K. B. MEHROTRA, J. All the aforesaid appeals are connected with each other and arise out of a common judgment wherein the Additional Civil Judge, Mathura allowed three civil appeals of Ghanshyam Das, being Civil Appeal Nos. 106 of 1975, 107 of 1975 and 108 of 1975. 2. Original Suit No. 34 of 1968 was filed by Ghanshyam Das against Kanchan Singh, Suit No. 634 of 1968 was filed by Hira Lal against Ghan-Bhyam Das and others and Kanchan Singh also filed suit against Ghanshyam Das being Suit No. 419 of 1970. Munsif, Mathura vide his common judgment dated 29-9- 1975 decided all the three suits together and suit of plaintiff Ghanshyam Das was dismissed with costs and suits of Kanchan Singh and Hira La! were decided with costs. Aggrieved by the aforesaid decision, Ghan shyam Das preferred three first appeals, reference whereof has already been made. The Additional Civil Judge, Mathura vide his judgment dated 8-5-1979 Allowed all the three appeals, dismissed the suit of Kanchan Singh and Hira I al and decreed the suit of Ghanshyam Das, Aggrieved thereby the present three second appeals have been filed. Hira Lal is the brother of Kundan Lal and was co-plaintiff in original suit No. 634 of 1968. All the four brothers, namely, Kundan Lal, Hira Lal, Inder Mal and Puran Mal filed second appeal No. 1867 of 1979 which may be treated as leading appeal for the purposes of the decision of the present three appeals. 3. Facts necessary for the decision of the second appeals are stated hereunder : 4. Since the leading appeal arises out of suit of Hira Lal and others, the facts of the aforesaid suit are being stated on the forefront. 5. The case of the plaintiffs, Hira Lal and others was that they were the owners of the house shown in Schedule a of the plaint. There is a Kharanja infront of their verandah towards west and after that there is road which leads to Jatipura. The plaintiffs door opens towards the land in suit and their trucks pass from the road. The plaintiffs have got customary right by way of easement over this land. The way which leads to Jatipura has been detailed in Schedule b of the plaint. The plaintiffs door opens towards the land in suit and their trucks pass from the road. The plaintiffs have got customary right by way of easement over this land. The way which leads to Jatipura has been detailed in Schedule b of the plaint. Thereafter there is a piece of land which lies in Khasra No. 67 Khewat No. 1 Mohal Lachhman Singh and the same has been shown in Schedule c of the plaint. The area of Khewat No. 1 Mohai Lachhman Singh was 6. 91 acres and one Bhogi Ram had half share in it and the remaining half belonged to Ghisa and Mangtoo, the heirs of Kishan Lal. The owners of Khewat Muhal Lachhman Singh sold particular plots, measur ing 5. 43 acres to one Brij Ratan Lal by a sale-deed dated 25-11-1929. The plot in dispute was not mentioned in the sale- deed. Brij Ratan Lal had no concern with the remaining land of Khewat after enforcement of Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. Major portion of Khewat No. 1 Mahal Lachhman Singh including 5. 43 acres of land of Brij Ratan Lal came within the perview of the area, wherein Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act was enforced. Thus, Brij Ratan Lal became Bhumidhar of 5. 43 acres of land over the area where the Zamindari was abolished and after abolition of Zamindari only 72 decimal land remained under Khewat No. 1 which is within the limits of Town Area and Brij Ratan Lal had no cnncern with it. Bhogi Ram and heirs of Kishan Lal were owners of this. 72 acres of land over which Zamindari was not abolished and it was declared as an urban area. However, the Lekhpal wrongly entered tha name of Brij Ratan Lal over the aforesaid area of land in Khewat. 6. Bhogi Ram, who was owner of. 72 acres of land, which vested in the urban area, left three heirs, namely, Brij Lal, Ram Saran and Chhotey Lal, who, alongwith Ghisa and Mangtoo, were the owners of disputed land shown in Schedule d of the plaint. The disputed land, which is situated towards Rasta, was under the possession of Brij Lal, Ram Lal and Chhotey Lal and they had made a boundary wall over it, which got demolished in rains. Initially the plaintiffs took the land in dispute on rent from Brij Lal and others. The disputed land, which is situated towards Rasta, was under the possession of Brij Lal, Ram Lal and Chhotey Lal and they had made a boundary wall over it, which got demolished in rains. Initially the