ORDER C.B. Capoor, J. - This appeal and second appeal No. 1105 of 1962 have been preferred by Ranjit Singh and are directed against the appellate judgment and decrees of the learned Civil Judge, Azamgarh and in order to facilitate matters, I propose to dispose of both the appeals together. The only question that has been argued on behalf of the Appellant is as to whether the Appellant was an Adhivasi of the disputed plots or not. In order to appreciate that question, the following facts had better be stated. 2. Plots Nos. 1103, 1105, 1106 and 1107 situate in village Chillupur, Pargana Deogaon, District Azamgarh, were usufructuarily mortgaged by Harpal Singh and others in favour of Matai Singh and others. Ranjit Singh, Respondent No. 1 to the present appeal was the sub-mortgagee of the aforesaid plots. Subsequently, some of the aforesaid plots were purchased by Ram Raj Singh and he filed an application u/s 12 of the UP Agriculturists Relief Act against Banshu Singh, Sri Net Singh and Matbar Singh. The application was allowed on 29th of July 1940 and actual, possession over the mortgaged property was obtained by Ramraj Singh on 19th of February 1942. Thereafter, a suit u/s 180 of the UP Tenancy Act was filed by the aforesaid Ramraj Singh in respect of the aforesaid plots against the Appellants Ram Surat Singh and Baleshwar Singh. It was decreed on 23rd November 1944 and in pursuance of the decree, possession was obtained on 12th of March 1946. On 12th of August 1944, a proceeding u/s 145 of Code of Criminal Procedure was initiated in respect of the aforesaid plots. The Appellants, Ram Surat Singh and Baleshwar Singh were parties to the proceeding and the aforesaid plots were attached on 29th of October 1948. The aforesaid plots were ordered to be released in favour of Ramraj Singh on 2nd of April 1951. On 30th of June 1949 while the proceeding u/s 145 of Code of Criminal Procedure was pending, Ramraj Singh filed another suit u/s 180 of the UP Tenancy Act of 1939, the trial of which was stayed in accordance with the rules framed under the UP Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. Thereafter two suits were filed-one No. 336 of 1954 by Ranjit Singh Appellant against Ramraj Singh and others. Ramsurat Singh and Baleshwar Singh initially figured as pro-forma Defendants to that suit. Thereafter two suits were filed-one No. 336 of 1954 by Ranjit Singh Appellant against Ramraj Singh and others. Ramsurat Singh and Baleshwar Singh initially figured as pro-forma Defendants to that suit. Subsequently, they were transposed as Plaintiffs. The suit was for an injunction restraining Ram Raj Singh and others from interfering with the possession of the Plaintiffs over the disputed plots, on the allegations that they were either sirdars or Adhivasis of the disputed plots, that the decree for redemption obtained by Ramraj Singh was a nullity and that the Defendants interferred with the possession of the Plaintiffs over the disputed plots without any right. The other suit No. 511 of 1954 was filed by Ramraj Singh on the allegations that he was the tenant of the disputed plots and was in possession over the same. The Defendants interfered with his possession and also uprooted and removed the crops which were standing on those plots. The value of the uprooted crops according to the Plaintiff was Rs. 100/- and accordingly a suit for recovery of Rs. 100/- was filed by Ramraj Singh against the Defendants. One of the issues framed in the aforesaid two cases was as to whether Ramraj Singh or Ranjit Singh and others were Adhivasis in respect of the disputed plots. That issues was referred to the revenue court for a finding. The learned Assistant Collector to whom the aforesaid issues were referred recorded his finding in favour of Ramraj Singh and against Ranjit Singh and others. On receipt of the aforesaid finding, the learned Munsif dismissed the suit for injunction filed by Ranjit Singh and others and decreed the suit for recovery of damages against Ramraj Singh. Aggrieved by the aforesaid decrees, two separate appeals were filed--one by Ramraj Singh and the other by Ranjit Singh and others. The appeal filed by Ramraj Singh was allowed and the appeal filed by Ranjit Singh and others was dismissed. Aggrieved by the aforesaid decision, Ranjit Singh has preferred the present appeals. 3. The only question that arises for decision is as to whether the Appellant was an Adhivasi of the disputed plots. The appeal filed by Ramraj Singh was allowed and the appeal filed by Ranjit Singh and others was dismissed. Aggrieved by the aforesaid decision, Ranjit Singh has preferred the present appeals. 