ORDER S. Rajan, Member The facts of the case have been given in the first paragraph of his order by the learned Additional Commissioner. The non-applicant, Daddi, who is the recorded Bhumiswami, could apply u/s 250(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code (hereinafter called the Code) for restoration of the possession if either of the two following conditions is satisfied and not otherwise. The two conditions under which the non-applicant, Daddi, could succeed are as follows- (1) It should be proved that Daddi was in possession of a particular land and that he was dispossessed by the applicants, Ram Sakha and Ram Manohar of that land. or (2) It should be proved that the applicants, Ram Sakha and Ram Manohar were in lawful possession of some land and that under some provision of the Code, Ram Sakha and Ram Manohar have ceased to be entitled to the use of that land and that, therefore, their continuing in possession is unauthorised. It will have to be seen as to which of the two conditions mentioned above is satisfied in the present case. If neither of the above two conditions is satisfied then the application of Daddi deserves to be rejected. The learned Additional Commissioner in his order has written: As the Respondents can be deemed to have admitted their occupation of these lands recorded in the name of the Appellant who has not consented to such an occupation, it will have to be held that the possession of the Respondents in Asarh on 1-7-1962 was unauthorised. What is important is that the possession of the applicants, Ram Sakha and Ram Manohar, should become unauthorised on account of their ceasing to be entitled to the use of the land under some provision of the Code. It is some provision of the Code which should make the possession of Ram Sakha and Ram Manohar unauthorised and not the mere will of Daddi. If Ram Sakha and Ram Manohar were in lawful possession of some land and if on some day Daddi asked them to get out Ram Sakha and Ram Manohar would not cease to be entitled to the use of the land under some provision of the Code and so Section 250 would not apply. Section 111 of the Code is as follows- 111. Section 111 of the Code is as follows- 111. The Civil Courts shall have jurisdiction to decide any dispute to which the State Government is not a party relating to any right which is recorded in the Record-of-Rights. Similarly, Explanation I below Section 178 of the Code is as follows- Explanation I.-For purposes of this section any co-sharer of the holding of a Bhumiswami who has obtained a declaration of his title in such holding from a competent Civil Court shall be deemed to be a co-tenure-holder of such holding. So if a civil Court holds that Ram Sakha and Ram Manohar have no right what-soever in the holding then they cease to be co-tenure-holders and therefore cease to be Bhumiswami u/s 158 of the Code and so in that case Section 250 of the Code will apply but this is not the case here. I want to say one more thing. Absence of the name of a co-tenure-holder on the Record-of-Rights will not make him lose his rights as co-tenure-holder as this difficulty can be easily cured by correcting the Record of Rights. So even though the names of Ram Sakha and Ram Manohar are not entered along with that of Daddi as co-tenure holders in the Record of Rights still they may be actually co-tenure-holders and the mere absence of their names in the Record of Rights will not affect the rights which they actually have in the holding. So the consent or otherwise of Daddi is not very material. The learned Additional Commissioner in his order writes As long as the Appellant continues to be recorded solely as the Bhumiswami of these lands, the Respondents cannot claim any occupation of any portion of these lands to the exclusion of the Appellant. The rights of the applicants, Ram Sakha and Ram Manohar, depend on the arrangement about the property which is proved to exist between them and Daddi and if by mistake Ram Sakha and Ram Manohar have not got their names recorded as co-tenure holders along with Daddi they will not lose their rights which they have in the holding. The lower Courts have not shown as to how the applicants, Ram Sakha and Ram Manohar, have ceased to be entitled to possession of the land on account of some provision of the Code. The lower Courts have not shown as to how the applicants, Ram Sakha and Ram Manohar, have ceased to be entitled to possession of the land on account of some provision of the Code. Now it remains to be seen whether non-applicant, Daddi, was dispossessed on any date by Ram Sakha and Ram Manohar. If Daddi was never in possession of a particular land which was in the possession of Ram Sakha and Ram Manohar then there is no question of Daddi being dispossessed of that land. Before holding that Daddi was dispossessed of any land the possession of Daddi over that land prior to the date of the dispossession should be proved. Non-applicant, Daddi's case is that he was in possession of all the lands and that on 1-7-1962 he was dispossessed. On the other hand the case of the applicants, Ram Sakha and Ram Manohar, is that they were in joint possession of the lands along with Daddi from Samvat 1997. Daddi in support of his case states that he was separate in estate from his brothers, Ram Sakha and Ram Manohar, from Samvat 1986. The actual truth must be somewhere between these two conflicting statements made by the two parties. Badri who is one of the witnesses is obviously not speaking the truth when he says that he sold the lands to the father of the applicants and the non-applicant. Non-applicant, Daddi, in his plaint stated that Badri had surrendered the lands to Government and that he got the lands on a patta from Government and this position has been accepted by Ram Sakha and Ram Manohar in their written statement. Again according to the khasra from 1956-57 to 1960-61 applicants, Ram Sakha and Ram Manohar, have been recorded as being in possession of survey No. 235. In the khasra of 1961-62 applicants Ram Sakha and Ram Manohar are shown to be in possession of some more lands in addition to survey No. 235, on account of some arrangement made by the panchas on 30-7-1961. There is a paper in the records which purports to be the true copy of the decision given by the Panchas on 30-7-1962 and the date "30-7-1962" appears to be a mistake for "30-7-1961". There is a paper in the records which purports to be the true copy of the decision given by the Panchas on 30-7-1962 and the date "30-7-1962" appears to be a mistake for "30-7-1961". So the actual truth may be that applicants Ram Sakha and Ram Manohar were originally given survey No. 235 for cultivation by Daddi, that subsequently there may have been a dispute between the two applicants and the non-applicant which may have been decided by a Panchayat partitioning the whole property and it may be that after this decision given by the Panchayat Daddi may have filed the application u/s 250 of the Code as the decision of the Panchas may not have been to his liking. So in order to find out the actual position the whole evidence, oral as well as documentary, should be carefully appreciated. The Panchas "Shukla Rohini Prasad, Payasi Motilal, Awadh Prasad, Parmeshwar Deen and Kaushal Prasad" are prima facie independent witnesses and would be able to give the actual position as they have decided the dispute between the two parties. They should be knowing the exact position and the recording of their statements may by useful in determining the actual position in this case. I, therefore, set aside the orders of the lower Courts and remand the case to the Tahsildar for further enquiry and for proper appreciation of the evidence on record in the light of the remarke made above to find out whether the non-applicant, Daddi, was actually dispossessed and whether the case comes u/s 250 of the Code.