Cr. P. C. Ramji Lal in his own right on the basis of title can take appropriate proceedings which are permissible to him according to law. Thus, I am clearly of the view that in the facts and circumstances of this case the proceedings commenced between Shyokori and Gujar Mal as early as February 1975, have no existence now and have come to an end by change of subsequent events and proceedings under section 145 Cr. P. C. cannot be substituted as alternate proceedings to decide claims of title and other complicated questions which are based on title. Learned counsel for Ramji Lal was unable to cite any ruling in which a transfaree during the pendency of proceedings under section 145 Cr. P. C. was ever impleaded as a party. All the cases cited by him relate to persons, who were in fact claiming their actual possession over the land on the date of the preliminary order or within two months prior to that. Only such persons, who had come forward to become party on the basis of their actual possession were become to be impleaded as parties in order to avoid multiplicity of proceedings or to do justice between the parties. As already explained above the actual possession in the present case is not claimed by Ramji Lal and non of the cases relied upon by learned counsel for Ramji Lai render any assistance to him. 1 also do not find any force in the contention of the learned counsel for Ramji Lal that provisions of order 22 rule 10 C. P. C. can be made applicable in proceedings under section 145 Cr P. C. the legis'ature has mentioned only one circumstance under section 145 (7) Cr. P. C. where the Magistrate may cause the legal representative of the deceased party to be made party to the proceedings. In my view the legislature never intended to allow a transferee to be impleaded as party in these proceedings as the same would have involved disputed questions of title and only permitted a legal representatives of the deceased to continue such proceedings. ;