JUDGMENT K. Ramanna, J. The appellants/plaintiffs have come up with this appeal under Section 100 CPC challenging the judgment and decree dated 28-1-2002 passed by the Civil Judge (Sr.Dn), Koppal in R.A.No.8/2000 reversing the judgment and decree dated 4-2-2000 passed by the Civil Judge (Jr.Dn), Koppal in O.S.No.65/1995, praying to set aside the same and to restore the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.65/1995, 2. For the sake of convenience, parties will be referred to as their ranking before trial Court. 3. The brief facts of the case are that plaintiffs have filed a suit through their natural guardian and mother before the trial Court seeking for the relief of declaration of their ownership over the suit schedule lands and to restrain the defendants from interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment of suit schedule properties contending that the plaintiffs are owner in possession of the suit lands bearing Sy. No.85 measuring 13 acres 19 guntas and land in Sy.Nos.70/ A measuring 26 acres 13 guntas of Huvinal village. It is their case that Land Tribunal, Koppal has granted occupancy rights in favour of their grandfather one Balappa in the year 1977 in LRY/TNC/269/74-75; that their grandfather was cultivating the suit lands till his death and occupancy right has been granted in his favour, that he died on 24-9-1993 leaving behind his wife Gowramma and the son - Gavisiddappa - father of plaintiffs. After his death, his wife Gowramma was cultivating the suit lands till her death in the year 1992 (sic).That both the lands are standing in the name of plaintiffs under the guardianship of their grandmother; even after the death of Gowramma, the same continued to appear in the revenue records as the same was not changed due to illiteracy of the plaintiffs, that mother of the plaintiffs Paddmma is their guardian and both the plaintiffs are under her care and custody and she is cultivating the lands; that both the lands are adjacent to each other and there is a road in between the said two lands. That the defendants inspite of having no right, title or interest over the suit lands, interfered and obstructed cultivation of the plaintiffs over the suit lands. Hence, they filed the suit through their natural guardian and mother before the trial Court seeking the aforesaid reliefs. 4. On notice being served, defendants appeared before Court. That the defendants inspite of having no right, title or interest over the suit lands, interfered and obstructed cultivation of the plaintiffs over the suit lands. Hence, they filed the suit through their natural guardian and mother before the trial Court seeking the aforesaid reliefs. 4. On notice being served, defendants appeared before Court. However, only defendant NO.1 has filed written statement and contested the suit contending that plaintiffs are not the absolute owners of the suit• lands and their grandfather Balappa alone was not cultivating the suit lands till his death and occupancy rights have not been granted solely in his favour by the Land Tribunal; that the defendants are also concerned to the suit lands; that both the plaintiffs and defendants belongs to the same joint family and their propositor - Naregallappa was cultivating the suit lands for the last 60 years and his name is appearing in the revenue records of the suit lands till his death in the year 1954. The name of Balappa and others entered to the suit lands by way of succession. That occupancy rights have been granted in the name of eldest son of the propositor - Naregallapa; that from 1973-74 to 1980-81, suit lands stood in the name of Balappa and others. However, during 1981-82 it is mentioned as Balappa Mattu without any basis and that by taking undue advantage of the same, grandmother of the plaintiffs got mutated the name of the plaintiffs to the suit lands without due process of law by excluding rest of the defendants. Thus, the said entries do not create any absolute rights in favour of the plaintiffs. The heirs of propositor- Naregallappa are cultivating and enjoying the suit lands as tenants in common and the plaintiffs and defendants are joint owners and are in joint possession of the suit lands; that a family arrangement was effected with respect to the properties of the family of Naregallappa and the shares fallen to the persons have not been mutated in their names. However since 1982 the heirs of Naregallappa are cultivating different portions of the suit lands under the said family arrangement. Hence it is prayed that suit of the plaintiffs be dismissed with costs. 5. The trial Court after considering the pleadings available on record in all framed three issues and one additional issue. However since 1982 the heirs of Naregallappa are cultivating different portions of the suit lands under the said family arrangement. Hence it is prayed that suit of the plaintiffs be dismissed with costs. 5. The trial Court after considering the pleadings available on record in all framed three issues and one additional issue. To prove their case on behalf of the plaintiffs the mother and natural guardian of the plaintiffs Smt. Paddamma was examined as P. W.1 and also examined one Hussainsab and Mardansab as P.W.2 and 3 and got marked documents EX.P.1 to 11. On the other hand on behalf of the defendants the defendant No.1 examined himself as 0.W.1 and also examined one Babusab as 0.W.2 and got marked documents Ex. 0.1 to 29. 6. The trial Court after considering the material evidence placed before it and after hearing the Counsel for both parties decreed the suit of the plaintiffs declaring the plaintiffs as owners of the suit schedule lands and restrained the defendants from interfering with the possession of plaintiffs over the suit lands. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree the defendant No.1 preferred an appeal before the learned Civil Judge [Sr Ovn] Koppal, in R.A. No. 8/2000 who after re-appreciating the materials placed before it and after hearing the arguments of Counsel for parties allowed the appeal by 3etting aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, consequently dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs. 7. Hence the plaintiffs are in this second appeal challenging the divergent finding recorded by the lower appellate Court, mainly on the ground that the lower appellate Court erred in ignoring the order of the Land Tribunal while deciding the jointness or otherwise of the family of Naregellappa; that it erred in not drawing any presumption attached to the RTC entries in favour of the plaintiffs. That the judgment and decree of the lower appellate Court is wholly erroneous and perverse, that if misinterpreted and misunderstood the order of the Land Tribunal. Hence, it is prayed to allow the appeal by restoring the order of the trial Court. 8. Heard the arguments of learned Counsel for both parties. 9. The substantial questions of law that had been raised in this appeal are: 1) Whether the appellate Court is right in dislodging the order of the Land Tribunal granting occupancy rights in favour of the appellants? 8. Heard the arguments of learned Counsel for both parties. 9. The substantial questions of law that had been raised in this appeal are: 1) Whether the appellate Court is right in dislodging the order of the Land Tribunal granting occupancy rights in favour of the appellants? 2) Whether the lower Court has acted contrary to the mandate of the law laid down by the Honble Supreme Court of India in Mudukappas case ( AIR 1994 SC 1190 )? 10. Admittedly plaintiffs and defendants belong to the joint family of the propositor - Naregallappa, the relationship between the parties to the suit is not in dispute. It is further not in dispute that suit lands are tenanted lands, which originally belongs to one Mahadeva Bhat and Sitaram Bhat of Koppal and the said lands have been granted in the name of Balappa - eldest son of Naragallappa during 1977. According to plaintiffs suit lands are granted to their grandfather Balappa in his individual capacity and not as a member of joint family. On the other hand, defendants contend that the suit lands were cultivated by the propositor Naregellappa since 1954 till his death and thereafter Balappa being the eldest son of Naregellappa started cultivating the suit lands and occupancy rights came to be granted in his name as a member of joint family for the benefit of joint family. Therefore plaintiffs and defendants being the coparceners of Hindu joint family are enjoying the suit lands as tenants in common. 11. Further admittedly, the material evidence revelas that claim of the plaintiffs is based solely on the order of Land Tribunal. It is their claim that since the land is granted to their grandfather Balappa in his individual capacity, the same is their absolute property and defendants have no share in it and there is a severance of joint family long back. The plaintiffs have not based their claims on the basis of any earlier partition nor claimed any adverse possession against the defendants. Therefore, it was for the plaintiffs to prove before Court that the lands in question was granted in favour of Balappa in his individual capacity and not as a member of joint family. In this regard, it is necessary to look into Ex. P.1 - the order passed by Land Tribunal, dated 30-10-1977 granting suit lands in favour of grandfather of plaintiff-Balappa. In this regard, it is necessary to look into Ex. P.1 - the order passed by Land Tribunal, dated 30-10-1977 granting suit lands in favour of grandfather of plaintiff-Balappa. Both the parties to the suit have not disputed said order of the Land Tribunal and the Exhibit P-1 remain unchallenged before this Court. The trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiffs holding that since occupancy right is granted in favour of Balappa which has not been challenged by the defendants, the plaintiffs have become owners by way of adverse possession to the suit land. It was further of the opinion that since the defendants have not sought for any partition of the suit lands, they have no subsisting right over the suit lands. The trial Court based on the evidence of D. W.1 held that there is no jointness in the family and that the parties are living separately, however if failed to believe the claim of defendants that they were cultivating the suit lands as per the family arrangement since they failed to produce any documents in this regard and by relying on Exhibit P-1, it held the suit lands were granted only in favour of Balappa in his individual capacity. However, the lower appellate Court after re-appreciating the material placed on record and carefully going through the Exhibit P-1, held that Land Tribunal granted the occupancy rights in respect of suit schedule lands in the name of Balappa not in his individual capacity but as a member of joint family for the benefit of joint family and that it held that defendants are also entitled to a share in the same. It has elaborately discussed the order of the Tribunal in the impugned judgment and decree at paragraphs 17 to 21. It was of the opinion that since the grant has been made to the joint family, it enures to the benefit of all the members of joint family and are entitled to seek their share by partition and thus, allowed the appeal setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. 