Short Note : 1. This is an appeal under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure preferred by the plaintiffs who had filed a suit on the basis of their title for the declaration that the entries in Khasra Nos. for the years 1963-64, 1964-65 and 1965-66 were not binding on them being made falsely and unauthorisedly in relation to agricultural lands bearing Khasra Nos. 221, 223, 224, half of 225 and 229 located in village Gujarra Bujrag tahsil Niwari and district Tikamgath. They are aggrieved by their claims being dismissed by both the Courts below. The defendants who are absent here inspite of notice of this appeal had contested the suit on the basis of their own title and possession over the suit lands asserting that the entries in the Khasras of the various years mentioned in the plaint are correct. They also raised a question in jurisdiction of the Court for entertaining the dispute. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant was heard and I am of opinion that the appeal has force and it must be allowed. The finding of both the Courts below was that the plaintiffs had title over the suit lands except Khasra No. 221, but as regards possession was concerned both the Courts below held that the plaintiffs failed to prove their possession and on that basis dismissed the suit while also holding that the Civil Court had jurisdiction to decide the dispute. As regards the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is concerned it cannot be doubted. Besides that there is also no challenge before me in that regard. Both the Courts below having held that title over the suit lands was of the plaintiffs, they committed error in not decreeing their claim. It appears that both the Courts below failed to see the rules framed under section 110 of the M.P. land Revenue Code 1959. Besides that there is also no challenge before me in that regard. Both the Courts below having held that title over the suit lands was of the plaintiffs, they committed error in not decreeing their claim. It appears that both the Courts below failed to see the rules framed under section 110 of the M.P. land Revenue Code 1959. They appear to have acted under a wrong impression by relying on old rule 21 of the superseded rules and overlooking to see to new rule 32 of the New Mutation Rules framed in the exercise of powers conferred by Notification No. 2498-VII-N-I, dated the 10th June 1965, published in the M.P. Rajpatra, dated the 2nd July 1965, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) and clauses (xxiv) (a), (xxiv) (b), (xxv) (a), (xxv) (b) and (xxvii-a) of sub-section (2) of section 258 read with section 108, 109, 110, 114 (2) and 123 (3) of the Code and in super-session of all rules previously made on the subject. Held : This new rule brought out a complete change in the matter of mutations in the Khasra. Under the new rules the mutation has to be made on the basis of title and not on the basis of possession. That being so, when both the Courts below have found title over the suit lands vested in the plaintiffs they had no option but to grant declaration sought for by the plaintiffs. They misdirected themselves for dismissing the claim by side tracking the basis of title and confining themselves with regard to the factum of possession over the suit lands, which was not permissible in view of the new rule 32. In the view I have taken the judgments of both the Courts below are liable to be set aside having been based contrary, to the provisions of Jaw. Appeal allowed Suit decreed.