Hon'ble VYAS, J.—In this second appeal filed under Section 100 CPC, the plaintiff-appellant is challenging the judgment and decree dated 8th July, 1992 passed by the Civil Judge, Churu in Civil Appeal No. 58/90, whereby, the learned Judge has set aside the judgment and decree dated 20th January, 1989 passed by the Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Churu in Civil Original Suit No. 125/84, by which, the learned trial Court has decreed the suit in favour of plaintiff -appellant and restrained the respondents not to dispossess the plaintiff-appellant from the premises in question. 2. According to the facts of the case, a suit for temporary injunction was filed by the plaintiff-appellant before the Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Churu in which, it was prayed that respondent-Municipal Council, Churu is illegally dispossessing him from the land in question though he is in possession of the said land from last many years. In the plaint it is specially stated by the plaintiff-appellant that his plot is situated in Ward No. 19, near temple of Mata Mancha Devi. Further, it is stated that as per document Savah Bahi No. 47 Samwat Year 1933 of page No. 15, the plaintiff-appellant is having patta in his favour issued on Miti Chet Badi 14 Samwat year 1933, therefore, he is holding valid title in his favour. But respondents are threatening him that they will dispossess from the plot in question, therefore, it is prayed that decree for permanent injunction may be passed against the Municipal Council, Churu and restrained the respondents not to evict or dispossess the plaintiff-appellant from the premises in question. 3. In the suit filed by the plaintiff appellant, written statement was filed by the respondent-Municipal Council, Churu and it is disputed that there is any title in favour of plaintiff. Further, it was also refuted that Savah Bahi, which is produced by the plaintiff alongwith suit, is not belonging to the plot in question and he is not in possession of the said plot. 4. Further, it was also refuted that Savah Bahi, which is produced by the plaintiff alongwith suit, is not belonging to the plot in question and he is not in possession of the said plot. 4. After filing reply to the written statement, learned trial Court framed five issues which are as follows: ^^1- vk;k okni= ds iSjk la- 1 esa of.kZr Hkwfe fooknkLin oknh dh feyfd;rh o dcwtk gSa ftl ij ls izfroknhx.k mls vukf/kd`r :i ls csn[ky djuk pkgrs gSA 2- vk;k nkos dh ekfy;r de vkadh xbZ gSA 3- vk;k oknh dks okn vk/kkj o dkj.k izkIr ugha gSA 4- vk;k oknh dks ;g okn izLrqr djus dk vf/kdkj ugha gSA 5- vuqrks"kA** 5. The learned trial Court after due trial and taking evidence on record, decreed the suit in favour of plaintiff-appellant and against the respondents whereby Municipal Council, Churu was restrained from dispossessing the plaintiff-appellant from the disputed land in question. 6. The case of plaintiff-appellant before the trial Court was that he is residing upon the disputed land since his birth and he has constructed a pakka house and during pendency of the suit when temporary injunction was granted in favour of appellant-plaintiff then an appeal was preferred before the learned District Judge, Churu whereby the learned District Judge Churu while confirming the temporary injunction granted in favour of plaintiff-appellant, restrained him to make any construction and passed an order for maintaining status quo upon the property in dispute till decision of the suit. 7. Against that order as per plaintiff-appellant a revision petition was preferred before this Court, the same was registered as S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 250/1985 and was allowed on 28th October, 1985 in which, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has passed the following order:- "I, therefore, partly allow this revision and modify the order of the learned District Judge Churu dated 14.5.85 to the effect that the plaintiff shall be entitled to raise construction over the land in dispute on his giving an undertaking before the trial Court that he will demolish the construction reased by his in case the suit fails and he will raise construction only in accordance with the provisions of the Municipal item Act, The parties are left too bear there own costs of this revision." 8. The learned trial Court decreed the suit in favour of plaintiff-appellant. The learned trial Court decreed the suit in favour of plaintiff-appellant. Thereafter, an appeal was preferred against the judgment and decree dated 20th January, 1989 by the Municipal Council, Churu before the learned District Judge, Churu. The District Judge, Churu transferred the appeal to the Court of Civil Judge and finally the Civil Judge allowed the appeal filed by the Municipal Council Churu and Commissioner, Churu and set aside the judgment and decree passed by the Munsif Magistrate, Churu dated 20th January, 1989. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that learned first appellate Court has committed an error while setting aside the finding of learned trial Court with regard to Savah Bahi which is a government document. It is further submitted that a certified copy of Savah Bahi issued by the Director, Record Room, Bikaner was filed which is a public document, therefore, on the basis of said document, the plaintiff-appellant is having title over the land in question, therefore, learned first appellate court has committed an error while not accepting the said document as public document. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant further argued that admittedly at present the appellant is residing in the house in question, which is situated upon the disputed plot, so also, in the revision petition filed before this Court against the order for maintaining status quo by the District Judge, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court granted permission to the appellant to raise construction over the land. Meaning thereby, the appellant is residing in the house, which is situated upon the disputed plot and in the revision petition filed by him, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court passed an order for raising construction over the land in question. Therefore, in any manner, if plaintiff-appellant is in possession of the land and made construction as ordered by this Court, then he cannot be dispossessed, so also the entire evidence on record speaks that the plaintiff-appellant is in possession of the disputed plot since many years, so also, Savah Bahi was a public document issued by the Director, Record Room, Bikaner which is a public document and on that basis the finding of learned first appellate Court deserves to be set aside whereby the first appellate Court has held that Exhibit-1 certificate copy of Savah Bahi is neither a public document nor a certificate copy of public department. 11. 11. On 17th September, 1992 while admitting the petition following substantial question of law was formulated by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court:- "Whether the learned first appellate Court was right in holding that Ex. 1 (Certified copy issued by the Director, Record Room, Bikaner of Savah Bahi) is neither a public document nor a certified copy of public document?" 12. The learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that finding with regard to the said document by the first appellate Court is perverse, so also, learned first appellate Court has erred in not treating the certified copy of Savah Bahi issued by the Government Record Room, Bikaner as a public document because admittedly the Government Record Room, Bikaner is a government department where the record is maintained by the government. It is also contended that the language of all the pattas which were issued by the Erstwhile State, Bikaner were bearing the same language which mentioned in patta Exhibit-1, therefore, the authenticity of certified copy of the Savah Bahi Exhibit -1 cannot be disputed, so also, the finding of first appellate court with regard to the said document is perverse, so also, against the basic principle of law. The appellant is in continuous possession of the disputed land since his birth, therefore, on the basis of his continuous possession since Samwat year 1933 and on the basis of Exhibit-1- the Savah Bahi, he cannot be dispossessed, so also, the finding given by the trial Court cannot be reversed by the first appellate Court because Exhibit-1 which is issued by the department is a public document. 13. I have perused the entire record of the case. More specifically Exhibit-1 and para 1 of the plaint. 14. Admittedly, the document upon which plaintiff-appellant is relying is a entry of Savah Bahi that cannot be treated to be a patta or title in favour of plaintiff-appellant because upon simple reading of the said document it is revealed that it may be a entry issued by the government department, but it cannot be treated to be a patta in favour of any person. It is also required to be observed that Exhibit-1 which is certified copy issued by the Director, Record Room, Bikaner is a part of record, but it does not disclose the correct situation of the plot, so also, it cannot be treated to be a title for the land in question. Therefore, the finding of learned appellate Court with regard to the said document does not require any interference. Further, it is evident from the evidence that appellant is residing in the house constructed upon the disputed land, so also, earlier in revision petition filed against the order passed by the District Judge in the proceedings of temporary injunction, a permission was granted by this Court for raising construction that too in the year 1985. Therefore, obviously appellant is in possession since 1985, so also, the claim of appellant is that he is in possession from last many years, therefore, although the finding with regard to the question formulated by this Court is hereby answered in negative and it is held that Exhibit-1 Savah Bahi is not Public Document nor it gives any right or title to the appellant. The first appellate court has not committed any error while not accepting Exhibit-1 Savah Bahi as public document, but at the same time if any person is in possession of the land from last many years then such person cannot be dispossessed without due process of law. 15. In this view of the matter, while upholding the finding of learned first appellate court with regard to Exhibit-1 Savah Bahi, I am of the opinion that appellant cannot be dispossessed without following due process of law because according to evidence on record he is in possession from last many years. 16. In this view of the mater, this second appeal is partly allowed. The finding arrived at by the appellate Court with regard to "Exhibit-1" Savah Bahi is hereby upheld and looking to the old possession of the appellant, I deem it just and proper to direct the Municipal Council, Churu that appellant shall not be dispossessed from the land in question without following due process of law. No order as to cost.