JUDGMENT 1. The plaintiff has come up in this second appeal assailing the judgment of two Courts below dismissing his suit. Original plaintiff was Jummi Bai widow of Ramjan Khan who died during the pendency of the suit and his LRs Rasul Khan and others who are present appellants were brought on record. 2. The suit for declaration of Bhoomiswami right and injunction has been filed by plaintiff in respect to the properties mentioned in the plaint that the disputed property is of Mandir Shri Kalika Mataji Ki Murti defendant No.1 and the land in question was given to plaintiff's husband on Shikmi basis. After the commencement of M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959, plaintiff's husband became Bhoomiswami and after his death plaintiff is the Bhoomiswami of the suit property. It has also been pleaded that the State of Madhya Pradesh without any authority is getting the suit property auctioned. A plea of acquiring Bhoomiswami right by way of adverse possession has also been set up by plaintiff. 3. Defendant No.1 did not file any written statement, however, defendant No.2 State of Madhya Pradesh filed written statement and denied the plaint averments. 4. The learned trial Court after framing necessary issues dismissed the suit against which an appeal was preferred by plaintiff which has also been dismissed by the impugned judgment and decree. 5. In this manner the present appeal has been filed by appellants-plaintiffs. 6. This Court on 7.2.1997 admitted the appeal on the following substantial question of law : "Whether the judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below are vitiated being contrary to the law laid down in AIR 1989 SC 2097 (Krishna Ram Mahale (dead) by his L.Rs. v. Mrs. Shobha Venkat Rao). If so effect?" 7. It has been submitted by Ms. Suman Lata, learned counsel for appellants that the two Courts below erred in substantial error of law in dismissing the suit of plaintiff for injunction. The contention of learned counsel is that Ramesh Trivedi who was the Patwari of the Village and was examined as DW 1 has categorically stated that plaintiff is possessing the suit property from the time of her husband and if that is the position, in view of the decision of Krishna Ram Mahale (supra) the suit for injunction ought to have been decreed in favour of plaintiff. 8. 8. On the other hand Shri Anand Pathak, learned counsel for respondent No.2-State argued in support of the impugned judgment and has submitted that cogent reasons have been assigned by learned two Courts below while dismissing the suit of plaintiffs holding that they are not in possession of the suit property. 9. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that this appeal deserves to be allowed. 10. Regarding Substantial Question of Law: On going through the revenue record Ex. P-3 which is the khasra of the year 1977-78, it is gathered that the name of plaintiff has been mentioned in column No. 12. Ramesh Trivedi who is the Patwari of the village in cross-examination has specifically admitted that on the disputed land plaintiff's possession is there. Further he has admitted that after the death of plaintiff Jummi Bai, her sons, present appellants are possessing the suit property but their possession is unauthorized and they are the trespassers. The Patwari has further admitted that earlier to plaintiff Jummi Bai, her husband was possessing the suit property. In para 3 of his cross-examination it has been admitted by Patwari that for last 25 years a hut of plaintiff is in existence on the part of suit land. According to me, this material piece of evidence has been misconstrued by the two Courts below and by ignoring the admission defendant's own witness Ramesh Trivedi who is the Patwari of the village, the finding has been recorded that the plaintiff is not in possession of the suit property. Since defendant's o~ witness Patwari Ramesh Trivedi (DW1) has not only admitted the possession of deceased plaintiff but also admitted the possession of her husband earlier to the possession of plaintiff and has also admitted that after the death of plaintiff her sons are possessing the suit property. Hence, according to me, the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of injunction. The substantial question of law framed is thus answered that the finding of two Courts below dismissing the suit of permanent injunction is vitiated in view of the decision of Krishna Ram Mahale (supra). 11. Resultantly, this appeal succeeds and is hereby allowed. The impugned judgment of two Courts below so far as dismissing the suit of plaintiff for injunction is concerned, is hereby set aside and suit of plaintiff for injunction is hereby decreed. 11. Resultantly, this appeal succeeds and is hereby allowed. The impugned judgment of two Courts below so far as dismissing the suit of plaintiff for injunction is concerned, is hereby set aside and suit of plaintiff for injunction is hereby decreed. A decree of pern1anent injunction is granted in favour of plaintiffs. The respondents are hereby restrained from interfering in the possession of the plaintiffs. However, it is made clear that defendants respondents shall be free to evict plaintiffs by adopting due procedure as prescribed under the law. 12. With the aforesaid observations, this appeal is hereby allowed with no order as to costs.