12. Of course, from Exhibit P-1 it is apparent that the grant has been made in the name of Balappa. 12. Of course, from Exhibit P-1 it is apparent that the grant has been made in the name of Balappa. However, from the plain reading of Exhibit P-1, it is clear that Balappa himself has applied for grant of suit lands in his name not in his individual capacity but on behalf of joint family and the said application made by Balappa clearly discloses that the joint family of propositor Naregallappa were the tenants of the suit lands and there is no averment as to the severance of joint family and Balappa alone cultivating the suit lands in his individual capacity. The Tribunal granted the suit lands in his name for the benefit of joint family and thus all the defendants have right over the said properties. Of course revenue records discloses the name of Balappa since 1981 to 1984 and thereafter the names of plaintiffs are alone shown in the revenue record as possessors of the land, but the same will not take away the rights of the defendants over the said lands, since the grant has been made for the benefit of joint family of Naregallappa. Of course, under the Land Revenue Act, entries in the revenue record will have a presumption of correctness as to the contents of the same. However, mere non-challenging of the said revenue entries, by the defendants will also not take away the rights of the defendants over the suit lands. The revenue entries will not be considered as title deeds to convey rights to the plaintiffs. 13. The plaintiffs though made attempts to prove that there was a partition in their family but have failed in their attempts. There is no pleadings to this effect made by the plaintiffs in their plaint nor have proved the same before Court. The oral evidence place on record is not sufficient to hold that there was a partition in the family and that Balappa got the suit lands to his share and the other ancestral properties fell to the share of defendants. No documents have been produced by the plaintiffs to prove any ancestral properties owned by the said joint family if any. The description of the other properties which have went to the share of defendants have not been disclosed before Court. Further, the year of partition is also not disclosed. No documents have been produced by the plaintiffs to prove any ancestral properties owned by the said joint family if any. The description of the other properties which have went to the share of defendants have not been disclosed before Court. Further, the year of partition is also not disclosed. The plaintiffs evidence is not sufficient to hold that there was a partition in the family of Naregellappa. On the other hand, the claim of the defendants that all the sons of late Naregellappa are in possession and cultivating the suit lands as per the arrangement made between them is more probable than the case put forth by the plaintiffs. 14. The following decisions referred to and relied on by the Counsel for the respondent is squarely made applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case, wherein, in case of Sri Kri5hnapa Karad Since Oead By LR5. V5. Sri Hanumanthappa Karad and Or5. reported in 2001 (1) KCCR 319 it is held thus; Tenancy rights conferred on the father of the petitioner, consequent to the demise of the father, can the petitioner, solely on the basis of certain revenue entries in his favour, claim exclusive occupancy rights, to the exclusion of the other sons of the deceased [brother of the petitioner] ? Held No. Further in case of Sri Parushuram Nemani Kuduchakar And Or5. V5. Smt. Shantabai Ramachandra Kuduchakar And ORS reported in ILR 2004 Kar 3355 where in it is held thus; As a suit for partition in respect of tenanted agricultural lands is not barred and it is the civil Court alone which has jurisdiction to entertain a suit for partition, as such the plea that the suit is barred in view of the order of the Land Tribunal, has no substance and cannot be permitted. 15. 15. In the instant case, there was no dispute between the parties during the life time of Balappa and the dispute had arose between them only after the death of grand mother of plaintiffs during 1992, It appears that the plaintiffs have filed the suit just to defeat the shares of defendants and the trial Court on wrongful assumption and presumptions wrongly decreed the suit of plaintiffs, however the lower appellate Court after carefully going through the oral and documentary evidence place before it has rightly disbelieved the case of the plaintiffs and rightly set aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, consequently dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs are estopped from denying the rights of the defendants in view specific admission made by the grand father of the plaintiffs - Balappa before the Land Tribunal in his application for grant of occupancy rights of suit lands, that the suit lands have been cultivated jointly by himself and his family members. 16. In view of the aforesaid decisions relied on by the Counsel for the respondents, the substantial question of law raised in this appeal is answered against the appellants. Viewed from any angle, I do not find any illegality or incorrectness in the judgment and decree passed by the lower appellate Court. Hence this appeal fails and is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed as devoid of merits. In view of the relationship in between the parties, there is no order as to costs.