Short Note : The plaintiff-applicant filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction against defendant-non-applicants on the allegations that he is in possession of the suit land and that the defendants want to dispossess him by virtue of a Patta granted by the tahsil Court in favour of defendant-non-applicants 1 and 2. 2. The defendant-non-applicants Tulsiram and Narayan denied the claim of the plaintiff and asserted that they are in possession of the suit land by virtue of a Patta granted by the tahsil Court in their favour. They also alleged that they have been put in actual possession of the suit land after demarcation having been made by the Patwari on 1-7-1974. 3. The trial Court granted temporary injunction in favour of the plaintiff especially on the basis of a report submitted by the Revenue Inspector on 25-7-1974. 4. Aggrieved by this order, the defendant-non-applicants Tulsiram and Narayan preferred an appeal which has been allowed by the impugned order and the interim injunction granted by the trial Court has been vacated. Hence this revision. Held: After having heard learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that this revision deserves to be dismissed. The learned Additional District Judge has, on a proper appreciation of evidence in the shape of affidavits and documents on record, held that possession was delivered to the defendant-non-applicants No.1 and 2, through the tahsil Court on 1-7-1974. There is report of the Patwari and Panchnama showing that possession was so delivered to the defendant-non-applicant No.1 and 2. The possession of the defendant-non-applicants is reflected in the Khasras on records, in which the entries have been made in pursuance of the Patta granted by the tahsil Court to non-applicants No. 1 and 2. By virtue of section 117 of the Code, a statutory presumption attaches to the Khasra entries and it has to be presumed that the entries showing defendant-non-applicants No.1 and 2 in possession of the suit land are correct. So also, the regularity of the judicial act of delivery of possession to the non-applicants No. 1 and 2 through tahsil Court in case No. 26/73-74XA/12 has also to be presumed to be correct unless contrary is shown. 5. At this stage, Shri D.K. Katare, learned counsel for the applicant, placed reliance on a report of the Revenue Inspector dated 25-7-1974 which states that the plaintiff-applicant is in possession. 5. At this stage, Shri D.K. Katare, learned counsel for the applicant, placed reliance on a report of the Revenue Inspector dated 25-7-1974 which states that the plaintiff-applicant is in possession. Firstly, it does not even appeal to imagination as to how after delivery of possession having been effected through the process of tahsil Court, the plaintiff could be found to be in possession by the Revenue Inspector. Secondly, neither any law is shown nor any order of the tahsil has been produced empowering the Revenue Inspector to go to the spot, prepare a report and submit it in the matter. As such, the report dated 25-7-1974 submitted by the Revenue Inspector is wholly ineffective to rebut the presumption attaching to the Khasra entries and to the record showing actual delivery of possession having been effected to non-applicants No. 1 and 2. At the time of delivery of possession there was no crop of the plaintiff-applicant standing on the suit land. Therefore, the delivery of possession cannot be regarded as illegal. The provisions of section 38 of the Code are not shown to have been contravened in any manner whatsoever by the non-applicants No. 1 and 2. If the plaintiff thought that the delivery of possession was effected in a manner contrary to that enacted by section 38 of the Code, he could have preferred an appeal against the order of delivery of possession. The plaintiff having not done so, cannot be permitted to challenge the proceedings on the basis of supposed contravention of the provisions of section 38 of the Code. The present case is within the general rule that Civil Court also cannot sit over the order directing delivery of possession and the manner of execution of that order as an appellate revenue Court. Revision dismissed.