JAGADISAN, J. :- These civil revision petitions have been directed to be heard by a Division Bench by order of the learned Chief Justice in view of the importance of the question that is raised and, because, the decision of a single Judge of this court in Kodammal v. Duraiswami Naicker, 1961-1 Mad LJ 284 : (AIR 1961 Mad 384) is challenged as not having been correctly decided.

2. The undisputed facts are as follows. A dispute in respect of possession of certain lands save rise to a proceeding under S. 145 Crl. P. C. before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Usilampatti who is the Executive I Class Magistrate, Usilampatti. Before the learned Magistrate one Periya Karuppa Thevar and 9 others were the B party and one Vellia alias Ocha Thevar constituted the A party. The learned magistrate, being apparently of the opinion that the question which party was in possession on the crucial date, namely, the date of the preliminary order could not be satisfactorily determined by him, referred the matter to the District Munsif, Tirumangalam. This procedure was adopted under S. 146 Crl. P. C. When the proceedings came on for hearing before the learned District Munsif on 18-9-1959 the A part