plaintiffs took the land in dispute on rent from Brij Lal and others. Later on, the plaintiffs purchased 9 descimal of land by sale-deed dated 25-7-1967 from Brij Lal and others and claimed that they became owners of it. 7. Kanchan Singh also purchased 9 decimal of land from Ghisa and Mangtoo. Kanchan Singh filed Suit No. 419 of 1970. The facts of the case of Kanchan Singh are almost similar to the facts of the case of Hira Lal. 8. Both the aforesaid suits were contested by Ghanshyam Das who claimed himself to be the purchaser of the property from Brij Ratan Lal, who was a co-owner of Khewat of undivided plot. Ghanshyam Das claimed that Brij Ratan Lal had also a share in the land in dispute and Ghanshyam Das having purchased the aforesaid plot, was the owner of the land in dispute. 9. It may be mentioned that Ghanshyam Das also brought a suit against Kanchan Singh and others for injunction and in the alternative for partition. The case of Ghanshyam Das was that in Khewat No. 1 Mohal Lachhman Singh an area of 6. 91 acres belonged to Bhogi Ram and Girraj s/o Ganga Prasad. The share of Bhogi Ram in the Khewat was 3. 46 acres and share of Girraj was 3. 45 acres. Kishan Lal was the heir of Girraj, Bhogi Ram and Kishan Lal jointly sold 5. 43 acres of land out of 6. 91 acres of land of Khewat No. 1 to one Goswami Brij Ratan Lal. Thus Goswami Brij Ratan Lal, Bhogi Ram and Kishan Lal became joint owners of Khewat No. 1, Mohal Lachhman Singh and each of them have 5. 43 acres,. 74 acres and. 74 acres land respectively in it. The case of Ghanshyam Das was that at the time of abolition of Zamindari. 72 acres of land remained in Town Area Goverdhan and for remaining portion the Zamindari was abolished and the parties became joint Bhumidhars of entire land and out of. 72 acres of land. 43 acres,. 74 acres and. 74 acres land respectively in it. The case of Ghanshyam Das was that at the time of abolition of Zamindari. 72 acres of land remained in Town Area Goverdhan and for remaining portion the Zamindari was abolished and the parties became joint Bhumidhars of entire land and out of. 72 acres of land. 57 acres belonged to Goswami Brij Ratan Lal and remaining 1/5 share belonged to Bhogi Ram, Ghisa and Mangtoo s/o Kishan Lal, one plot No. 1216/1 acres 88 decimal was out of plot of Mohal Lachhman Singh from an area of 6-91 acres and Goswami Brij Ratan Lal was the owner of 14 decimal belonged to Bhagirath Ram Ghisa and Mangtoo. The Mukhtar am of Goswami Brij Ratan Lal executed a sale-deed of 14 decimal land of his share in favour of the plaintiffs, namely, Ghanshyam Das on 20-7-1967 and delivered possession to them. On the aforesaid basis Ghanshyam Das claimed to be co-owner of the property in dispute and claimed partition thereof. The trial court on the basis of the pleadings of the parties framed issues in all the three suits separately. 10. Only following issues need be mentioned for the purposes of present appeals out of issues arising out of Suit No. 34 of 1968 - Ghanshyam Das v. Kanchan Singh, issues arising out of Suit No. 634 of 1968 - Hira Lal v. Ghan shyam Das and issues arising out of Suit No. 419 of 1970 - Kanchan Singh v. Ghanshyam Das : (1) Whether there was any door or verandah in the property in suit ? If not its effect ? (2) Whether the plaintiffs have acquired any easementary or custo mary right ? (3) Whether the Verandah or Kachha Kotha is a part of property No. 1216/1 ? (4) Whether the plaintiffs and defendants Nos. 4 to 7 are the owners in possession over the property in suit ? (5) Whether the sale-deed in favour of Goswami Brij Ratan Lal con fers any right or title in favour of Ghanshyam Das, if so, what is the effect of sale-deed dated 25-11-1929 ? (All issues arise in suit No. 634 of 1968 the leading case ). 11. (5) Whether the sale-deed in favour of Goswami Brij Ratan Lal con fers any right or title in favour of Ghanshyam Das, if so, what is the effect of sale-deed dated 25-11-1929 ? (All issues arise in suit No. 634 of 1968 the leading case ). 11. The trial court while deciding the aforesaid three suits together, decided issues No. I of original suit No. 34 of 1968 and issue No. 1 of original suit No. 419 of 1970. 