JUDGMENT I.B. Singh, Member - This is a plaintiff's second appeal against judgment and decree dated 22-3-1975 passed by learned. Additional Commissioner, Jhansi Division, Jhansi, dismissing appeal No. 238 of 1972-73/Banda confirming judgment and decree dated 15-3-1973 passed by Assistant Collector 1st Class, Karwi, district Banda, dismissing plaintiff's suit u/s 209 of Act I of 1951. 2. The suit was filed by Kanhai Prasad, Daya Shanker and Rama Shanker u/s 209 Z.A. & L.R. Act on 15-2-1972 in respect of plot no. 101 area 3-3-0 situate in village Parakaon Pargana Mau district Banda. The plaintiffs claimed to be sirdars of the laud in suit and alleged that Ram Asrey had taken possession without the consent of the plaintiffs in 1374 F. plaintiff' sought a decree for the ejectment of the defendant as well as for damages of Rs. 3000/-. 3. The suit was contested by Ram Asrey who denied the title of the plaintiff and alleged that Badri Prasad father of the plaintiff no. 1 and grand father of plaintiffs 1 and 2 along with Ram Ratan father of the contesting defendant acquired the land from joint family funds. That by private partition the land was given in the share of Ram Ratan father of defendant. That Badri Prasad looked after joint family property and his name alone was recorded and on his death name of plaintiffs was recorded but father of defendant and after his death defendant had been in possession. In the alternative he claimed sirdari rights by adverse possession of more than 12 years, in the alternative he claimed sirdari rights on the basis of being in cultivatory possession in 1356 to 1359 fasli. He alleged that defendants father had come into possession with the consent of Badri Prasad and the suit is time barred. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. 5. It has been argued that both the courts below wrongly relied on khasra of 1361 to 1364 fasli brushing aside provision of para A- 81 of the Land Records Manual as no date and diary number was written and no. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. 5. It has been argued that both the courts below wrongly relied on khasra of 1361 to 1364 fasli brushing aside provision of para A- 81 of the Land Records Manual as no date and diary number was written and no. P.A. 10 was issued or served on the plaintiffs and the continuity of possession has also not been proved; that the suit was filed on 15-2-1972 and was within time from the Varg 9 entries of 1379 fasli The continuity of possession of alleged adverse possession has not been proved. Reliance has been placed on 1952 R.D. page 1, 1981 R.D. page 1 and 209 and 1979 R.D. page 66. 6. It has been argued in reply that the concurrent findings of both the courts below should not be interfered with; that the entry of defendant's possession was according to rules as the provisions of para 102-C of Land Record Manual came in force from 1365 fasli and not prior to it i.e., from February 1958. Reliance has been placed on 1968 A.W.R. page 817, A.I.R. 1963 (S.C.) page 1633 and A.I.R. 1976 (S.C.) page 165. 7. In the Khatauni of 1376 to 1378 fasli plaintiffs are recorded sirdars from before 1360 fasli and the defendant is recorded in Varg 9 from 1374 fasli. The margat entries of 1358 fasli and 1359 fasli confer no rights on the defendant, They being entries not in his own rights. There is no entry of possession of the defendant in 1360 fasli. The entries in khasra extract of 1361 fasli, 1362 fasli and 1363 fasli are without note for issuing P.A. 10 without dates and diary numbers, therefore they have got evidentiary value. The khasra extract of 1364 fasli is with diary number and date but no note for issuing P.A. 10. In it fee realised is written to be in naya paisas when the naya paisas bad come into circulation w.e.f. 1-4-1957, therefore, it clearly shows that it was prepared subsequently and was antedated. The khasra extract of 1364 fasli is with diary number and date but no note for issuing P.A. 10. In it fee realised is written to be in naya paisas when the naya paisas bad come into circulation w.e.f. 1-4-1957, therefore, it clearly shows that it was prepared subsequently and was antedated. These khasra entries are not according to Land Record Manual, Paragraphs A-80 and A-81 but this aspect was not considered by the courts below which were mislead to conjectural conclusions that because the plaintiffs live in connection with service outside at different places, therefore, they could not have been in possession and only the defendant would have been in possession. Forgetting that there is evidence on record that their family lives in the village and their women look after their cultivation. Very many persons are living outside their villages in connection with services etc., and their cultivation is being looked after by women-folk of the family. 