JUDGMENT : ( 1. ) PLAINTIFFS legal representatives are the appellants. He had succeeded in trial Court but he lost in the Court below. ( 2. ) THE suit for declaration of title admittedly is based on sale-deed, Ex. P-1, executed by Second Respondent, Udayabhan who, according to the plaintiff, being recorded as gair Maurusi tenant in Khasra Ex. PD-2, for Samvat 2007, could validly confer tide on him, The lower appellate Court, in reversing the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, held that there was discrepancy in survey numbers in the different Khasras produced in the case which was reflected in the sale-deed vitiating plaintiffs claim. Therefore, it was firstly held the Plaintiffs suit being not for rectification of the sale-deed, he could not pray for declaration. Secondly, it was held, udayabhans title based on his tenancy right was not proved because no rent receipts were proved in the case. ( 3. ) GOVERNMENT Advocate, Shri J. S. L. Sinha, with his usual vigour and vehemence, supported the impugned judgment and decree. He has drawn my attention to Section 6 of the Zamindari Abolition Act, for short, Z. A. Act, and Section 257 of the m. P. Land Revenue Code, for short, the code in order to buttress the conclusion of the Court below. ( 4. ) HOWEVER, I have no doubt at all that the impugned judgment of reversal is not sustainable in law for several reasons. Firstly, because of what is to be read in Section 6 itself, relied on by Shri Sinha, what is contemplated thereunder is that "the Suba shall take charge of all lands other than occupied lands and home-steads and of all interests vesting in the State, under Section 3". What clearly escaped the attention of the Court below is the fact that the suit land was "occupied land", as statutorily envisaged and it would therefore, remain "occupied" in the manner prescribed in the Z. A. Act aforesaid, as also in the parallel enactment, namely, M. B. Land Revenue and Tenancy Act, samvat 2007, for short, Samvat 2007 Act Indeed, Section 3 of the Z. A. Act clearly contemplates vesting merely of "proprietary rights" in the State; it did, in no way, determine the interest of any person in the "occupied land" defined in the same Act, in section 2 (f), which is as follows :- "2 (f ). "occupied land" means land held immediately before the date of vesting of proprietary rights in the State under Section 3, in ex-proprietary, Pukhta maurusi, Mamuli Maurusi or Gair Maurusi tenure of land held by sub-tenants or tenants of a sub-tenants or land held as Khud-Kashta or land comprised in a dwelling house together with any court-yard attached garden, trees standing in such court-yard and out-buildings and includes any out-building used for purposes connected with agriculture or horticulture and any tank appurtenant to such dwelling house;" ( 5. ) I have perused the Khasra for Samvats 2007 and 2008, proved as Exs. PD-2and pd-3. In the first document the survey number is shown as 4618 with a total area of 19 bighas and 3 biswas. In these documents name of Udayabhan does appear and he is also recorded as gair Maurusi tenant in very categorical terms. Shri Sinha relies on another khasra of Samvat 2008 itself, which is also marked Ex. PD-3, wherein the name of udayabhan does not appear. The entry therein reads"jahansingh Bashhare Sadar". What I would like to say in this connection is only this: in the other Ext. PD-3 udayabhans name does appear and indeed against both parts of survey number 4618, namely Parts 2 and 3 and that this Khasra is also for Samvat 2008. Shri Sinhas suggestion is that there is likelihood of some "bungling" in khasras of the plaintiff. Counsel submits, the plaintiff has to be denied relief therefor, because he has not proved his own case. But the question is, whether the Khasras, which are documents of the defendants (State of madhya Pradesh) namely, Exs. PD-2 and PD-3, do prove plaintiffs case. Despite the cloud created by what Shri Sinha calls "bungling" in the Khasras, I see no substance in the prayer of Shri Sinha that original khasras be called at this stage for the simple reason that this point was not taken in two Courts below and trial Courts reliance on Exs. PD-2 and PD-3 (which support plaintiffs case) cannot, in my view of the matter, be called perverse. ( 6. ) ACCORDING to me what is of utmost importance is that Ex. PD-3 in categorical terms established that Udayabhan, plaintiffs vendor, had tenancy interest in the land and the said land was "occupied land" within the meaning of Section 2 (f) of Z. A. Act. ( 6. ) ACCORDING to me what is of utmost importance is that Ex. PD-3 in categorical terms established that Udayabhan, plaintiffs vendor, had tenancy interest in the land and the said land was "occupied land" within the meaning of Section 2 (f) of Z. A. Act. Indeed, because of the very