Judgment : The appellant/defendant 1 has come up with this appeal challenging the judgment and decree dated 7-2-1998 passed by the Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Mandya, which has been confirmed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) at Mandya in R.A. No. 28 of 1998, dated 7-3-2002. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to by their ranking before the Trial Court. 3. The brief facts of the case are that, the plaintiffs who are the son and mother, have filed suit before Trial Court against defendants seeking for relief of declaration and permanent injunction in respect of suit property bearing Sy. No. 29, measuring 21 guntas situated at Kyathangere Village of Mandya Taluk. It is the case of plaintiffs that first plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of suit schedule property as absolute owner; that second defendant got changed katha and RTC in favour of plaintiffs during the year 1981-82 and since then they are the absolute owners in possession and enjoyment of suit schedule properties; that defendants 1 and 2 were the husband and wife and out of difference between them had filed O.S. No. 158 of 1995 before the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Mandya, wherein the suit properties were also subject-matter of the said suit, however they have compromised the said suit and plaintiffs came to know the said compromise decree when they went to village office to pay the kandayam; that they are not bound by the decree in O.S. No. 158 of 1995. Hence, they filed the suit seeking for the aforesaid reliefs. 4. Hence, they filed the suit seeking for the aforesaid reliefs. 4. On appearance before Trial Court defendants 1 and 2 filed written statement separately contending that they had filed suit in O.S. No. 158 of 1995 and the same was compromised and that plaintiffs are bound by the said decree; that first defendant is the legally wedded wife of second defendant and they got three daughters and a son; that second defendant neglected and deserted first defendant and her children as such she filed a suit in O.S. No. 279 of 1989 seeking for maintenance and creation of charge and it was decreed by creating charge on the suit properties, subsequently first defendant also filed O.S. No. 158 of 1995 against second defendant for partition and separate possession of family properties; that the said suit was compromised and suit schedule properties and other properties fell to the share of first defendant and her daughters towards satisfaction of maintenance and also towards their share; that they became absolute owners in possession and enjoyment of suit properties and other properties as per the compromise decree; that suit properties were the ancestral properties of second defendant and that his father passed away in 1947-48 leaving the second defendant as his only son and his legal heir; that the marriage of second plaintiff took place long back and she has no right, title or whatsoever in the suit property; that mutation and change of katha are fraudulent and concocted and they do not confer right, title or interest to plaintiffs over the suit schedule properties; that mutation is done in collusion and behind the back of defendant 1 and no weight can be attached to the said document; that plaintiffs are not in possession and enjoyment of the suit properties at any time and defendant 1 and her children are in possession of suit lands and it is also contended that the children of first defendant are necessary and proper parties to the suit. 5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties the Trial Court in all framed 7 issues. To prove their case on behalf of plaintiffs, plaintiff 1 was examined as P.W. 1 and documents-Exs. P. 1 to P. 7 came to be marked. On the other hand, on behalf of defendants, defendant 1 examined herself as D.W. 1 and also got examined D.Ws. To prove their case on behalf of plaintiffs, plaintiff 1 was examined as P.W. 1 and documents-Exs. P. 1 to P. 7 came to be marked. On the other hand, on behalf of defendants, defendant 1 examined herself as D.W. 1 and also got examined D.Ws. 2 to 4 and got marked documents-Exs. D. 1 to D. 12. The Trial Court on the basis of the material evidence placed before it decreed the suit of plaintiffs declaring them to be the owners of suit schedule properties, consequently restrained defendants 1 and 2 from interfering with peaceful possession and enjoyment of suit schedule properties by plaintiffs. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree defendant 1 had preferred appeal R.A. No. 28 of 1998 before the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) at Mandya, wherein the learned Civil Judge dismissed the appeal, confirming the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court. Hence this appeal under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908. 6. According to appellants, the Courts below erred in decreeing the suit of plaintiffs relying on the revenue records which are not title deeds. That the Courts below erred in disbelieving the appellant's evidence relying on the joint varadi before the revenue authorities, stating that right of second defendant if any was extinguished. That the Courts below erred in ignoring the fact that release of right on immovable property valued more than Rs. 100/-shall only be by way of registered instrument. Further, the Courts below erred in holding that children of defendants are not proper and necessary parties to the suit. That the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below are illegal, contrary to law and oppose to principles established under law. Hence, it is prayed to allow the appeal by dismissing the suit of plaintiffs. 7. Heard the arguments of learned Counsel for both parties and perused the records. The substantial question of law that had been raised in this appeal is: “Whether mere entry in the revenue records can be a conclusive proof to declare the plaintiff as owner of the property?” 