D.P. Gupta, J.
1. Babulal and Shriniwas filed an application Under Section 145, Cr. P.C. in the Court of Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Churu on October 7, 1969, alleging that the respondents Ki hnaram, Jeetaram and others were illegally trying to interfere with the possession of the applicants over khasra Nos. 602, 604 and 606 (new) corresponding to 'Khasra' No. 207 (old) in village Ghanghoo, measuring 7 big has' 15 biswas', which the applicants claimed to be in their possession on the basis of a registered sale deed dated November 8 1968, executed by Mularam in favour of Mohanlal brother of the applicants. It was alleged that the respondents were trying to take over unlawful possession of the aforesaid land and there was imminent danger of breach of peace. The learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate. Churu, passed a preliminary order on October 7, 1969, and issued notices to the opposite parties directing them to Me their written statement, affidavits and d cuments. The learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate by his order dated October 9, 1969. attached the land in dispute & appointed the (sic) Tehsldar as the Receiver thereof. On November 4, 1969, the applicants filed two affidavits including one of Jeetaram, response-dent No. 4, in which he stated that he was growing vegetables on the land in dispute for the last eight years on behalf of the villagers of Ghanghoo, but during the previous year he grew vegetables in the disputed land after obtaining the permission of Babulal and Shriniwas applicants. He also stated in that affidavit that 25 days ago, the villagers asked him to grow vegetables in the said land and he did so on their request.
2. The opposite parties submitted their reply on November 5, 1969 and asserted that the land in dispute belongs to the village and Jeetaram respondent was growing vegetables thereon on behalf of the village people and he took water for the cultivation from the public well, which was situated on the adjoining 'khasra' No. 206. They took the stand that Mulram, from whom the applicants claimed to have purchased the land in question by sale deed dated November 8, 1968, was neither a tenant nor was ever in possession of the disputed land and that he had no right to execute the sale-deed in respect of the said land. They further asserted that on a part of 'khasra' No. 207 there was a Government School situated and the remaining portion thereof was in possession of the village people & they got the same cultivated through Jeetaram Mali.
3. The parties filed affidavits and certain documents. Jeetaram filed another affidavit in his (sic) right as opposite party on September 17,1970 in which he asserted that he was in possession of the land in dispute on behalf of the village people and was growing vegetables therein on behalf of the villagers He further stated that Babulal and Mohanlal, applicants, were never in possession of the disputed land. Moolaram the alleged vendor, also filed an affidavit on behalf of the opposite patties, in which he admitted that the land in question was being cultivated on behalf of the village people by Jeetaram and vegetables were grown thereon on behalf of the villagers by drawing water from the public well situated on the neighbouring khasra 'land' The applicants relied upon 'khewat entry Ex. P/2, relating to Smt. Year 2018 to 2021 in which Hukma son of Sedhu has been shown as the (isc)' of the disputed land. On the other hand, the respondents relied upon mutation entry, Ex. D/3, dated October 24, 1964, in which the Gram Panchayat recorded that Hukma son of Sedhu in his statement before the Tehsildar admitted that the land in (sic) was wrongly entered in his 'khatedari', but it was part of the jav' of the well. On this admission of Hukma, the 'khewat' entry in favour of Hukma relating to the'khatedari' of the land in dispute was cancelled. The applicants also relied upon a sale-deed, Ex. P/1, dated November 8, 1968, exe cuted by Moolaram in favour of Mohanlal, brother of the applicants, in respect of the land in dispute. The opposite, parties however, submitted that they have already filed a suit in a proper revenue court for declaration that the said sale-deed executed by Moolaram was null and void, as the land in dispute belonged to the villagers and was in their possession A certified copy of the plaint of that suit has been placed on record and marked as Ex. D/4. The learned Magistrate, after perusing the written statement filed by the opposite parties and the affidavits and documents produced by both the sides, came to the conclusion that the land in dispute was in possession of Jeetaram respondent and declared his possession by the order dated October 12, 1970.
4. The applicants submitted a revision petition before the Additional Sessions Judge, Churu, against the aforesaid order, but the same was dismissed by the order dated June 23, 1971. The applicants have now come up in revision before this Court.
5. Two contentions have been advanced by Shri P.N. Datt on behalf of the applicants before me firstly, that Jeetaram filed two affidavits before the learned Magistrate and he should have examined him in court so as to elucidate the truth, before coming to the conclusion as to which of the two affidavits should be believed. His second submission is 'hat Mularam, who had executed the alleged sale-deed in favour of Mohanlal, brother of the applicants, also filed an affidavit on behalf of the respondents, supporting their case, but the learned Magistrate failed to examine him regarding the execution of the said sale-deed. It be would sufficient to say that the first affidavit of Jeetaram was no doubt filed on behalf of the applicants, but thereafter he filed another affidavit in his own right as opposite party contradicting his previous affidavit and in that event, it was open to the applicants to make a request to the learned Magistrate for calling Jeetaram for cross-examination in respect of his second affidavit. As regards Mularam also it was open to the applicants to make a similar request for his cross-examination before the learned Magistrate. No such request seeking cross examination was made on behalf of the applicants either in respect of Jeetaram or in respect of Moolaram before the learned Magistrate and no complaint on that basis can now be made at this late stage, It was open to the learned Magistrate to accept the evidence of one party or the other, which appeared to him to be consistent with the circumstances of the case. There is no reason to interfere with the appreciation of evidence made by the learned Magistrate in the revisional jurisdiction. The learned Additional Sessions Judge also considered the evidence on record and held that the conclusion arrived at by the learned Magistrate was the only conclusion which could barrived at on the basis of available material. However, I have myself gone through the evidence on record and am satisfied that the conclusion arrived at by the two courts below appears to be correct. The learned Counsel for the applicants was unable to point out that the order passed by the learned Magistrate suffered from an error or irregularity which may call for interference by this Court in these proceedings.
6. The revision petition has no force and is, therefore, dismissed.