U. S. TRTPATHI, J. ( 1 ) THIS second appeal has been preferred by the defeated defendant against judgment and decree dated 25. 1. 1982 passed by Civil Judge, Bulandshahr in Civil Appeal No. 232 of 1982, allowing the appeal, setting aside the judgment and decree dated 5. 5. 1987 passed by Munsif, Khurja, bulandshahr in Original Suit No. 124 of 1977. and decreeing the suit of plaintiff respondent for permanent Injunction. ( 2 ) RESPONDENT Yashpal, [hereinafter called the plaintiff), filed Suit No. 124 of 1977 against the appellants Daulat Ram and Indrasen, (hereinafter called the defendants), for permanent injunction restraining them from interfering in his peaceful possession over plot No. 3029 area 10 bighas, 1 biswa, with the allegations that he was owner in possession of the plot in suit and the defendants had no concern with the same. The defendants were forceful persons and wanted to take forcible possession over the land in suit, hence the suit on 13. 7. 1977. ( 3 ) THE defendants filed joint written statement and contested suit. Their defence was that plot in suit was grove land on the spot and its original owners migrated to Pakistan. The plot, In suit, therefore, was declared as Evacuee Property. In the year 1947 the plaintiff and his father Master lal Chand and the defendants came to India from Pakistan. Since father of the plaintiff and defendants were jointly carrying on business in Pakistan, they started their joint business in India also. In the business in India, plaintiff had half share and defendants 1 and 2 had 1/4th share each. The plot in suit was auctioned in the year 1957 by the Custodian of Evacuee Property, Lal chand and defendants jointly purchased the said property from the income of their joint business in the auction sate and they had agreed that half share of it would be of Lal Chand and in the remaining half share defendants No. 1 and 2 would gel 1/4th share each, according to their share in the joint business. However, due to some legal complications sale certificate was executed in the name of Lal Chand alone and his name atone was recorded in the revenue records. Till the life-time of Lal Chand there was no dispute between the parties and defendants were utilising their half share in the plot in suit. However, due to some legal complications sale certificate was executed in the name of Lal Chand alone and his name atone was recorded in the revenue records. Till the life-time of Lal Chand there was no dispute between the parties and defendants were utilising their half share in the plot in suit. A family settlement was also executed between them and defendants were occupying southern half portion of the land in suit as owners over which they were cultivating various crops and had also installed a tube-well with separate water channel. After the death of Lal Chand, the name of his son Yashpal was mutated in revenue records, but he also recognised half share of defendants in southern portion. In the year 1977 the defendants asked the plaintiff to get their names mutated over the property in suit, but the plaintiff refused and wrongly filed the suit. ( 4 ) THE trial court framed necessary issues arising out of above pleadings of the parties and on consideration of evidence of the parties, held that though the plaintiff was exclusively recorded over the properly in suit, but in fact the grove land belonged to the parties and. therefore, the parties were joint owners in possession of the property, in suit. Therefore, the plaintiff was not entitled to the relief for permanent injunction. With these findings, he dismissed the suit, vide judgment and decree dated 5. 5. 1982. ( 5 ) AGGRIEVED with the above judgment and decree, the plaintiff filed Civil Appeal No. 232 of 1982. The lower appellate court on reappraisal of the evidence of the parties held that the property in suit was purchased in the name of father of the plaintiff, whose name was recorded in revenue records till his life time and after his death, the name of plaintiff, his son. was recorded in revenue records. The" documents relied on by the defendants were not worth reliable to prove their ownership and possession and if the name of defendants did not find place in revenue record, they should have filed suit for declaration in the revenue court. Since the plaintiff was recorded tenure holder and was in possession over the property in suit, he was entitled to the relief for permanent injunction. Since the plaintiff was recorded tenure holder and was in possession over the property in suit, he was entitled to the relief for permanent injunction. With these findings, the appeal was allowed and the judgment and decree of the trial court was set aside and the suit of the plaintiff for permanent injunction was decreed. ( 6 ) THE above judgment and decree of the lower appellate court has been challenged in this second appeal. ( 7 ) THIS second appeal was admitted on ground Nos. 1 to 5 raised on pages 6 and 7 of memorandum of appeal to raise substantial questions of law. The above grounds are as follows : (1) Whether the documents relating to possession, viz. , electric bills, sale of crops, expenses of construction, expenses in raising the crops and accounts in the hands of the plaintiff itself could be discarded on the ground that they related to title and could be seen for determining the possession of the parties? (2) Whether the lower appellate court could upset the finding of the trial court on the ground that documents of possession could not be seen by him merely because they related to title as well? (3) Whether public document was conclusive and binding on the Court and the Court was precluded from looking into the other evidence, which related to the possession as well as, till in a case of possession alone was material? (4) Whether the lower appellate court acted illegally in treating Ext. A-2 as family settlement? (5) Whether the plaintiff having been found out of possession during the pendency of the suit could be granted relief of injunction in view of Section 41 of Specific Relief Act and even otherwise? ( 8 ) HEARD Sri G. N. Verma, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants and Sri b. D. Mandhyan. learned counsel for the respondent and perused the record. FINDINGS ( 9 ) POINF Nos. 1, 2. 3. 4 and 5.--Admittedly, land in suit comprising of plot No. 3029 area 10 bighas 1 biswa situate in Kasba Khurja was grove land. It is also not disputed that the above grove land was declared as Evacuee Property by the department of Rehabilitation, Government of India and was sold in auction sale. It was purchased by Lal Chand father of plaintiff respondent through sale certificate dated 6. 8. 1958. It is also not disputed that the above grove land was declared as Evacuee Property by the department of Rehabilitation, Government of India and was sold in auction sale. It was purchased by Lal Chand father of plaintiff respondent through sale certificate dated 6. 8. 