JUDGMENT Ismail, J. - This is a Plaintiffs' appeal from a decree of the learned District Judge of Kumaun which reversed a decree of the learned Civil Judge of Chamoli. The suit which has given rise to this appeal was brought by the Panch Khaekars of village Nail in the district of Garhwal against the Defendants, who are his sadars in that village, for a declaration of right in certain plots or land bearing No. 446, 800, 805, 808, 58/1060 and 809 comprising an area of 298 9/16 nalis. The Plaintiffs' case was that they were in possession of the land in suit having broken it up some years ago. They alleged that, the Defendants had succeeded in having their names recorded in the recent settlement, although they were never in possession of the same. The trial Court came to the conclusion that this village was a pucca khaekari village, that the Plaintiffs were in possession of the land in dispute, that the Defendants hissadars were in possession of only 18 4/16 nalis and that the rest of the land was in cultivatory possession of the Plaintiffs. On these findings the Plaintiffs suit was decreed. The learned District Judge, however, took a contrary view and dismissed the suit, although be held that the village was a pucca khaekari village. The Plaintiffs have now come to this Court in appeal. By my order dated 22nd December, 1938, I directed the learned District Judge to record a finding as to the specific, plots actually in cultivatory possession of the Plaintiffs before the institution of the suit and the period of such possession. The learned District Judge upon a consideration of evidence has come to the conclusion that the Plaintiffs began to cultivate the land in dispute three or four years before the institution of the suit. This is a finding of fact and cannot be disturbed in appeal. 2. The main question for determination in this appeal relates to the question of title. The Plaintiffs are pucca khaekars. The pucca khaekars are representatives of old proprietors who bold the entire area of the village in virtue of paving first reclaimed it from waste. This is a finding of fact and cannot be disturbed in appeal. 2. The main question for determination in this appeal relates to the question of title. The Plaintiffs are pucca khaekars. The pucca khaekars are representatives of old proprietors who bold the entire area of the village in virtue of paving first reclaimed it from waste. It appears that the pucca khaekars are in all respects equal to proprietors with the exception that they cannot sell their holding and pay small sums called Malikana, in addition to the quota of revenue due from the land recorded in their names. The proprietors or hissedars have no power to interfere with these khaekars or their land, waste or cultivated and on the death of a khaekar without direct heirs, the lapsed holding reverts to the whole community of khaekars; and not to the hissedar--vide, Jaint Singh v. Nand Ram 1938 A.W.R. (H.C.) 48. 3. A short history of the plots in dispute will be helpful in determining the question of title. In Beckett's settlement (1862) the entire land in this village' was recorded in the name of Gaon Sanjait. This entry clearly shows that the hissedar bad nothing to do with the cultivation of any portion of the land in dispute. In Pauw's settlement (1866) 18 14/16 nalis of land was recorded in the name of hissedars. The entry against this area was parti qadim'. There was litigation with respect to this land in the Revenue Courts and it was held that the hissedars were entitled to the plots within this area. Learned Counsel for the Appellants states that there is no dispute with regard to this land and the Plaintiffs have no claim to the land shown in the name of hissedars in the settlement of 1866. In Ibbotson's summary settlement (1927-28) the entire area in dispute was recorded as khudkasbt of the hissedars, although the entry with respect to 'patti qadim' continued. From the findings of the Courts below it appears that the Plaintiffs began their cultivatory possession of the land in dispute between 1924 and 1934. It follows therefore that in Ibbotson's settlement the land in dispute was not in actual cultivatory possession of the hissedars (Defendants). This is confirmed by the entry of parti qadim', which shows that the land was only fallow land. It follows therefore that in Ibbotson's settlement the land in dispute was not in actual cultivatory possession of the hissedars (Defendants). This is confirmed by the entry of parti qadim', which shows that the land was only fallow land. The learned District Judge has rightly attached great importance to the order of the settlement officer who was responsible for the entry of the names of the hissedars with respect to the plots in dispute, but on the basis of this entry it is impossible to hold that the hissedars actually cultivated the land. The learned District judge has not found in favour of the Respondents on this point; in fact he has come to the conclusion that the Plaintiffs were in actual cultivatory possession before the institution of the suit. In the last settlement (1937-38) the record officer, (sic) by his order of the 25th of April, 1938, directed the names of the khaekars to be entered with respect to the plots in dispute. The record officer made the following observations: This is a pucca khaekari village, in which the hissedar in Mr. Pauw's settlement got a large area at uncultivated land recorded in his name as khudkasht. This is now found cultivated. It appears to ma that to all uncultivated land khudkasht is a contradiction in terms. In a pucca khaakari village the Khaekars are under proprietors. If they broke new land they are automatically Khaekars in it. 4. This judgment was not before the lower appellate Court. At the instance of the Appellant I. admitted it under Order 41, Rule 27. It is stated by learned Counsel for the Respondents that his client was not represented before the record officer. That may or may not be so. Even if it was so it will not affect the question under consideration because the entry referred to by the record officer is relied upon by the learned District Judge. This shows that the land was not in actual cultivatory possession of the hissedar. There is no doubt that if a hissedar brings fallow land under plough and actually cultivates it himself he will be entitled to retain possession of the same, but he can: acquire no title in khaekar land which is not in his actual possession and is merely recorded in his name as khudkasht. It appears that the village records in Kumaun Garbwal are not always reliable documents. It appears that the village records in Kumaun Garbwal are not always reliable documents. The following quotation from Mr. Stowell's book, pp. 17 and 18 support the above observation: Owing however to venality carelessness or ignorance on the part of the amine, who made the original entries and the lack of intelligence and of caution on the part of the villagers, a great many wrong entries remain uncorrected in very many cases the villages concern id never discovered that the entries were wrong for years afterwards. These mistakes are most common in the older records, such as those of Mr. Beckett's settlement which still hold good for all the old cultivation in Almora and they consist most frequently of the entry of specific fields in the names of the wrong hissedar or khaekar, though there are a good number of mistakes due to the mistaken entry of the names of certain men as co-shares in joint shares.... It is therefore, necessary to enter a caution against giving the settlement records in the bill any such weight of presumption as attaches to the regularly revised and clacked village papers in the plains. In the case of the latter papers the much greater familiarity of the people with their annual records an the greater caution taught by ex-perience is a further safeguard against error. 5. Having regard to the proved facts have no hesitation in holding that the land was fallow land until a few years before the institution of the suit when the Appellants brought it under cultivation, Under these circumstances it is impossible to affirm the decree of the Court below. 6. In the result I allow the appeal, set aside the decree of the lower appellate Court and restore that of the Civil Judge. The Appellants are entitled to their costs from the Respondents. 7. Leave to appeal under Letters Patent is granted.