8. Admittedly, plaintiff 2 is the sister of defendant 2 and plaintiff 1 is the son of defendant 1. The defendant 1 is the wife of defendant 2. Further, suit schedule properties were the ancestral properties in the hands of second defendant. Admittedly, plaintiff 2 is the sister of defendant 2 and plaintiff 1 is the son of defendant 1. The defendant 1 is the wife of defendant 2. Further, suit schedule properties were the ancestral properties in the hands of second defendant. According to plaintiffs, at an undisputed point of time during 1981-82, the second defendant under Form 20 in respect of suit schedule properties changed the khatha in favour of the plaintiffs as per Mutation Entry No. 2/1981-82 and from that day, the plaintiffs are in absolute possession and enjoyment by becoming owners of the said property. To prove the s'ime, plaintiffs have produced revenue documents Ex. P. 5-mutation register extract, Exs. P. 3 and P. 4-RTCs. 9. On the other hand, According to defendants, since there were differences between defendants 1 and 2, defendant 1 had filed a suit for maintenance in O.S. No. 279 of 1989 against second defendant and a charge was created in respect of the family properties of second defendant including the suit properties. Subsequently, the partition suit was also filed in respect of the family properties of second defendant and a compromise decree came to be passed against second defendant, wherein first defendant was allotted suit schedule properties. Further, according to defendants, plaintiffs got changed khatha and other revenue entries in their name, fraudulently and that the decree passed by the Civil Court in maintenance suit and partition suit is binding on the plaintiffs. In support of her case, defendant 1 got exhibited copies of the decree passed therein as per Exs. D. 1 and D. 3. 10. Of course, the documents placed on record clearly discloses that suit properties fell to the share of defendant 1 in the partition suit as per the compromise entered into between the parties i.e., defendants 1 and 2 herein. However the revenue documents placed on record by the parties, discloses that plaintiffs are in possession of suit properties since the year 1981-82. Of course, defendants have not challenged the said entries at any time. However, it is contended by the plaintiffs that there was a case pending before the Assistant Commissioner in this regard, but no document has been placed on record to that effect. Further, on the other hand, the plaintiffs have also not challenged the judgment and decree passed in the maintenance suit and partition suit filed by defendant 1. However, it is contended by the plaintiffs that there was a case pending before the Assistant Commissioner in this regard, but no document has been placed on record to that effect. Further, on the other hand, the plaintiffs have also not challenged the judgment and decree passed in the maintenance suit and partition suit filed by defendant 1. Of course, the revenue documents disclose that since from 198182 the name of plaintiff 2 and plaintiff 1 appear in revenue records as possessor of suit lands. But these revenue records cannot be termed as title deeds to confer on them the right of ownership over suit properties. The plaintiffs have not placed on record any other deed or document to prove the source of title. Further, they have not disclosed any particulars for change of khata in the name of plaintiffs. No iota of evidence is placed on record to show why her name is entered in the revenue records and how she become owner of the suit property and whether there was any consideration passed therein or the same was by way of any family arrangement. Such things has not been pleaded nor proved before Court. Mere entry in the revenue records will not confer any title to the plaintiffs and on the basis of the said entries, the plaintiffs cannot be termed as owners of suit properties. In this regard, in case of State of Himachal Pradesh v Keshav Ram and Others AIR 1997 SC 2181 : (1996)11 SCC 257 : ILR 1998 Kar. 1 (SC), it is held as under: "Entry in a revenue record or papers by no stretch of imagination can form the basis for declaration of title". Further, in case of Smt. Sawarni v Smt. Inder Kaur and Others AIR 1996 SC 2823 : (1996)6 SCC 223 , wherein it is held thus: “Mutation of name in revenue records, effect, held, does not create or extinguish the title nor has any presumptive value on title, it only entities the person concerned to pay land revenue”. However, in the instant case, both the Courts below by wrongly relying on the revenue entries have given an erroneous finding that plaintiffs are the absolute owners of suit properties which is illegal, incorrect and the same is liable to be set aside. 11. However, in the instant case, both the Courts below by wrongly relying on the revenue entries have given an erroneous finding that plaintiffs are the absolute owners of suit properties which is illegal, incorrect and the same is liable to be set aside. 11. As regard, prayer of plaintiffs for the relief of permanent injunction is concerned, the revenue records produced before Court clearly disclose plaintiffs possession over suit properties. No material has been placed on record by defendant 1 that she is in possession of suit properties, her oral evidence before the Court in this regard is also not helpful to her. On the other hand the oral evidence of the parties discloses that plaintiffs are in possession of suit properties, since 1981-82. As such the decree passed by Courts below restraining defendants form interfering with peaceful possession and enjoyment of plaintiffs over suit schedule properties does not call for any interference. 12. However, considering the submissions made by Counsel for respondents, that plaintiffs have perfected their title by adverse possession. I have perused the issues framed by Trial Court but no issue was framed by Trial Court in this regard. Though there is a specific pleading found in the plaint, the Trial Court erred in not framing any issue in this regard. Even the parties went for trial without there being any issue to this effect. Considering the fact that plaintiffs proved their possession over suit properties and since right of ownership over the suit properties on the basis of revenue entries cannot be declared in favour of plaintiffs. The plaintiffs could succeed in their suit only if they succeed to prove that they have perfected their title to suit properties by adverse possession. Hence considering the fact that, inspite of there being a specific pleading by the plaintiffs as to perfection of their right of ownership over the suit property by way of adverse possession, Trial Court failed to frame any specific issue in that regard matter requires remand to Trial Court to frame specific issue in that regard and provide an opportunity to parties to prove their case and thereafter to dispose of the suit on merits in accordance with law. 13. Accordingly, appeal is allowed in part. The judgment and decree passed by the Courts below are set aside. 13. Accordingly, appeal is allowed in part. The judgment and decree passed by the Courts below are set aside. The matter is remanded back to the Trial Court to dispose of the suit on merits, in accordance with law, without disturbing the findings recorded herein above. However, it is made clear that the matter should be taken up from the stage of framing additional issue regarding adverse possession as claimed by plaintiffs and after giving opportunity to both parties to prove and disprove the same. Parties to appear before Trial Court on 2-2-2009. The Trial Court is directed to dispose of the suit on or before 25-4-2009. Send back the records forthwith.