12. According to the trial court, both the aforesaid issues were main issue regarding controversy involved in all the aforesaid three suits. It may be clarified that since all the aforesaid suits were consolidated and evidence was recorded in suit No. 634 of 1968, the appeal arising out of the aforesaid suit has been treated as a leading case. 13. It is admitted to the parties that the disputed land is a part of plot No. 1216/1 area 18 decimal. Plot No. 1216/1 is one of the plots of Mohal Lachhman Singh of Khewat No. 1. It is admitted to all the parties that Girraj and Bhogi Ram were the owners of Khewat No. 1 for an area of 6. 91 acres in Mohal Lachhman Singh. Girraj had 3. 45 acres and Bhogi Ram had 3. 46 acres of land. The heirs of Girraj and Bhogi Ram executed a sale-deed of 5. 43 acres in favour of Goswami Brij Ratan Lal. Copy of the sale-deed is Exhibit A-1. This is also a fact that in the sale-deed executed in favour of Goswami Brij Ratan Lal by the original owners of Khewat No. 1 only 5. 43 acres of was included in the aforesaid sale-deed. The copy of the sale-deed (Exhibit A-l) goes to show that plot Nos. 1119 decimal 59, 1120 decimal 55, 1121 decimal 48, 1122 decimal 35, 1123 decimal 30, 1124 decimal 33, 1125 decimal 32, 1126 decimal 35, 1127 decimal 35, 1128 decimal 30, 1129 decimal 40 and 1190 decimal 71 constituting a total area of 5. 43 acres of land was sold to Goswami Brij Ratan Lal. The Khatauni of 1368 Fasali further goes to show that the abovementioned plots were recorded in the name of Goswami Brij Ratan Lal as his Bhumidhari. 43 acres of land was sold to Goswami Brij Ratan Lal. The Khatauni of 1368 Fasali further goes to show that the abovementioned plots were recorded in the name of Goswami Brij Ratan Lal as his Bhumidhari. On the basis of aforesaid documents the trial court held that it is clear beyond doubt from the aforesaid record that 13 plots having area of 5. 43 acres, which were sold to Brij Ratan Lal, did not include plot No. 1216/1 where the land in dispute and after recording the aforesaid findings on the basis of the aforesaid documents which were revenue records, the trial court considered other evidence of the parties, including Khewat entries in the name of Goswami Brij Ratan Lal over the area of 72 decimal of land which was not brought under the preview of U. P. Zamindari and Land Reforms Act and out of the aforesaid area the name of Goswami Brij Ratan Lal was recorded over 57 decimal of land. The trial court took a view that the revenue records are not the documents of title and on considering various decisions, the trial court came to the conclusion that since Goswami Brij Ratan Lal did not purchase plot No. 1216/1 where the disputed land is situate, Ghanshyam Das, the purchaser from Goswami Brij Ratan Lal had no claim over the aforesaid land and on the basis of the aforesaid findings, decreed suit No. 634 of 1968 filed by Hira Lal and others against Ghanshyam Das and Suit No. 419 of 1970 filed by Kanchan Singh against Ghanshyam Das and dismissed suit No. 34 of 1968 filed by Ghanshyam Das against Kanchan Singh and others. 14. Aggrieved against the aforesaid judgment, three appeals filed by Ghanshyam Das have been allowed by the lower appellate court and the find ings recorded by the trial court have been reversed. 14. Aggrieved against the aforesaid judgment, three appeals filed by Ghanshyam Das have been allowed by the lower appellate court and the find ings recorded by the trial court have been reversed. The appellate court has recorded a finding that Goswami Brij Ratan Lal was a co-owner even on the area which remained out of the preview of U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act and 72 decimal of land having been recorded in the name of Goswami Brij Ratan Lal, he was a co-owner of the aforesaid plot and was entitled for a share in the land in dispute and also held that Ghanshyam Das is entitled to get partition in the share in the aforesaid property and dismissed two suits of Hira Lal and others and Kanchan Singh and others being suit No. 634 of 1968 and 419 of 1968 and decreed the suit No. 34 of 1968. Aggrieved thereby the present three second appeals have been filed. The appeal was admitted by this Court and following substantial questions of law were framed for consideration in the appeal: (1) Whether a purchaser of plot can only be a plot proprietor and not a co-sharer in the Khewat ? (2) Whether the preparation of the compensation consignment roll can extinguish the title or interest of any person or confer title or interest over the land of another person who is not otherwise its owner and will a decision of the Compensation Officer amount to an estoppel by record when the expression estoppel by record has no definite meaning and is ambiguous ? (3) Whether the lower appellate court could dismiss the plaintiffs suit for customary right of way decided in favour of appellants without reversing the finding of the trial Court ? 15. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants Sri Janardhan Sahai and learned counsel for the respondents Sri A. K. Jaiswal and R. P. Goel. 16. Before considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, it is necessary to mention the finding of the lower appellate court on the basis of which the lower appellate court decreed the suit of Ghanshyam Das and dismissed that of Hira Lal and Kanchan Singh. 17. The lower appellate court placed reliance on the submission of the learned counsel for Ghanshyam Das that out of total area of 6. 17. The lower appellate court placed reliance on the submission of the learned counsel for Ghanshyam Das that out of total area of 6. 91 acres of land of Khasra No. 67 Khewat No. I belonging to Mohal Lachhman Singh, the area purchased by Goswami Brij Ratan Lal was 5. 43 acres and in all the area purchased by Goswami Brij Ratan Lal Zamindari was not abolished, only on some portion of land, belonging to Goswami Brij Ratan Lal, Zamindari was abolished. Goswami Brij Ratan Lal being co-owner of entire Khewat area also continued to be co-owner over 72 decimal of land carved out from the aforesaid Khewat, the area which came within the limits of Town Area and over which the Zamindari was not abolished. Referring to, paper No. 93-C to 97-C in which the name of Goswami Brij Ratan Lal was recorded as a owner over. 57 acres of land within the Town Area Committee, and the same entires having been made in the Khewat of 1360 Fasli to 1363 Fasli. On the basis of aforesaid revenue entires, appellate court came to the conclusion that it is clear from the evidence that the name of Goswami Brij Ratan Lal is recorded in Khewat as co-owner since 1929 to 1965 for 36 years and there is a presump tion of correctness of entires under U. P. Land Revenue Act. The appellate court concluded that Goswami Brij Ratan Lal was a co-owner over the land in dispute which is established from the long standing revenue entries in the name of Goswami Brij Ratan Lal. 18. The lower appellate court also placed reliance on the judgment in proceedings under Section 145 of Cr. P. C. which were terminated in favour of Ghanshyam Das and on the basis of the aforesaid judgment came to the con clusion that Ghanshyam Das was in possession of the land in dispute. 19. The third point on the basis of which the lower appellate court derived its conclusion against Hira Lal and others and Kanchan Singh and others that the predecessor-in-interest of the aforesaid plaintiffs have accepted the compensation for disputed land under Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act and those compensation rolls having become final. 19. The third point on the basis of which the lower appellate court derived its conclusion against Hira Lal and others and Kanchan Singh and others that the predecessor-in-interest of the aforesaid plaintiffs have accepted the compensation for disputed land under Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act and those compensation rolls having become final. The plaintiffs of suit No. 634 of 1968 namely Hira Lal and others and plaintiff of suit No. 419 of 1970 Kanchan Singh and others are estopped from claiming any right over the aforesaid laud. Mainly on the basis of the aforesaid three findings the lower appellate court has decreed the suit of Ghanshyam Das and dismissed those of Hira Lal and others and Kanchan Singh and others. 20. At the cost of repetition it is being stated that the land in dispute is situate in plot No. 1216/1 area. 18 acres. Plot No. 1216 is one of the plots of Mohal Lachhman Singh of Khewat No. 1. In the sale-deed executed by co-owners of Khewat No. 1 of Mohal Lachhman Singh only specific plots were sold in favour of Goswami Brij Ratan Lal. All these plots are mentioned in the sale-deed. The sale-deed further specifically states that besides above plots, the vendees will have no right over the property not mentioned in the sale-deed. Ghanshyam Das was only claiming through Goswami Brij Ratan Lal as he was a vendee. Ghanshyam Das has failed to file any document of title, of his vendor, Goswami Brij Ratan Lal, regarding the plot in dispute i. e. 1216/1 in which the land in dispute is situate. For want of any such document of title, the only question which requires consideration is as to what rights Goswami Brij Ratan Lal or his vendee Ghanshyam Das can claim, on the basis of entry of co-ownership in plot No. 1216/1 in Khewat No. 1 of Mohal Lachhman Singh. 