3. The only question that arises for decision is as to whether the Appellant was an Adhivasi of the disputed plots. The relevant portion of Section 20(b) of the UP Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act reads as below: Every perron who-- (b) was recorded as occupant (i) of any land other than grove land or land to which Section 16 applies or land referred to in the proviso to Sub-section (3) of Section 27 of the UP Tenancy (Amendment) Act, 194-7 in the khasra or khatauni of 1356F. prepared under Sections 28 and 33 respectively of the UP Land Revenue Act, 1901, or who was on the date immediately preceding the date of vesting entitled to regain possession thereof under Clause (c) of Sub-section (1) of Section 27 of the United provinces Tenancy (Amendment) Act, 1947, or (ii) of any land to which Section 16 applies in the khasra or khatauni of 1356F prepared under Sections 28 and 33. respectively of the United Provinces Land Revenue Act, 1901, but who was not in the possession in the year 1359F. shall, unless he has become a Bhumidhar of the land under Sub-section (2) of Section 18 or an asami under Clause (h)of Section 21 be called Adhivasi of the land and shall, subject to the provisions of this Act be entitled to take or retain possession thereof. Explanation 1.... Explanation 2. Where any entry in the records referred to in Clause (b) have been corrected before the date of vesting under or in accordance with the provisions of the UP Land Revenue Act, 1901, the entry so corrected shall for the purposes of the said clause prevail. Explanation 3. For the purposes of Explanation II, an entry shall be deemed to have been corrected before the date of vesting if an order or decree of a competent court requiring any correction in records had been made before the said date and had become final even though the correction may not have been incorporated in the records. Explanation 4. For the purposes of Explanation II, an entry shall be deemed to have been corrected before the date of vesting if an order or decree of a competent court requiring any correction in records had been made before the said date and had become final even though the correction may not have been incorporated in the records. Explanation 4. For the purposes pf this section 'occupant' as respects any land does not include a person who was entitled as an intermediary to the land or any share therein in the year 1356F. 4. There was conflict as to the interpretation of the expression recorded as occupant in the khasra or khatauni of 1356F., but that conflict has been set at rest by a decision of the Supreme Court reported in 1964 AWR 541 : 1964 UPRC 242--Amba Prasad v. Mahboob Ali Shah. It has been held in that case that the title to possession as Adhivasi depends upon the entries in the khasra and khatauni for the year 1356F and that Section 20 eliminates enquiry into disputed possession by accepting the record in the khasra or khatauni of 1356F or its correction before 1-7-1952. 5. It has further been held in the aforesaid case that since khasra records possession and enjoyment, the word 'occupant' must mean a person holding the land in possession or actual enjoyment. The khasra, however, may mention the proprietor, the tenant, the subtenant and other person in actual possession as the case may be. If by 'occupant' is meant the person in actual possession, it is clear that between a proprietor and a tenant, the tenant and between the tenant and the sub tenant, the latter and between him and the person recorded in the remarks column as "Davedar Qabiz", the davedar qabiz are the occupants. 6. One of the questions, therefore, that arises for decision in these appeals is as to whether the Appellant was recorded as an occupant in the year 1356F and if the aforesaid question is answered in the affirmative, the second question arising for determination will be as to whether the said entry has been or will be deemed to have been corrected. 7. The khasra for 1356F is Exhibit A 2 on the record. The disputed plots are recorded therein as the sir of Ramker Singh and others. 7. The khasra for 1356F is Exhibit A 2 on the record. The disputed plots are recorded therein as the sir of Ramker Singh and others. Ranjit Singh, Ram Sural Singh and Balehwar are recorded as sub-tenants 'badastoor' (as before). In the remarks column the disputed plots are recorded as parti jadid. In view of the use of the word "badastoor", reference has to be made to the extracts from khasra for the earlier years on the record. In the khasra for 1353F, the disputed plots are recorded as the sir of Ramker Singh and others and the names of Ranjit Singh, Ram Surat Singh and Baleshwar find place in the column meant for subtenants. They have been recorded as sub-tenants 'badastoor'. In the remarks column Bhojunonia through Ramraj Singh has been recorded to be in possession. In the khasra for 1355F, Ranjit Singh, Ramsurat Singh and Baleshwar are recorded to be the subtenants badastoor and in the remarks column the disputed plots are recorded to be parti jadid. 