Judgment ( 1. ) THE appellant/plaintiff has directed this appeal under section 100 of the CPC being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 30. 11. 94 passed by the District Judge, Seoni in Civil Regular Appeal No. 2-A/94, setting aside the judgment and decree dated 26. 3. 94 passed by the Civil Judge class-I Lakhnadon in Civil Original Suit No. 72--A/92 decreeing his suit for declaration against the respondents. ( 2. ) THE facts of the case in brief are that the appellant herein filed the suit against the respondents for declaration with respect of the agricultural land bearing Survey No. 115/2, 117/2, 121/3-kh and 121/4-kh total area 16. 83 acre, situated at village Pahadi, Tehsil Lakhnadon. As per averments of the plaint, the aforesaid land along with some other land total 41. 80 acres was purchased jointly by the appellant and Mst. Ramko w/o Dharmu (maternal grand mother of respondent No. 1 and 2), from its earlier owner, through registered sale deed dated 12. 12. 1956 (Ex. P/1) in their equal share but the name of respondent No. 3 and 4, the sons of respondent No. 1 were also inserted as purchasers in the sale deed with the name of Ramko Bai. Subsequent to such acquisition, in oral partition, the aforesaid land was given to the appellant, while the remaining 24. 97 acres land was given to mst Ramko Bai along with respondent No. 3 and 4. Thereafter, in accordance with the aforesaid oral partition, the land given to Mst Ramko bai and respondent No. 3 and 4 bearing Survey No. 115/1, 117/1, 118, 121/3-A, 121/4-b area 24. 97 acre was recorded only in the name of respondent No. 3 and 4 and due to over sight and mistake, the name of Mst. Ramko Bai was remain continued with the appellant on the land given to him. Inspite such mutation, the appellant is coming in possession of the disputed land under his title. Said Ramko Bai died in the year 1979. Thereafter, the respondent No. 1, on the strength of a Will, as alleged, executed by Mst Ramko Bai, filed an application for mutating her name with the appellant in the revenue record. The same was opposed by the appellant. Said Ramko Bai died in the year 1979. Thereafter, the respondent No. 1, on the strength of a Will, as alleged, executed by Mst Ramko Bai, filed an application for mutating her name with the appellant in the revenue record. The same was opposed by the appellant. In pendency of such mutation proceedings, the respondent No. 1 waived her right claimed on the strength of aforesaid Will and entered into a compromise with the appellant by taking 1. 214 hectares ( 3 acres) of land for lifetime maintenance of herself. Such compromise was also filed in the court of Tehsildar but, however, without considering the same, the name of respondent No. 1 and 2, was substituted in the revenue records with the name of the appellant and due to such mutation, the exclusive right and title of the appellant over such land became suspicious, on which, the appellant has filed the impugned suit declaring him to be the exclusive Bhumi Swami of the disputed land. ( 3. ) IN the written statement of the respondents, it is stated that such land was purchased by deceased Mst Ramko Bai for respondent No. 3 and 4. The entire consideration was paid by her. In such premises, the appellant did not have any right with respect of the disputed land. The name of the appellant was inserted in the sale deed as purchaser only with intention for taking his assistance to lookafter the proceedings of the court and the offices. No partition took place between the parties in the year 1960. The respondent No. 3 and 4, being minor in the year 1960 were not having any right to initiate any proceedings for partition. The appellant has also not acquired the title of such land by adverse possession. Mst Ramko Bai, by executing a Will bequeathed her property to respondent No. 1, her daughter, but such Will was not traceable on account of theft, hence the proceedings of mutation was also not properly conducted by them. The compromise in the Community Panchayat was carried out under the pressure and no land was given to her for her lifetime maintenance while the same was inherited by respondent No. 1 and 2 from their mother Mst Ramko Bai. ( 4. ) RESPONDENT No. 5/state, being formal party in the matter has not filed any written statement, hence the case was proceeded ex-parte against it. ( 4. ) RESPONDENT No. 5/state, being formal party in the matter has not filed any written statement, hence the case was proceeded ex-parte against it. ( 5. ) AFTER casting the issues and recording the evidence, on appreciation of the same holding that the appellant is the exclusive Bhumi Swami of the disputed land, his suit was decreed by the trial court. On filing the appeal by the respondents No. 1 to 4, on consideration, by allowing the same and dismissing the suit of the appellant, the judgment and decree of the trial court was set aside, on which, the appellant has come forward to this court with this appeal. ( 6. ) THIS appeal was admitted vide order dated 27. 7. 95 on the following substantial questions of law :- (1 ). "whether the lower appellate Court erred in not giving effect to the sale deed Ex. P-1 and the Family arrangement which was affected between Smt. Ramkoo bai and the appellant by which the suit land was given exclusively to the appellant ? (2 ). "whether in any case, by virtue of the sale-deed ex. P-1 all the vendors were entitled to have their respective shares in all the 41 acres of land purchased and not only in the suit land ? ( 7. ) SHRI Adil Usmani, learned appearing counsel of the appellant, after taking me through the pleadings, the evidence and exhibited documents on record, argued that the appellate court has committed grave error in dismissing his suit by setting aside the judgment and decree of the trial court while the same was passed by supplying sufficient reasons and taking into consideration the conduct of the parties and also the principle of estopple enumerated under the Evidence Act. There was no occasion before the appellate court to dismiss the suit by reversing the findings of the trial court. He further said that it was apparent and undisputed fact on record that the disputed land along with the land recorded in the name of respondents No. 3 and 4, were purchased, from its earlier owner, in the joint name of the appellant, deceased Ramko Bai and respondents No. 3 and 4 through sale deed dated 12. 12. 56 (Ex. P/1) and that was the only document of title. 12. 