8. Reliance has been placed on Ram Das v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Ghazipur and others, 1968 A.W.R. 817 (H.C.) It does not lay down that such entries are to be believed as para A-102-C or the land Records Manual was introduced only in February 1958. It was introduced only for the purpose that if the Lekhpal does not comply with the provisions of paras A-80 and A-81 the entry made by him shall not be considered to have been made in the discharge of his duty. This para was abolished by notification dated July 3, 1965 and new para. A-80 of the Land Records Manual was substituted by the said Notification doing away with the power of the Lekhpal to make Kabiz entries following the provisions of the Old Para A-80 and A-81 but it never means that the compliance of old paras A-80 and A-81 was not in force in 1361 to 1364 fasli. The A.R.K. has stated that no P.A. 10 were is tied served on the tenants i.e., the plaintiffs. Such entries should not be relied upon unless cogent and reliable evidence is produced in support of them which is wanting in the present case. The A.R.K. has stated that no P.A. 10 were is tied served on the tenants i.e., the plaintiffs. Such entries should not be relied upon unless cogent and reliable evidence is produced in support of them which is wanting in the present case. The learned Additional Commissioner has brushed aside the compliance of old para A-80 and A-81 of the land Record Manual on the ground that it was not possible to serve the P.A. 10 then invoke on the plaintiffs as they were living outside the village in connection with services without considering the provision of para. 423 of Land Records Manual. Sub para VIII that entries mace by the Lekhpal without complying paragraphs 89-A-80 and 423 the entries made in the remarks column of the khasra will not be deemed to have been made in the discharge of his official duties. 9. Sub Clause 3 of para 423 requires the Lekhpal to hand over extracts relating to such persons living outside the circle entitled to receive extract of entries of P.A. 10, with his address to the R.K. who shall send such extract by ordinary post under certificate of posting within a week from their receipt in his office. Thus admittedly no P.A. 10 was served or issued to the plaintiffs. These entries are of no avail and cannot be held to have any evidentiary value. But the courts below ignored these provisions and accepted the said entries to be genuine and binding on the plaintiffs which is against the provisions of law. 10. The Kabiza entries of 1365 and 1366 faslis are just like kabiz entries of 1361 to 1364 fasli. There is no entry for 1367 fasli and the entry of 1368 fasli in red ink is likewise and the entries of 1369 fasli is in black ink. There is no entry in 1370 fasli then like entry is to be found in 1371 fasli and 1372 fasli. Then again there is no entry in 1373. Fasli and the Varg 9 entry 1374 fasli is without compliance of para 423 of the Land Records Manual as mentioned above, hence it has got no evidentiary value. There is no entry in 1370 fasli then like entry is to be found in 1371 fasli and 1372 fasli. Then again there is no entry in 1373. Fasli and the Varg 9 entry 1374 fasli is without compliance of para 423 of the Land Records Manual as mentioned above, hence it has got no evidentiary value. Thus the on current findings of both the courts below without keeping the said provisions in view is contrary to law and the said rulings of the Supreme Court are, therefore, not at all applicable to the present case because the conclusion arrived at by both the courts below are based on conjectures and surmises without keeping the said provisions of Land Records Manual in their view, therefore, they are liable to be set aside and the appeal is liable to be allowed and the statements of D.W. 1 and D.W. 2 and D.W. 3 is not to be relied upon because D.W. 1 is the Lekhpal who did not comply with the provisions of the Land Records Manual and made the aforesaid entries in a wrong manner and D.W. 2 is the defendant himself and D.W. 3 does not know even the relationship of the plaintiff and defendant and even the Lekhpal and pleaded ignorance about the cultivation of the plaintiff through defendants and stated that defendant was in possession since 30 to 32 years which is not corroborated or any paper entries and stated that defendants got the land from their lather who was never recorded as the plaintiff's father was recorded in the Khatauni of 1333 fasli and afterwards and the plaintiff's are recorded as sirdars since 1360 fasli. I, therefore, hold that the defendant is not in possession over the disputed land. Entries in his name are false and fictitious and against Land Records Manual and he had not acquired any right over the disputed Land in any way alleged by him and the plaintiff's suit is liable to be decreed and the judgments and decrees passed by both the courts below are liable to be set aside. 11. In view of the above, this appeal is allowed. The judgments and decrees passed by both the courts below are hereby set aside. The plaintiff's suit stands decreed with costs who were declared to be sirdars in possession over the disputed land. 11. In view of the above, this appeal is allowed. The judgments and decrees passed by both the courts below are hereby set aside. The plaintiff's suit stands decreed with costs who were declared to be sirdars in possession over the disputed land. The name of the defendant shall be expunged recorded in Varg 9 and records shall be corrected accordingly.