8. In the khatauni for 1356F, the Appellant Ram Surat and Baleshwar have been recorded as Zamanbis (20) Davedar Qabiz. It is significant that in this revenue paper the aforesaid -persons were not recorded as sub-tenants. Keeping in view the entries in the khasra for the years 1353F and 1355F, there is no escape from the conclusion that the names of the Appellant, Ram Surat Singh and Baleshwar Singh were recorded as sub-tenants in the khasra for 1356F, on the basis of previous entries and not on the basis of factum of possession found as a result of 'partap, It has already been noticed that the application for redemption filed by Ramraj Singh was decreed and possession over the disputed plots was obtained by him in pursuance of the decree, that a suit u/s 180 of the UP Tenancy Act filed by Ramraj Singh was also decreed and posession was delivered to him in pursuance of the decree and that the proceeding u/s 145 of Code of Criminal Procedure terminated in favour of Ramrai Singh and the disputed plots were released in his favour. It is thus clear that the entries in the revenue papers that the Appellant, Ram Surat Singh and Baleshwar Singh were subtenants of the disputed plots were wrong and in view of Explanation III to Section 20 of the UP Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act should be deemed to have been corrected. It has been contended on behalf of the Appellant that the aforesaid explanation was not attracted inasmuch as the aforesaid decrees and the orders in favour of Ramraj Singh were not passed after 1356F. Stated differently, the contention is that Explanation III would apply to that case only in which a decree or order is made after 1356F and in support of that contention reliance has been placed upon a ruling of this Court in Sri Jagdish Prasad v. The Board of Revenue (2) reported in 1959 AWR 662. The aforesaid ruling is distinguishable on facts. What was held therein was that the word "corrected" and "correction" occurring in Explanation III to Section 20 of the UP Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act exclude the application of the explanation to a case where the order or decree has expressly held that the material entry was rightly made oh the strength of actual possession as required by the relevant rules in the Land Records Manual Part I. It is thus evident that in accordance with the aforesaid ruling, the application of Explanation III is excluded in those cases only in which a person is recorded as occupant in the khasra or khatauni for 1356F on the basis of the fact of possession found as a result of "partal". In other words, if in the khasra or khatauni for 1356F a person is recorded as an occupant on the basis of previous entries, which entries were wrong and ought not to have been made in view of an earlier decree or border of a competent court, the entry in the khasra or khatauni for 1356F should be deemed to have been corrected, provided that the earlier decree or order was made prior to the date of vesting of the estates of intermediaries under the UP Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms' Act. In the instant case, as has already been seen, the entry in the khasra for 1356F recording the Appellant, Ram Surat Singh and Baleshwar Singh as sub-tenants was not made on the basis of possession found on the spot, but on the basis of previous entries which were wrong and were against the previous decrees and orders. The decree in the suit u/s 180 of the UP Tenancy Act of 1939 was made and possession was obtained by the decree holder prior to the date of vesting and in view of those facts the entries in the khasra and khatauni for 1356F should be deemed to have been corrected by virtue of Explanation III referred to above. 9. On behalf of the Appellant reliance has also been plaiced upon the allegation made in the plaint filed by Ram Raj Singh on 30th of June 1949 u/s 180 of the UP Tenancy Act and it has been contended that Ram Raj Singh had admitted that the Appellant, Ram Surat Singh and Baleshwar were in possession of the disputed plots. What was alleged by Ramraj Singh in the aforesaid plaint was that the Appellant was preventing him from cultivating the disputed; plots. It was not stated by him that he had been dispossessed from those plots by the Appellant. The disputed plots lay parti in the year 1949 and it could not, therefore, be held that Ram Raj Singh had been dispossessed from those plots when he filed the aforesaid plaint in 1949. For the foregoing reasons I agree with the conclusion reached by the learned lower appellate court that the Appellant or for the matter of that Ram Surat Singh and Baleshwar Singh were not proved to have acquired the rights of Adhivasis in the disputed plots of land. 10. In conclusion, the appeals fail and are dismissed with costs.