Provisional possession under section 145 CrPC does not confer title and cannot defeat a lawful ejectment claim.

A provisional order under section 145 CrPC is only a temporary measure to maintain peace and determine interim possession; it does not confer title or lawful possession, so it cannot defeat an ejectment suit under section 180 of the U.P. Tenancy Act. The concurrent finding that the occupiers were not hereditary tenants was not reopened, because the challenged revenue material was not proved as genuine and the alleged presumption from a certified copy was in any event rebuttable. The plea of abatement under rule 5 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Rules also failed, since no operative stay subsisted and the rule did not apply on the recorded findings.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a provisional order under section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure conferred title or lawful possession so as to defeat a suit for ejectment under section 180 of the U. P. Tenancy Act, 1939; (ii) whether the concurrent finding that the appellants were not hereditary tenants could be reopened on the alleged errors of law; (iii) whether the suits stood abated under rule 5 of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Rules.

Issue (i): Whether a provisional order under section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure conferred title or lawful possession so as to defeat a suit for ejectment under section 180 of the U. P. Tenancy Act, 1939.

Analysis: The statutory scheme distinguished between disputes as to tenancy rights and claims by a person occupying land without title. An order under section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was only a preventive order to preserve peace and determine temporary possession; it did not decide title or confer a right to possession. The expression requiring possession to be in accordance with law was construed as possession supported by legal right or title, and a mere criminal court order could not place the occupier outside the sweep of section 180.

Conclusion: The criminal court order did not confer title or lawful possession, and the suit for ejectment under section 180 was maintainable.

Issue (ii): Whether the concurrent finding that the appellants were not hereditary tenants could be reopened on the alleged errors of law.

Analysis: The evidence on record, including the challenged revenue papers, was examined by the three courts below and the document relied upon by the appellants was found not to be proved as genuine. The claimed presumption under the Evidence Act was unavailable because the certified copy was not shown to have been issued in substantial compliance with the prescribed procedure, and in any event the presumption was rebuttable. The alleged shift in burden of proof, non-consideration of evidence, and reliance on tenancy provisions were insufficient to dislodge a concurrent factual finding based on the whole evidence.

Conclusion: The finding that the appellants were not hereditary tenants remained undisturbed.

Issue (iii): Whether the suits stood abated under rule 5 of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Rules.

Analysis: The stay originally made under the earlier rules had been lifted by an order restarting the trial, and no fresh stay subsisted under the amended rules. Rule 5 operated only in relation to suits stayed under rule 4, and the amended exception for Sir lands where rights had not accrued to the defendant also excluded the present case on the findings recorded. The plea of abatement had already been negatived in revision and did not survive.

Conclusion: The suits did not abate under rule 5.

Final Conclusion: The appeals failed in substance because the respondent's ejectment suits were maintainable, the appellants could not rely on the criminal court order or on tenancy claims, and no abatement had occurred under the applicable rules.

Ratio Decidendi: A provisional order under section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is a temporary police order that does not confer title or lawful possession, and a person occupying land without such title remains liable to ejectment under the revenue law notwithstanding that order.

---