JUDGMENT I.B. Singh, Member. - These are two plaintiffs second appeals against judgment and decree dated 8.7.1975 passed by Ld. Additional Commissioner, Jhansi Division, Jhansi allowing the appeals dismissing the suit by setting aside the judgment and decree dated 28.11.1973 passed by Assistant Collector Ist Class, District Banda decreeing the suit. 2. The suit was filed on 7.5.1973 by the plaintiff alleging to be Bhumidhars of the disputed plot and to have been in possession up to 1373 fast, that defendant Jageshwar took forcible possession in 1374 Fasli having obtained farzi qabiz entries in the khasra of the previous years, which were made in contravention of the provisions of the Land Records Manual as No. P.A. 10 was served on them, they sought relief for declaration and possession along with damages of Rs. 1000/- per year. 3. The State contested the suit on the ground that the suit was for illegal transfer to the defendant. 4. The defendant contested the suit claiming to be sirdar in possession being in adverse possession for more than 12 years. 5. I have heard the Ld. counsel for the parties regarding both the appeals together and have perused the records. This judgment will govern both Second appeals nos. 1 and 2 of 1975-76/Banda. Its copy shall be placed on the connected file. 6. It was argued that the Ld. Additional Commissioner, had taken a perverse view who failed to notice para 423 (5) of the Land Records Manual regarding service of P.A. 10 and that the finding of the trial court has been set aside without perusing the original khatauni. 7. It has been argued that R.K. was examined with the original khatauni, whose statement was perused, that the oral evidence consist of P.A. 10 on one hand and D.W. 2 on the other hand and the qabiz entries were made according to rules. 8. The defendant is recorded in varg 9 from 1372 Fasli. It is borne out from the statement of P.W. 10 Muzaffar Hussain that P.A. 10 from 1367 to 1372 Fasli did not bear signatures of the plaintiff. Thus the entry of Khasra from 1367 to 1372 Fasli cannot be safely believed and were rightly not relied upon by the trial court as has been held in Jamuna Prasad v. D.D.C, 1981 R.D. 112. Thus the entry of Khasra from 1367 to 1372 Fasli cannot be safely believed and were rightly not relied upon by the trial court as has been held in Jamuna Prasad v. D.D.C, 1981 R.D. 112. The lower appellate court although held that no P.A. 10 was served on the plaintiff during those years but he held that as the plaintiff lived 10 miles away from the disputed plot, therefore, it cannot be expected that Lekhpal will go 10 miles to serve P.A. 10 on them. This reasoning is not acceptable because para 423(5) of the land Records Manual provides as follows regarding services of the entries ordered to be made by the Supervisor Kanungo on persons residing away from the village: Sub para 5 runs as follows:- "On the basis of the entry made by the Supervisor Kanungo and the entries made by him in the remarks column he shall proceed to make entries in class 4 or class 9 of the triennial Khatauni and sing and date the same. The Lekhpal shall prepare extracts of the entries in the Khatauni made by the Supervisor Kanungo and deliver them to the recorded tenure holder or tenure holders and also to person or persons ordered to be recorded in class 4 to class 9 of the khatauni, as the case may be, within ten days from the date of the making of the entry by the Supervisor Kanungo and obtain acknowledgements in his diary. If any of the persons entitled to a copy of the extract is not available in the village, he shall make over extracts relating to such persons to the Registrar Kanungo on his next pay date together with the address at which these person could be found. The Registrar Kanungo shall send such extracts by ordinary post under certificate of posting within a week from their receipt in his office." Thus it is clear that P.A. 10 shall be served on the recorded tenant by the R.K. on the report of Lekhpal by ordinary post under certificate of posting at the address where they reside. Being outside the circle of the Lekhpal. Being outside the circle of the Lekhpal. It was not complied with therefore,the qabiz entries in favour of the defendant was not made according to rules, hence the entries of their possession from 1367 Fasli to 1372 Fasli have been wrongly believed and relied upon by the lower appellate Court in spite of successive pronouncements of the Board and the Hon'ble High Court, that if the entries of possession have been made without complying the provisions of the rules, ordinarily they should not be relied upon. 9. The lower appellate Court wrongly placed the burden of proving his possession on the plaintiff the recorded tenant in 1373 fasli as copy of khasra of 1373 fasli was filed by any party. It is the trespasser who has to prove his continuos possession over the dispute land if there is no entry for any particular years, the possession of the recorded tenant will be presumed and not that of the trespasser. The possession of the plaintiff in 1373 fasli will be presumed and not that of the defendant. It is, therefore, proved as alleged by the plaintiff that the defendant took forcible possession on the basis of farzi entries in 1374 fasli and the suit was well within time as it was filed on 7.5.1973. 10. The appeal is, therefore, liable to be allowed the the judgment and decree passed by the trial court is liable to be confirmed. 11. In view of the above, this appeal is allowed with costs all through. Judgment and decree passed by the lower appellate court is set aside and that of the trial court is restores and is confirmed.