56 (Ex. P/1) and that was the only document of title. In any case, on setting aside the findings of the trial court holding partition between the parties, the appellate court was obliged to decree the suit of the appellant in part by declaring his 1/4 th share in the entire land purchased through aforesaid sale deed. It is settled proposition of the law that the entries made in the record of rights by the revenue department, do not confer any title to the parties. In such premises, he prayed to answer the aforesaid questions in favour of the appellant by allowing this appeal. ( 8. ) ON the other hand, responding the aforesaid argument, counsel of the respondents No. 1 and 2 Shri S. L. Patel and Shri Anurag Tiwari, counsel of respondent No. 3 and 4, by justifying the impugned judgment of the appellate court said that the same is based on proper appreciation of evidence and also is in conformity with law. The appellate court has not committed any error in dismissing the suit of the appellant by setting aside the judgment of the trial court and prayed for dismissal of this appeal. ( 9. ) HAVING heard the counsel at length, I have carefully examined the record and also perused the impugned judgments. It is apparent from the judgment of the trial court that without taking into consideration the document of title the sale deed (Ex. P/1) with its proper perspective, only taking into consideration the revenue record, the Khasra and the proceedings of the revenue court with the factum of compromise application filed in the revenue court, decreed the appellants suit for 16. 83 acres of land. On challenging such judgment by the respondent No. 1 to 4, the appellate court, on consideration, also committed error in not taking into consideration the sale deed (Ex. P/1), by which the title of the disputed land was acquired by the appellant along with deceased Ramko Bai and respondents No. 3 and 4 jointly. It appears that the appellate court has considered the case taking into consideration the mutation entries carried-out in the year 1966, on the basis of alleged oral partition of the parties, as alleged, took place in the year 1960, in which the name of deceased Ramko bai was remain recorded in the Khasra as Co-Bhumi Swami with the appellant on the aforesaid 16. 83 acre land. While, the remaining land acquired by the aforesaid sale deed was mutated in the name of respondent no. 3 and 4. Subsequently on death of Ramko Bai, the name of respondent no. 1 and 2 were replace at her place with the name of the appellant in the record of rights on aforesaid 16. 83 acre land. In such premises, it is revealed that the document of title the sale deed (Ex. P/1), was not taken into consideration with proper approach to decide and declare the share of the appellant. ( 10. ) IT is settled proposition of law that the record of right or the revenue record are kept only for the fiscal purpose of fixing the liability to pay the land revenue. On the basis of such revenue entries and record, the title of the parties with respect of the land, could not be adjudicated as such record itself is not sufficient to draw the inference confirming the title over the property in favour of either of the parties. In such premises, the findings of the appellate court appears to be perverse and contrary to the existing legal position. My aforesaid view is fully fortified by the decision of the Apex court in the matter of Durga Das Vs. Collector and others- (1996) 5 SCC-618 in which it was held as under :- "2. This appeal. . . . . . . . Mutation entries do not confer any title to the property. It is only an entry for collection of the land revenue from the person in possession. The title to the property should be on the basis of the title they acquired to the land and not by mutation entries. . . . " The aforesaid view was further followed in the matter of State of U. P. Vs. Amar Singh and others- (1997)1 SCC 734 in which it was held as under :-5. Thus, on. . . . . . . . It is settled law that mutation entries are only for the purpose of enabling the state to collect the land revenue from the person in possession but it does not confer any title to the land. The title would be derived from an instrument executed by the owner in favour of an alienee as per the Stamp Act and registered under the Registration Act. . . . . . . The title would be derived from an instrument executed by the owner in favour of an alienee as per the Stamp Act and registered under the Registration Act. . . . . . . . " ( 11. ) THE appellate court while dealing with the matter has not committed any error n setting aside the findings of the trial court holding the appellant to be the exclusive Bhumi Swami of the disputed land but committed grave error in dismissing the suit in its entirety. In fact, in view of the undisputed document, the sale deed dated 12. 12. 56 (Ex. P-1) whereby the appellant, ramko Bai (the predecessor of respondent No. 1 and 2) and respondent no. 3 and 4, had purchased the entire land 41. 80 acres in their joint name and on the strength of such sale deed, in any case, the appellant had a right to get the declaration of 1/4th share in such entire land. In such premises, the appellate court has committed grave error in not decreeing the suit of the appellant in part declaring his 1/4th share in the entire land mentioned in the aforesaid sale deed. ( 12. ) IN view of the aforesaid discussion, the part of substantial question of law No. 1 with respect of family arrangement affected between Mst Ramko bai and the appellant by which the suit land was given exclusively to the appellant, is answered in negative while the remaining part of such substantial question of law and the substantial question of law No. 2, are answered affirmative in favour of the appellant by holding his 1/4th share in the entire land purchased by the sale deed (Ex. P/1 ). ( 13. ) UNDER the aforesaid premises, by allowing this appeal in part, the judgment and decree of both the courts below, being perverse, are set aside and the suit of the appellant is hereby decreed in part declaring the appellant is having 1/4th share in the entire suit land purchased in the joint name of appellant, Mst Ramko Bai (the predecessor of respondent No. 1 and 2) and respondents No. 3 and 4 vide sale deed dated 12. 12. 56 (Ex. P/1 ). ( 14. ) THE respondents No. 1 to 4 shall bear their own cost of the litigation and shall also pay the cost of this litigation to the appellant throughout. 12. 56 (Ex. P/1 ). ( 14. ) THE respondents No. 1 to 4 shall bear their own cost of the litigation and shall also pay the cost of this litigation to the appellant throughout. The cost of this appeal is quantified to Rs. 3000/ -. The decree be drawn-up accordingly. ( 15. ) THE appeal is allowed in part as indicated above.