Short Note : 1. This second appeal is at the instance of the defendant against whom both the Courts below have decreed the claim of the plaintiffs for possession of the suit lands and mesne profits. 2. The facts giving rise to this appeal are that defendant No. 1 Sudar was the recorded Bhumiswami holder of the suit lands. The plaintiffs purchased the suit lands from him by a registered sale-deed for a consideration of Rs. 2,000 on 4.9.1965. The plaintiffs contended that they were placed in possession of the suit lands in pursuance of the aforesaid sale-deed but the defendant No. 2 and the present appellant, forcibly dispossessed them in the month of November 1965 and harvested the standing crops without any right, title or interest on the lands in question. 3. The case of the defendant No. 2 Prahlad Sawra (appellant) was that he had perfected his title by remaining in adverse possession from the year 1945-46 to the knowledge of the defendant No. 1 who was the recorded holder and as such on the date of sale in favour of the plaintiffs, the defendant No. 1 had no right, title or interest in suit lands as the same had already extinguished due to adverse possession of the appellant and accordingly, the plaintiffs too did not get any right, title or interest and, thus, they were not entitled to the relief of possession or mesne profits. The story of dispossession in the month of November 1965 was also denied. 4. The Courts below have rightly observed that under the circumstances of the case, it was not safe to rely on the oral evidence in the shape of conflicting versions of the witnesses examined by the respective parties, in their favour. Reliance was rightly placed on the entries in public records about possession on the suit lands. The defendant No. 2 has filed certified copies of Khasras from the years 1945-46 to 1953-54 in support of his case for adverse possession. From the perusal of the entries, it is apparent that the same do not support the case of adverse possession as pleaded by the defendant No. 2. On the contrary, theses entries disclose the permissive possession of the appellant defendant No. 2 as a sub-tenant of the recorded Bhumiswami, Sudar (defendant No. 1) on payment of some tent. 5. From the perusal of the entries, it is apparent that the same do not support the case of adverse possession as pleaded by the defendant No. 2. On the contrary, theses entries disclose the permissive possession of the appellant defendant No. 2 as a sub-tenant of the recorded Bhumiswami, Sudar (defendant No. 1) on payment of some tent. 5. The defendant No. 2 has also relied on the entries made in the Khasra for the period 1955-56 to 1959-60. In these Khasras, the defendant No. 2 has not been shown to be in possession of the suit lands either as a subtenant or otherwise. In the remark column, there is, however, an entry mentioning the fact that the appellant was responsible for the repairs of one survey mark, which happened to exist in one of the field. The entries during this period clearly show that the defendant No. 1 Sudar was in possession of the suit lands. It was contended on behalf of the appellant that since according to the provisions of M.P. Land Revenue Code of 1954 and, thereafter, even according to the New Code, the liability of repairing the survey mark is always on the holder of the land, it should be presumed on the basis of said entry regarding the responsibility for repairs of the survey mark with the defendant No. 2 that he was in possession of the suit lands, even in the absence of any such entry made in his favour in the respective column meant for entering the name of the person other than the holder found to be in actual possession. In my opinion, since the initial entries right from year 1945-46 themselves do not support the case of adverse possession as put up by the defendant No. 2 and are rather contrary to the same in as much as they show the appellant to be in permissive possession, it is not possible to infer adverse possession. 6. Under these circumstances, the finding, concurrently recorded by the Courts below that the appellant failed to establish his case of adverse possession, appears to be quite reasonable and proper and cannot be as said at this stage in second appeal. 6. Under these circumstances, the finding, concurrently recorded by the Courts below that the appellant failed to establish his case of adverse possession, appears to be quite reasonable and proper and cannot be as said at this stage in second appeal. It cannot be said to be reverse i.e. either based on no evidence or contrary to the evidence on record and, therefore, the defendant No. 1 being admittedly the original owner of the land and the plaintiffs having established the fact of purchase of the suit lands from him by registered deed of sale, have been rightly held entitled to the relief of possession and mesne profits on the basis of their title. 7. Being faced with this difficulty, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant tried to contend that even if it was disclosed from the entries in the Khasra for the period 1945-46 to 1953 54, that the appellant was occupying the suit lands as a sub-tenant. he became the ordinary tenant and rights of occupancy tenant-accrued in his favour, which have further, ripened into rights of a Bhumiswami according to the provisions of the M.P. land Revenue Code of 1954 and thereafter according to the new Code of 1959 and therefore, the suit of the plaintiffs should have been dismissed by the Court below. 8. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents rightly pointed out that the appellant cannot be allowed to put up this new case at this stage in second appeal, particularly when the necessary facts essential for establishing such a case were not admitted and the aforesaid claim required in vestigation on disputed question of fact. In my opinion, the objection raised on behalf on the respondents has to be maintained. No such case was put up either at the time of filing the written statement or at any stage subsequently before the Courts below. On the other hand, the case as put up was absolutely otherwise and contrary to the plea now sought to be urged. It is also apparent that in order to sustain such a defence, it is necessary to investigate on facts about the grant and continuance of the lease on the relevant date i.e. 1.10.1955, when the M.P. Land Revenue Code of 1954 came in to force. It is also apparent that in order to sustain such a defence, it is necessary to investigate on facts about the grant and continuance of the lease on the relevant date i.e. 1.10.1955, when the M.P. Land Revenue Code of 1954 came in to force. The Khasras of the relevant period i.e. for the years 1954-55 and onwards do not disclose that the defendant No. 2 appellant was holding the suit lands as a sub-tenant on the relevant date. The Khasras right from the year 1955-56 and onwards up to the date of sale disclose the defendant No. 1 Sudar as the holder and in possession of the lands. In any case, it is not necessary to deal and decide this aspect of the case in the present suit as the same does not arise at all for determination in the absence of such a case having been pleaded or proved. Appeal dismissed.