JUDGMENT R.P. Gupta, J. This is second appeal against the judgment and decree dated 22-2-1996 passed by Vth Additional District Judge, Bhind in Civil appeal No. 1-A/95 whereby the appeal of the present appellant/defendant was dismissed and the judgment and decree of Civil Judge Class-I Bhind in Civil Suit No. 211-A/84 decided on 24-7-1987 was confirmed. Respondent No. 1/plaintiff had filed a suit against the appellants' predecessor that the plaintiff was a Krisak in the suit land since before the Zamindari abolition and so he became bhoomiswami of the land with the passing of M. P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 and the original owner Prabhudayal was left with no right in the land. Prabhudayal died on 22-11-1983. Prabhudayal had filed two civil suits about this land which was dismissed on 18-4-1977 and again on 16-5-1978. The defendants/appellants' plea was that the plaintiff was never in possession of the suit land and Prabhudayal had been always in possession as Bhoomiswami and after Prabhudayal these appellants/defendants were in possession continuously. The land was never given for cultivation to the plaintiff Manpal by the defendants or by Prabhudayal. The trial Court decreed the suit of Manpal. The trial Court found that the plaintiff Manpal had obtained tenancy right from Prabhudayal from the time of his Zamindari and therefore, he became Bhoomiswami and continued in possession. Hence the decree for declaration declaring his right and injunction against interference by the defendant/appellant was passed. The trial Court found the oral evidence of both sides deficient regarding possession of the suit land. Both sides had led evidence of interested witnesses on this aspect. So the trial Court based its findings on the contents of the revenue record which were produced by the plaintiff in the form, of copies of Khasra Panchsala Ex. P-1 to P-4 and Ex. P-7 and P-8 pertaining to the period Samvat 2008 to 2043. The copies of Khasra Panchsala produced by the defendants Ex. D-2 and D-3 for the period Samvat 2007 to 2014 were also considered by the trial Court. The trial Court interpreted these documents to be that Prabhudayal was recorded the owner (Krisak) of the suit land and that since Samvat 2007 Manpal, the plaintiff, was recorded in possession as Up Krisak and has been continued to be so recorded. So it was established that Prabhudayal had sublet this land to Manpal. The trial Court interpreted these documents to be that Prabhudayal was recorded the owner (Krisak) of the suit land and that since Samvat 2007 Manpal, the plaintiff, was recorded in possession as Up Krisak and has been continued to be so recorded. So it was established that Prabhudayal had sublet this land to Manpal. It was also noticed that in the judgment Ex. P-9 and P-10 between the parties the entries in favour of Manpal were found to be correct and the suit of Prabhudayal which was challenging the entries in favour of Manpal was dismissed. It was observed that this finding was binding between the parties. Hence the suit of Manpal was decreed. The first Appellate Court confirmed the judgment and decree of the trial Court. The second appeal was admitted vide order dated 10-3-1997 on the following substantial questions of law:-- (i) Whether the defendant has acquired Bhoomiswami rights over the suit lands even his name was not recorded as cultivator in Samvat 2007? (ii) Whether plaintiffs being the heirs of Ex Zamindar are the owners of suit land and their suit is liable to be decreed? (iii) Whether earlier judgments in respect of suit lands operates as res judicata? It is clear that question No. 2 of law has been wrongly framed. It is the defendant who has claimed to be the heir of Ex-Zamindar and to be in possession after the abolition of Zamindari. The plaintiffs claim is of being a sub-tenant. So the question No. 2 is redundant. It has to be read in the light of question No. 1 as to whether the defendants were in possession at the time of abolition of Zamindari rights under the Madhya Bharat Zamindari Abolition Act (Samvat 2008). So far as the judgment of the Appellate Court is concerned it is certainly passed without any discussion of documents. The interpretation of the documents was required to be made, but the Appellate Court has done nothing of this sort. It will be proper to look into the documents i.e. revenue records as their interpretation and effect is in question. The earliest revenue record produced is Khasra Panchsala of Samvat 2008. It is Ex. P-1 and records Prabhudayal as Pakka Krisak. The ownership vests in Madhya Bharat Shasan while Manpal is recorded in possession for last two years. It will be proper to look into the documents i.e. revenue records as their interpretation and effect is in question. The earliest revenue record produced is Khasra Panchsala of Samvat 2008. It is Ex. P-1 and records Prabhudayal as Pakka Krisak. The ownership vests in Madhya Bharat Shasan while Manpal is recorded in possession for last two years. Entry shows cultivation of 'Jau, Chana Sarson' The last entry in remarks column also records 'Khangi Rahan' in the last 'column 25'. In Ex. P-2 the khasra entry is of Samvat 2010 to 2014. There is no entry in remark column relating to 'Khangi Rahan'. Possession of Manpal is recorded for last 3 years. In Samvat 2008 he was recorded in possession 'for last two years'. Similar entries have continued for Samvat 2021 to 2024 (Ex. P-3), 2027 to 2030 (Ex. P-4). Relating to Samvat 2009 there is copy of khasra (Ex. P-7) in which also Manpal is recorded to be in possession for last two years. Even for Samvat 2041 to 2047 Khasra (Ex. P-8) shows possession of Manpal. The defendants have produced Khasra Panchsala of Samvat 2007 (Ex. D-1) in which the possession of Prabhudayal is recorded for last 12 years and the crops grown are also recorded in Ex. D-1. The contention of the Learned Counsel for the appellants is that the dismissal of earlier two suits filed by Prabhudayal should have no effect as the court had found that the suit for correction of entries could not