21. The entries of the name of Goswami Brij Ratan Lal from 1929 to l965 i. e. for a period of 36 years are the basis on which the appellate court recorded finding in favour of Ghanshyam Das require considerations. 21. The entries of the name of Goswami Brij Ratan Lal from 1929 to l965 i. e. for a period of 36 years are the basis on which the appellate court recorded finding in favour of Ghanshyam Das require considerations. Entries from 1929 to 1951 are wholly irrelevant for the controversy involved in the present matter, as till 1951 Zamindari was not abolished in the area, neither the land covered by Khewat No. 1 in Mohal Lachhman Singh was bifurcated between the area in which the Zamindari stood abolished and the area where the Zamindari was not abolished, any entry of co-ownership in the Khewat before 1951 was of no consequence. 22. Paper No. 89-C, on the basis of which the lower appellate court has placed reliance is Khewat relating to 1360 to 1363 Fasli, wherein. 57 acres of land have been recorded in the name of Goswami Brij Ratan Lal in an area which came within the limits of Town Area. 23. With this background a consolidated entry in the Khewat for three years cannot be considered as a long standing entry on the basis of which a conclusion could have been drawn in favour of Ghanshyam Das. Secondly, there is another document i. e. Exhibit A-2, which is a Khatauni of 1368 Fasli wherein the name of Goswami Brij Ratan Lal is recorded over the entire 5. 43 acres of land in respect of different plots which he purchased. So no scope is left for contending that Goswami Brij Ratan Lal also got a share in plot No. 1216/1 over an area of. 72 acres on which the Zamindari was not abolished. Since there is a conflict of entries in the revenue records, the presumption of correctness of entry stands belied. 24. No document is available in the lower court record. Report is that documents have been weeded out. Under General Rule Civil it is provided that documents will be weeded out after one year of the expiry of time for filing of appeal. In case the appeal has been filed the documents will not be weeded till pendency of appeal. The present appeal was filed on 24-7-1979. The judgment of lower appellate court is dated 9-5-1979. Appeal was within time. Record has been directed to be weeded out against the mandate of General Rule Civil. In case the appeal has been filed the documents will not be weeded till pendency of appeal. The present appeal was filed on 24-7-1979. The judgment of lower appellate court is dated 9-5-1979. Appeal was within time. Record has been directed to be weeded out against the mandate of General Rule Civil. It is possible that intimation of filing the appeal may not have been communicated to trial court. In order to avoid this situation, it is obligatory on the Registrar or this court to issue direction to Second Appeal section, that as soon as second appeal is filed the trial court should immedia tely be intimated of filing the appeal and further direction that till the pendency record should not be weeded out. 25. However, taking the documents as discussed in appeal the situation emerge is as under : "u. P. Land Records Manual Rule 173 provides for the nature of Khewat register: the proprietary Khewat is register of all the proprietors in a Mahal including proprietors of specific area and must specify the nature and extent of the interest of each. The proforma prescribed for Khewat provide mentioning of name of Lambardar, name; of Thok and Patti, serial No. share Khata, Amount of share, area of share, name of proprietors parentage with the nature and extant of interest of each. " 26. Khewat is a record of proprietary of rates of intermediaries before abolition of Zamindari in the State. It constitutes of several plots. Goswami Brij Ratan Lal did not purchase plot No. 1216/1 where the land in dispute is situate, his entry of co-ownership in the Khewat showing him co-owner cannot mean that he was co-owner over the entire plots of Khewat No. 1 and Goswami Brij Ratan Lal admittedly claimed co-ownership on the basis of sale-deed executed in his favour in the year 1929. In the sale deed plot No. 1216/1 was not included, as such, Khewat entry did not cooler any right over the plot in dispute to Goswami Brij Ratan Lal. In series of decisions this has been consistently held that mere entries in revenue record are not the document of title and are not conclusive of the question of title. 