fact that he was recorded (as contemplated under Section 2 (f)) in Samvat 2007, as gair Maurusi tenant of the said land, no further investigation of what happened subsequently in Samvat 2008 is at all called for inasmuch as in terms of section 6 aforesaid the possession of the land could not be taken by Suba and tenancy interest of Udayabhan in the said land could not be extinguished. Section 54 (7) of samvat 2007 Act has defined the term "pakka Tenant" to mean a tenant who has been "lawfully recorded" in respect of his holding as "gair Maurusi" tenant on the date of coming into force of the Act. In the instant case, State has neither pleaded nor proved that Udayabhan had not been lawfully recorded. Indeed, the question of alleged bungling mooted for the first time in this Court relates to Khasra for Samvat 2008 and not to Samvat 2007. That apart, Section 38 of the Act itself contemplates that any person, who belongs to any of those several classes of tenants of a proprietor shall be deemed, or may become, as the case may be, a "pakka tenant" of the land comprised in his holding before vesting. That being the position, in virtue of Section 259 of the Code, udayabhan, by operation of law, became a "deemed" bhumiswami perfecting his title on the land, which he could validly pass on to the plaintiff. ( 7. ) I do not see any merit in the contention of Shri Sinha that plaintiffs right to claim declaration of his title is indented by Section 257 of the Code, which excludes jurisdiction of Civil Courts in certain matters. True, in the matter of correction of revenue-records exclusive jurisdiction is conferred only on the Revenue Authorities but prayer in the instant suit being not for correction of revenue records reliance on Section 257 is evidently misconceived. True, in the matter of correction of revenue-records exclusive jurisdiction is conferred only on the Revenue Authorities but prayer in the instant suit being not for correction of revenue records reliance on Section 257 is evidently misconceived. On the other hand, I would like to say that it will be open now to the plaintiff to take appropriate proceedings before she Revenue Authorities for making necessary correction in the revenue-records in the light of the decision rendered in this matter. ( 8. ) SHRI Arun Mishra has placed reliance on a number of decisions in support of his contention that the Court below erroneously held that without rectifying the safe deed the instant suit was not maintainable (See Rajaram AIR 1952 Nagpur 90 and kamal Narayan 1976 MPLJ SN 90 ). The legal position is indeed indisputable and the decisions cited support the view canvassed with which I respectfully express my full concurrence. I also see great merit in counsels reliance on a decision of this Court in bharat Singhs case/1970 R. N. 426) wherein it was held that rent receipts need not be produced by tenant to prove his tenancy right because Section 52 of Samvat 2007 Act has created presumption of correctness of Khasra entries and as such in the instant case exs. PD-2 and PD-3 would be deemed sufficient proof of tenancy right of the plaintiffs vendor. Counsel has also rightly contended that in this case even the presumption, on evidence, has stood unrebutted. The decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Shikharchands case ( AIR 1974 SC 1178 ) is pressed in service, which is also to the same effect. It was held by their Lordships that the appellate Court was wholly wrong in discarding Khasra entries, indeed there being no rebuttal evidence to the contrary. ( 9. ) FOR all the foregoing reasons I have no hesitation to take the view mat the court below erred in law in setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial court in decreeing the plaintiffs suit. I am fully satisfied that plaintiff having proved his title on the suit land he was entitled to a declaration and he could not have been non-suited merely on the ground that he had not sued for rectification of the sale-deed or that his vendor had not proved rent receipts. I am fully satisfied that plaintiff having proved his title on the suit land he was entitled to a declaration and he could not have been non-suited merely on the ground that he had not sued for rectification of the sale-deed or that his vendor had not proved rent receipts. In this connection I might also mention that in this Court Udayabhan, plaintiffs vendor, has come to support him though in the courts below he did not file any written statement Shri M. M. Kaushik, who appears for udayabhan, has made a categorical statement that he has instructions to support the plaintiff-appellants case, ( 10. ) IN the result, the appeal succeeds and is allowed. The impugned judgment and decree passed by the Court below are set aside and those of the trial Court are restored. Appeal allowed.