S. P. KHARE, J. ( 1 ) THIS is a second appeal under Section 100, C. P. C. by the defendant. The following substantial questions of law were formulated by order dated 13-5-1996 at the time of admission of this appeal:- (1) "whether the finding recorded by the Lower Appellate Court that the respondents had perfected their title by adverse possession is vitiated on account of the fact that it has not considered the fact that there are no consistent entries in the various Khasra, filed by the respondents"? (2) "whether the lower Appellate Court was entitled to consider the entry made by the Patwari in remark column in view of the decision given in Churamani v. Ramadhar, 1991 MPLJ 311 "? (3) "whether the lower Appellate Court has rightly considered Ex. P-11, a judgment delivered under Section 447 of I. P. C. for coming to conclusion that the respondents Nos. 1 to 3 were in possession of the suit land"? ( 2 ) THE lands in dispute are Khasra Nos. 16, 17 and 18/1 area 0. 18, 0. 45 and 0. 08 acre respectively of village Tikat, Tehsil Mauganj, district Rewa. The patta of these lands stood in the name of Ramsahai, father of defendant Jageshwar at the time of settlement in the years 1923-27. The plaintiffs' case is that after the death of Ramsahai his son Jageshwar was minor and his mother had shifted to another village after her remarriage. The plaintiffs claim that these lands were allotted to their father Ram Prasad Yadav by Laxminarain who was Thekedar of Ilaqa Naigarhi. It was done orally. He constructed a house on a portion of Khasra No. 18 and he was cultivating the other lands. The plaintiffs are in actual possession of these lands. They have perfected their title by adverse possession. The defendant claims that he has all along been in possession of the lands and the story of allotment of these lands to the father of the plaintiffs is false. The trial Court and the first appellate Court on the basis of the entries in the Khasra from the years 1956-57 to 1982-83 and oral evidence has held that the plaintiffs and their father have been in adverse possession of these lands and therefore the title of the defendant's father has been extinguished. The trial Court and the first appellate Court on the basis of the entries in the Khasra from the years 1956-57 to 1982-83 and oral evidence has held that the plaintiffs and their father have been in adverse possession of these lands and therefore the title of the defendant's father has been extinguished. ( 3 ) IT has been argued on behalf of the appellant/defendant that the Courts below have ignored the principles of law laid down by a Division Bench of this Court in Churamani v. Ramadhar, 1991 MPLJ 311 in which it has been laid down that a presumption as regards continuity of possession of the plaintiffs over the suit land could not be drawn in favour of the plaintiffs on the basis of the remarks recorded in the remarks column. No presumption of correctness can attach to an entry made by the patwari in the remarks column of a Khasra or field book showing therein some third party/trespasser to be in possession the land held by a bhumiswami and recorded as such in his name in the said land records. Presumption under Section 117 of the Code applies to those entries which are required to be made under Chapter IX and in respect of entries in other land records prepared under the Code. The provisions of the Code or the Rules made thereunder do not require the patwari to make any entry in the remarks column and if such an entry is made, the same cannot have any presumptive value as regards its correctness under Section 117 of the Code. As there is no such duty cast on the patwari to make an entry in the remarks column there arises no question of drawing any presumption under Section 114 (e) of the Evidence Act regarding any act of the patwari having been regularly performed. ( 4 ) ON the other hand it is contended on behalf of the respondents that the concurrent finding of the two Courts on the point of possession based on the interpretation of Khasra entries and oral evidence cannot be disturbed in second appeal. ( 5 ) AFTER considering the rival submissions this Court is of the opinion that no reliance could be placed on the entries in the remarks column of the Khasras in view of the Division Bench decision of this Court referred above. ( 5 ) AFTER considering the rival submissions this Court is of the opinion that no reliance could be placed on the entries in the remarks column of the Khasras in view of the Division Bench decision of this Court referred above. A perusal of the Khasra entries shows that the lands continued to be recorded in column No. 3 in the name of the defendant's father. It is only in the remarks column No. 12 that the name of the father of the plaintiffs appears. The entries in the remarks column are not presumed to be correct. If these entries are excluded from consideration the presumption would be that the possession of the Bhumiswami whose name finds place in column No. 3 and his heir continues. The possession follows title. The title of the Bhumiswami is not extinguished so lightly. The oral evidence on record is evenly balanced. The Courts below have accepted that evidence in favour of the plaintiffs because that has been found consistent with the entries in the remarks column of the Khasra in their favour. ( 6 ) THE finding of the Courts below on the question of actual possession of the plaintiffs in violation of the principles of law laid down by this Court is perverse and illegal and that finding is not binding in second appeal (Mehrunnisa v. Visham Kumari, AIR 1998 SC 427 ). This is not a case of mere appreciation of evidence but placing reliance on a material which is not of presumptive value and ignoring the presumption of continuity of the possession of actual Bhumiswami or Pattedar. The questions No. 1 and 2 are answered accordingly. ( 7 ) A perusal of the judgment dated 29-5-1978 (Ex. P-11) shows that the defendant had filed a complaint under Section 447, I. P. C. against the plaintiffs and they were acquitted of this charge because the dispute between the parties was found to be of civil nature. That judgment does not prove that plaintiffs were in actual and adverse possession. It could not be relied upon for upholding the plea of adverse possession. ( 8 ) IN the result this appeal is allowed. The judgment and decree of the Courts below are set aside and the plaintiffs' suit is dismissed. Appeal allowed. .