1958. The plot in suit was recorded in the name of father of Lal Chand. the plaintiff in khatauni and he was also recorded in possession in khasras of various years. It is also not disputed that after death of father of the plaintiff. his name was mutated in revenue records and was being continuously recorded in khasras. Bhoomidhari sanad was also obtained by Lal Chand. father of the plaintiff on 7. 2. 1968. Khatounis and khasras are documents of title and possession. The revenue records were in favour of plaintiff. There is presumption of genuineness of revenue records and if any person was aggrieved with the revenue records, the proper course for him was to file a suit for correction of papers or for declaration of his title in the revenue court. The documents relied on by the defendants were private documents and do not prove title and possession. The documents relied on by the defendants were also not linked with the plot in suit and those documents suffer from vagueness. The above private documents were thus not sufficient to rebut the revenue records, the documents of title and possession, which were recognised under law. Some documents were prepared during pendency of the suit and, therefore, were not liable to be taken Into consideration. ( 10 ) MUCH emphasis was laid on family settlement. The above family settlement was also not registered document. Even if it is assumed that unregistered family settlement may be read in evidence for collateral purposes, above family settlement does not appear genuine as it was never acted upon. It appears to have been executed on 8. 10. 1969 and the suit was filed in the year 1977. No attempt was made from the side of defendants to get their names recorded in the revenue records on the basis of above family settlement from 1969 to 1977. The continuous entries in revenue records in favour of plaintiff" even after execution of above document indicate that lower appellate court was justified in not relying on the alleged family settlement. No attempt was made from the side of defendants to get their names recorded in the revenue records on the basis of above family settlement from 1969 to 1977. The continuous entries in revenue records in favour of plaintiff" even after execution of above document indicate that lower appellate court was justified in not relying on the alleged family settlement. ( 11 ) THE learned counsel for the appellant further contended that Exhibit A-2 was wrongly treated as family settlement by the lower appellate court that the lower appellate court had observed whether Exhibit A-2 can be treated a family settlement and required registration or not shall not be taken Into consideration as it would amount to declaration of title, which is beyond jurisdiction of the civil court. May it be so. the lower appellate court had not given any weight to the said document. Whether it may be treated family settlement or not. the basis of findings of the lower appellate court are revenue record and documents of title, which are admissible under law. ( 12 ) THE lower appellate court had properly scrutinised the documents relied on by the parties with their nature and admissibility and on the basis of it, has recorded a finding of fact that plaintiff was exclusive owner in possession and has rightly set aside the findings recorded by the trial court, which were based on guess and surmises and inadmissible documents, which did not indicate possession of the defendant over half portion of the plot in suit. ( 13 ) IT was also rightly observed by the lower appellate court that civil court would accept the correctness of revenue records as it was not within the jurisdiction of the civil court to go behind the correctness of revenue records and the party aggrieved with the revenue records had to file a suit for declaration or for correction of records or for recovery of possession before the revenue court. ( 14 ) THE learned counsel for the defendants appellants stated during course of arguments that after decision of the appeal by the lower appellate court, the defendants filed suit before the revenue court for declaration of their title under Section 229b of U. P. Z. A. and L. R. Act. The right, title and interest of defendants, if any. ( 14 ) THE learned counsel for the defendants appellants stated during course of arguments that after decision of the appeal by the lower appellate court, the defendants filed suit before the revenue court for declaration of their title under Section 229b of U. P. Z. A. and L. R. Act. The right, title and interest of defendants, if any. shall be considered by the competent Revenue court in the said suit, which has already been filed by the defendants. ( 15 ) IT was contended by the learned counsel for the defendant appellant that as held by lower appellate court scrutiny regarding documents filed by defendants would amount to declaration of title in respect of agricultural land (grove land), which is beyond jurisdiction, of civil court and since defendants have also filed suit before revenue court under Section 229b of U. P. Z. A. and l. R. Act, the suit of the plaintiff for injunction should be dismissed. But I find no force in the above contention. It is well-settled law that a recorded tenure holder having no cause of action against the State of U. P. and Gaon Sabha could bring suit for permanent injunction before the civil court as held by this Court In the case of Rameshwar V. Ram Asrey, 1965 ALJ 675 and affirmed by Division Bench of this Court in Parshottam v. Narootam. 1970 ALJ 505. Therefore, the civil court was fully competent to grant relief for permanent injunction to the plaintiff who is a recorded tenure holder and also proved his possession. ( 16 ) THE contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the lower appellate court wrongly decreed the suit for permanent injunction when the plaintiff was not found in possession over half portion of the land in suit has also no force because the lower appellate court has recorded a finding of fact based on evidence on record that plaintiff was owner in possession over entire portion of land in suit. The above findings of fact thus, cannot be interfered with in this second appeal. The above findings of fact thus, cannot be interfered with in this second appeal. ( 17 ) IN this way, I find no illegality or irregularity in the Judgment of lower appellate court and lower appellate court was justified in ignoring the private documents relied on by the defendants over and above the reliable documents and revenue records in favour of plaintiff, and the documents relied on by the defendants were not sufficient to prove the case of defendant. Thus; I find no ground for interference in the finding recorded by the lower appellate court. The appeal has no force and be dismissed. The second appeal is. hereby, dismissed with costs throughout. However, it is made clear that this decree shall be subject to any declaration made by revenue court in favour of defendants in the pending suit under Section 229b of U. P. Z. A. and L. R. Act. .