27. In Pankajini Debt v. Sudhir Dana, AIR 1956 Cal 669 , it has been held : "the settlement record is not a document of title. In series of decisions this has been consistently held that mere entries in revenue record are not the document of title and are not conclusive of the question of title. 27. In Pankajini Debt v. Sudhir Dana, AIR 1956 Cal 669 , it has been held : "the settlement record is not a document of title. It does not create or extinguish title to land. At the most it may be relevant as some evidence of title to the recorded Dags and may raise a presumption of title by virtue of the statutory presumption of correctness attaching to its entries under Section 1088 (5) Bengal Tenancy Act. Such evidence, however, is rebuttable and so also the presumption and they may be effectively rebutted by produc tion of contrary evidence. " In Nageshar Baksh Singh v. Mt. Ganesha, AIR 1920 Privy Council 46 at p. 50, it has been held : "the broad question of partition of rights or separation of interests is not of course dealt with in such entries, and the inference of such a transaction from such records may be weak or may be strong according to circumstances. Records of that character take their place as part of the evidence in the case. They do no more. Their importance may vary with circum stances, and it is not any part of the law of India that they are by themselves conclusive evidence of the facts which they purport to record. It may turn out that they are in accord with the general bulk of evidence in the case ; they may supply gapsin it ; and they may, in short, form a not in important part of the testi mony as to fact which is available. But to give them any higher weight than that might open the way for much injustice and afford temptation to the manipulation of records or even of the materials for the first entry Birdwood, J. , in the Bombay case Bhagoji v. Bapuji said as follows : - "at the rehearing the lower appellate court should have its atten tion directed to the ruling in Fatma v. Darya Saheb which it was held that the Collectors book is kept for purposes of revenue, not for purposes of title. The fact of a persons name being entered in the Collectors book as occupant of land does not necessarily of itself establish that persons title or defeat the title of any other person. " 28. In view of the above decisions, I am clearly of the view that the lower appellate court has committed patent error of law in upholding the right of Ghanshyam Das over the plot in dispute on the basis of Khewat entry as admittedly Goswami Brij Ratan Lal never acquired any title over the plot in dispute and entry, if any, made in his name, did not confer him any title nor any conclusive presumption could have been drawn in his favour on the basis of the aforesaid entries holding him to be owner of the plot in dispute. So far as the findings of the lower appellate court on the question of the possession is concerned, the possession was of no consequence, as no rights were claimed by the parties on the basis of maturing their title by adverse possession. Mere termination of proceedings under Section 125 of Cr. P. C. in favour of a person only establishes that such party came in possession before two months of the initiation of the proceeding under Section 145 of Cr. P. C. The said finding was not relevant at all for the controversy involved in the suits and appeals arising thereof. The lower appellate court was patently in error in placing reliance on the findings of the proceedings under Section 145 of Cr. P. C. 29. Now the third question, which remains to be examined is, as to whether plaintiffs of suit No. 634 of 1968 and suit No. 419 of 1970, namely, Hira Lal and others and Kanchan Singh and others were estopped from claiming any right and since the compensation of the aforesaid land was given to Goswami Brij Ratan Lal, so he should be treated as owner of the land in dispute. 30. On the forefront of said assumption is patently wrong, as the land in dispute is situate in an area where Zamindari was not abolished, as such, the question of accepting of compensation roll for the aforesaid land or draw ing any inference on the aforesaid basis does not arise. 