have been filed in the Civil Court, although it was also found that the entries in favour of Manpal was not proved to be wrong. The suit was for declaration that entry of possession in favour of Manpal was not binding on Prabhudayal. Prabhudayal had filed the suit No. 165-A/76. Copy of the judgment is Ex. P-9 decided on 18-4-1977. The findings of the courts were: (i) that there is no evidence to show that entry of Manpal was false. (ii) At the same time it was also held that the suit amounted to suit for correction of entries, for which the Civil Court has no jurisdiction. Prabhudayal filed another suit as 9-A/78 for the same relief against Manpal. This was also dismissed on 16-5-1988 as the earlier judgment of the Civil Court in Suit No. 169-A/76 was operative as res judicata. Prabhudayal filed another suit as 9-A/78 for the same relief against Manpal. This was also dismissed on 16-5-1988 as the earlier judgment of the Civil Court in Suit No. 169-A/76 was operative as res judicata. In the present case the trial court held that these findings recording the entry of the name of Manpal from Samvat 2008 onwards being correct, are binding on Prabhudayal and his heirs. The contention of the counsel for the appellants is that they are not binding because it was held that there was no jurisdiction to the Civil Court, though the finding on merit was also given. If some finding is given regarding jurisdiction and instead of the suit being returned for being presented to the proper forum or Court or plaint being rejected, the suit is dismissed on merit, then unless challenged in appeal, the findings on merit becomes binding. So Prabhudayal or his heirs cannot say that the findings are not binding on Prabhudayal regarding correction of entry from Samvat 2001. There was no allegation by either side that this land was in any manner on mortgage with Manpal. That is not the case of either party. So the entry of Khangi Rahan in the column of remarks has to be ignored totally and has no effect. The material factor is whether on the date when Madhya Bharat Zamindari Abolition Act Samvat 2008 came into force i.e. on 2-10-1951. Prabhudayal was in possession and in self cultivation of the suit land or it was in cultivation of Manpal. Counsel for the appellants relies upon the entries of Samvat 2008 which show possession of Prabhudayal as per Ex. D-1. Samvat 2007 is the period running between July 50 to June 51. Samvat 2008 starts from July 51 and continued upto June 52. The relevant date 2-10-1951 therefore, was to be covered by crop of Kharif 2008 or Kharif of 1951. In Samvat 2008 possession of Manpal was recorded as paying Lagan of Rs. 10. Thus as per Ex. P-1 and D-2 the crop is recorded as Jau, Chana, Sarason. The contention that this entry was wrong, had already failed, in civil suits. So this entry is to be treated as correct. We have to synthesize the two entries of Samvat 2007 and 2008. Samvat 2008 relates to and covers the relevant date 2-10-1951. 10. Thus as per Ex. P-1 and D-2 the crop is recorded as Jau, Chana, Sarason. The contention that this entry was wrong, had already failed, in civil suits. So this entry is to be treated as correct. We have to synthesize the two entries of Samvat 2007 and 2008. Samvat 2008 relates to and covers the relevant date 2-10-1951. If possession of Manpal was there throughout Samvat 2008, then he certainly was in possession even on 2-10-1951. But if his possession started only from Rabi crop of Christian era of 1952, then his possession started after 2-10-1951. A perusal of Khasra Panchsala Ex. D-1 of Samvat 2007 shows crop of Bajra, Arhar and Moong in the suit land. It is Prabhudayal's crop. That means his possession is shown only for the Kharif crop of Samvat 2007 which will come to an end nearly towards the end of 1950. Crop Rabi starts being sown in the month of November, in this State. That can be taken judicial notice of. So even in the crop of rabi falling in the year 1951 (ending before June 1951) (Christian era) i.e. Samvat 2007, actual crop was not shown to have been produced by Prabhudayal as per Ex. D-1. From this discussion it becomes apparent that possession of Manpal in Samvat 2008 must be found to have been related to earlier than 2-10-1951. Contention of the Learned Counsel for the appellants is that his possession had been recorded as for two years' in Samvat 2008 (Ex. P-1). The argument is that this part of the statement that he was in possession 'for two years', is false as in Samvat 2007 Prabhudayal was in possession for last 12 years. We may say that Manpal was not in possession for last two years but we cannot say that he was not in possession at all in that year. We are unable to go back from the findings of the Civil Court reached earlier that the entry was not wrong. May be Prabhudayal failed to produce proper evidence or may be he failed to have his remedies before the Appellate Court, but he cannot be allowed to ignore that judgment. The net result of the interpretation of these documents is that on the relevant date i.e. 2-10-1951, it is not established that Prabhudayal was in possession of the suit land. May be Prabhudayal failed to produce proper evidence or may be he failed to have his remedies before the Appellate Court, but he cannot be allowed to ignore that judgment. The net result of the interpretation of these documents is that on the relevant date i.e. 2-10-1951, it is not established that Prabhudayal was in possession of the suit land. He must have been in possession as recorded in Samvat 2007 but on 2-10-1951 he was not in possession nor recorded to be in possession. So he was not protected by section 4(2) of the Madhya Bharat Zamindari Abolition Act, 2008. He did not become Bhoomiswami later on as he did not continue in possession later on. Although the Appellate Court failed to discuss all the documents or their effects properly but this Court has entered into that exercise and reached this conclusion. This second appeal therefore has no substance and it is accordingly dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed