Sathish Ninan, J.

1. The 1st defendant in a suit for declaration and consequential reliefs is the appellant.

2. During the period at which the incidents which steered into this litigation occurred, there were restrictions on the procurement, sale and distribution of raw cashew nuts. Kerala Raw Cashewnuts (Restriction on Marketing) Order, 1976, Kerala Raw Cashewnuts (Procurement and Distribution) Order, 1977, Kerala Raw Cashewnuts (Restriction on Transport) Order, 1977 were in force. Collection of raw cashew nuts and its distribution were effected through the Kerala State Co-operative Marketing Federation. The dispute involved in the suit centres around the title over 375 bags of cashew nuts. The suit was decreed by the court below declaring title of the plaintiffs over the same. It is under challenge by the 1st defendant.

3. On 25.06.1980, police seized 375 bags of cashew nuts from the factory of the plaintiffs at Kalloorvila, alleging that the said goods belonged to the 1st defendant and was stolen in transit. Plaintiffs claimed that the goods belong to them and are not stolen goods. The 1st defendant, on the other hand, claimed title over it.

4. Heard Shri C. Unnikrishnan, learned counsel for the appellant/1stdefendant and Shri P.G. Parameswara Panicker, learned Senior Counsel for respondents 1 to 6.

5. Submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant/1st defendant is rested upon the proceedings that took place before the criminal court for disposal of the seized cashew under Section 452 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Learned counsel, taking us through the relevant orders and judgments in the criminal proceedings, especially Ext. A32 order of this Court in Crl. R.P. No. 907 of 1988 contended that title over the goods has already been adjudicated therein and the said finding is to ensue. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents/plaintiffs would contend that the proceedings under Section 452 of the Cr.P.C. is only summary in nature and the question of adjudication of title does not arise therein. Referring to the oral and documentary evidence in extenso, the learned Senior Counsel submits that the finding on title entered into by the court below is based on material and is not liable to be interfered with.

6. Undisputedly, 375 bags of cashew nuts were taken possession of from the plaintiffs on 25.06.1980. In the criminal proceedings, originally an order was passed in favour of the plaintiffs granting interim custody of the cashew, subject to furnishing of bank guarantee towards its value. Thereafter the proceedings came up to this Court wherein as per Ext B2 order the matter was remanded and it finally culminated in Ext A32 order dated 19.03.1991 in Crl.R.P. No. 907 of 1988. Therein it was found that the 1st defendant is entitled to the goods.

7. The first question which will have to be answered is as to the effect of Ext B32 order under Section 452 of the Cr.P.C holding that the 1st defendant is entitled to the goods. The scope of the proceedings under Section 452 of the Cr.P.C. is no longer res integra. A decision under Section 452 of the Cr.P.C is subject to a judgment on title by a Civil Court. We feel that it would be worthwhile to refer to few precedents on the issue. In Sivasankaran Pillai v. State of Kerala (1972 KLT 61) with regard to a proceeding under Section 517 of the old Criminal Procedure Code of 1898 corresponding to Section 452 of the Cr.P.C. it was observed thus:

"...An order under this Section only decides the question of possession and not that of ownership or title which has to be decided by a Civil Court...."

In Malabar Cashewnuts and Allied Products v. State of Kerala (1982 KLT 532), it was held:

"Disposal of property at the conclusion of a criminal trial has to be made under S. 452 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The claims are to be decided by the Criminal Court. But this does not mean that a Criminal Court under S. 452 will have any power which a criminal court cannot have