30. On the forefront of said assumption is patently wrong, as the land in dispute is situate in an area where Zamindari was not abolished, as such, the question of accepting of compensation roll for the aforesaid land or draw ing any inference on the aforesaid basis does not arise. However, the findings of the trial court on issue No. 3 in the suit No. 419 of 1970, which raised this question and the finding of the appellate court is at variance and is not clear, as to on what basis the principle of estoppel was being interpreted, The two conflicting findings are being quoted below. The trial court held as under : "the learned counsel for plaintiff has argued that the compensation of the land was given to Goswami Brij Ratan Lal and thus Goswami Brij Ratan Lal is the only proprietor of the land. It is worth mentioning here that compensation was awarded on the basis of entries in the Khewat. As I have already discussed under issue No. 1 that entries in the Khasra in favour of Brij Ratan Lal are not correct. Secondly Ram Saran DW 4 has stated that notice of awarding compensation was not served on them and they had no opportunity to file the objection In such circumstances orders made by the compensation officer do not create any title over the land of Goswami Brij Ratan Lal and the defendants. " 31. The lower appellate court, however, looks it from another angle and records a finding on the aforesaid issue as under: "the learned counsel for the appellant has argued that after the Zamindari Abolition compensation rolls were prepared The predecessor-in-interest of the respondents have accepted the com pensation and accepted those as final. They have not been chal lenged by them. Zamindari was abolished in 1359-F, when the compensation rolls were prepared the objections were not filed they became final; 68-C Ex. shows that 4. 86 acres of land out of 5. 43 acres of land of Brij Ratan Lal went in Zamindari Abolition and 1. 33 acres of land went out of 1. 48 acres of land belonging to predecessor-in-interest of the respondents. This goes to show that Brij Ratan Lals land remain ineffected from Zamindari. 57 deci mal while predecessor-in-interest of the respondents share was only 15 decimal of land. " 32. 33 acres of land went out of 1. 48 acres of land belonging to predecessor-in-interest of the respondents. This goes to show that Brij Ratan Lals land remain ineffected from Zamindari. 57 deci mal while predecessor-in-interest of the respondents share was only 15 decimal of land. " 32. Placing reliance on Sections 49 and 52 of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, the lower appellate court came to the conclusion that accepting of compensation rolls by predecessor-in- interest of the plaintiffs Hira Lal and others and Kanchan Singh and others over the property in dispute estopped them from claiming any right over the land in dispute. Since I have already held that question of accepting compensation for the land in dispute is wholly irrelevant, it is not necessary to decide the aforesaid question. The question of any right or title over the land in dispute could not have been decided on the basis of compensation rolls prepared under U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, as the property in suit was outside the preview of Zamindari Abolition an J Land Reforms Act. However, the provision of the relevant section of Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act also demonstrate that the lower appellate court was in patent error in deciding the question of title on the basis of preparation of compensation rolls in respect of the land in dispute. 33. Chapter 3 of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act No. 1 of 1950) deals with the question of acceptance of compensation. This chapter was legislated for the purposes of determining the compensation of intermediaries whose land vested in the State government by enforcement of Act No. 1 of 1950. This preparation of compensation rolls was wholly irrelevant for determining the right of the parties for a land over which the Zamindari was not abolished. Section 34 of the Act No. 1 of 1950 mandates that determining of compensation will not prevent any person to establish his claim in respect of any estate or part thereof by due process of law in the court of having jurisdiction. The aforesaid section is being reproduced below: "34. Section 34 of the Act No. 1 of 1950 mandates that determining of compensation will not prevent any person to establish his claim in respect of any estate or part thereof by due process of law in the court of having jurisdiction. The aforesaid section is being reproduced below: "34. Right to