Short Note : 1. This is a defendant's second appeal arising out of a suit for possession of a plot of land after demolition of the defendant's house which admittedly stands therein. The finding recorded by the Court below is that this house was constructed by the defendant in that plot of land in the year 1958. This suit was brought by the plaintiff in the year 1963, alleging that the defendant had encroached over his land and constructed the said house. The property in dispute is a portion of Khasra No. 374 in the locality known as Premnagar in Tahsil Raghurajnagar, District Satna. 2. The plaintiff's case is that the disputed plot of land forms a part of Khasra No. 374/1 measuring 1.50 acres, which was granted to him by the Patta (Ex.P-1) dated 7.5.1941. It has been alleged that it is over this portion of the land so granted to the plaintiff and owned in this manner that the defendant had constructed his house. The plaintiff succeeded in the two Courts below. Hence this appeal by defendant. 3. Shri A.R. Choube, learned counsel for the defendant-appellant, has argued that the conclusion reached by the Court below holding that the plaintiff has proved the alleged encroachment by the defendant over his land, is vitiated because it has been reached on a misreading of evidence and as a result of ignoring certain obvious facts which are not in controversy. Having gone through the relevant documentary evidence, I am of the opinion that this argument has to be accepted. 4. It is the plaintiff's own case that a total area of 1.50 acres only out of Khasra No. 374 was granted to him by the Patta (Ex.P-1) there being not even a suggestion of grant of any more land within this Khasra number to the plaintiff. The plaintiff's case as set out in the plaint is that the disputed plot of land forms a part of this 1.50 acre, granted to the plaintiff by the Patta (Ex.P-1) which was then described as Khasra No. 374/1. It is, therefore, of great significance that the plaintiff undisputedly continues to be in possession of at least 1.50 acres of land of Khasra No. 374. The first appellate Court erroneously ignored this fact and said in paragraph 19 of its judgment that this fact is of no consequence. It is, therefore, of great significance that the plaintiff undisputedly continues to be in possession of at least 1.50 acres of land of Khasra No. 374. The first appellate Court erroneously ignored this fact and said in paragraph 19 of its judgment that this fact is of no consequence. It was also said by the first appellate Court that the fact that the plaintiff had sold more than 1.50 acres of land from this Khasra number was also irrelevant. Obviously, this is fallacious. When the question is, as already indicated, the undisputed fact of plaintiff having already sold 1.50 acres of land from this Khasra number and being even then in possession of another 1.50 acres therein is of great significance, when even according to the plaintiff, the grant in his favour was in all of only 1.50 acres. That apart, the Deputy Collector, who was appointed Commissioner for the purpose of making a local inspection to determine the allegation of encroachment, said clearly in his report that the suit land was out side the plaintiff's land. He has also stated in his report that the original Khasra No. 374/1 was later altered to Khasra No. 374/2-Ka and the same measuring 1.50 acres was in possession of the plaintiff, that the disputed land fell out side this Khasra No. 374/2-Ka, belonging to the plaintiff of which he continues to be in possession. The fact that the Khasra number of the plaintiff has been altered from 374/1 to 374/2-Ka is evident even from copies of the Khasra's (Ex.P-4, Ex.D.2, Ex.D-5) and other revenue records filed in this case, no copy of the Khasra relating to Khasra No. 374/1 being relied on even by the plaintiff. The Court below clearly misread these documents and ignored vital facts relevant for the purpose of deciding the main controversy between the parties. There is no explanation on behalf of the plaintiff of these glaring facts which negative the plaintiff's case. 5. It is obvious that the plaintiff can succeed only on the strength of his title and unless it is proved that the suit land forms a part of 1.50 acres granted to the plaintiff under the Patta (Ex.P-1), the plaintiff's suit must fail. The plaintiff has obviously failed to prove this fact and there is sufficient evidence to indicate to the contrary. The suit is, therefore, bound to fail. Appeal allowed, suit dismissed.