establish claim in the civil court, - Nothing in Sections 32, 33 and 49, shall affect the right of any person to establish his claim in respect of any estate or part thereof by the process of law in the court having jurisdiction. " 34. The learned lower appellate court has conveniently by-passed the consideration of the aforesaid section by placing reliance on their sections of the Act, like Sections 49 and 52, wherein the finality is attached to the compensation roll. The said finality cannot be imported for the purposes of determining the rights of the parties over the land in dispute particularly ia view of the mandate of Section 34 of the Act. The conclusion arrived at by the lower appellate court is also patently erroneous in law on the said aspect of the matter. 35. In view of the above discussion, I am clearly of the view that the lower appellate court has patently erred in law in arriving at a conclusion that Ghanshyam Das was co-owner of the land in dispute and was entitled to a partition in the land in dispute. The suit of Ghanshyam Das must fail and is dismissed with costs being suit No. 34 of 1968. 36. The only question which now remains to be examined is in respect of relief which Hira Lal and others and Kundan Lal and others claimed for injunction. The lower appellate court has recorded a finding that Ghanshyam Das was in possession on the date of filing of the suit, as such, held that the suit of injunction filed by Hira Lal and others and Kundan Lal and others was not maintainable and the relief claimed ia the suit was not available to the plaintiff of suit No. 634 of 1968 and 419 of 1970 37. The trial court has recorded a finding on issue No. 2 in suit No. 634 of 1968 holding that it is established from the evidence that in front of the house of plaintiffs Hira Lal and others, a *rasta exists and all concerned including Ghanshyam Das and plaintiffs are using the aforesaid area as rasta which is used as a road for taking trucks. Likewise the trial court has also decided issue No. 1 of suit No. 634 of 1968 in favour of Hira Lal and others holding that the rasta of the plaintiffs Hira Lal, and others opens towards the west and existed there since 1962. This finding has not been set aside. As such these findings are con farmed. 38. The appellate court was in error in taking a view that the suit filed by Hira Lal and others was only for injuction. The suit of Hira Lal and others was also for declaration that they are the rightful owners of the land in dispute and for injuncting the defendant-Ghanshyam Das from interfering in their right to use the rasta standing infront of their house. 39. The lower appellate court has erred in law in dismissing the suit of Hira Lal and others on the ground that it was a suit for injunction. 40. Likewise the lower appellate court was in error in taking a view that the suit filed by Kundan Lal and others was only for injunction. Since the aforesaid suit was also for declaration of the plaintiffs right over the land in dispute, the trial court decreed the suit for such declaration. Of course the trial court itself recorded a finding that Ghanshyam Das was in posses sion on the date of filing of the suit, as, such the suit for injunction was not maintainable. Thus on the basis of this finding the plaintiffs namely Hira Lal and others and Kundan Lal and others in suit No. 634 of 1968 and 419 of 1970 could not have been non-suited. The trial court decreed the suit for declaration. 41. For the relief of declaration the lower appellate court recorded a finding contrary to the record in holding that the suit of Hira Lal and others and Kanchan Singh and others was only for injunction. The said finding is based on misreading of the record. 42. The trial court decreed the suit for declaration. 41. For the relief of declaration the lower appellate court recorded a finding contrary to the record in holding that the suit of Hira Lal and others and Kanchan Singh and others was only for injunction. The said finding is based on misreading of the record. 42. Accordingly, I set aside the judgment of the Additional Civil Judge, Mathura dated 8-5-1979 in Civil Appeal No. 106 of 1975, 107 of 1975 and 108 of 1975 and restore the judgment of the Munsif, Mathura dated 29-11-1975 passed in original suit No. 34 of 1968, 634 of 1968 and 419 of 1970. 43. Accordingly, I allow all the three appeals with costs. 44. Let the copy of this judgment be placed in the files of all the three appeals. Appeals allowed. .