JUDGMENT L. N. Mittal, J. (Oral):-This is second appeal by plaintiffs, who have been unsuccessful in both the courts below. 2. Plaintiffs alleged that they are owners in possession of suit land measuring 8 kanals comprised of rectangle no.42 killa no. 11, which has been wrongly recorded in the ownership of defendants no. 1 and 2. According to the plaintiffs, the suit land was purchased by Paul Singh vide sale deed dated 11.12.1964 from Naib Tehsildar (Sales) – defendant no.6. Paul Singh sold the suit land to Bishan Singh, who sold it to Basti Ram – plaintiff no.1 and Sarbati. Sarbati sold her half share in the suit land to plaintiff no.2 – Ghisa Ram. The plaintiffs are thus owners in possession of the suit land. Kurda Ram – father of defendants no.1 and 2 had also purchased some land from defendant no. 6 vide sale deed dated 11.12.1964, wherein the suit land was wrongly included. However, the same was corrected by defendant no.6 after recording statement of Kurda Ram. However, name of Kurda Ram continued in the revenue record and defendants no. 1 and 2 being his son and daughter respectively were subsequently recorded to be owners of the suit land in the revenue record. In the alternative, the plaintiffs alleged that they have been wrongly recorded to be owners in possession of another 08 kanals land of rectangle no. 42 killa no. 2 in the revenue record, but in fact, the plaintiffs never purchased the said land. The said land has been purchased by defendants no.3 to 5. Accordingly, the plaintiffs, in the alternative, claimed that they be declared to be owners of land of khasra no. 42//2. 3. Defendant no. 1 controverted the allegations of the plaintiffs. It was pleaded that defendant no. 1 is owner in possession of the suit land of khasra no. 42//11. Revenue entries in favour of Kurda Ram and subsequently in favour of defendants no. 1 and 2 were correct. Defendant no.2 has transferred her share in favour of defendant no.1, who is now exclusive owner in possession of the suit land. Kurda Ram had purchased 40 kanals of land including suit land from defendant no.6 in auction. Kurda Ram was in possession of the suit land even before this purchase. 4. Defendants no.3 to 5 also controverted the allegations of the plaintiffs. Kurda Ram had purchased 40 kanals of land including suit land from defendant no.6 in auction. Kurda Ram was in possession of the suit land even before this purchase. 4. Defendants no.3 to 5 also controverted the allegations of the plaintiffs. It was denied that plaintiffs are owners or in possession of khasra no.42//2. Various other pleas were also raised. 5. Defendant no.6, in his written statement, supported the claim of the plaintiffs. 6. Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Mahendergarh, vide judgment and decree dated 08.09.2007, dismissed the plaintiffs’ suit. First appeal preferred by the plaintiffs has been dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Narnaul, vide judgment and decree dated 14.01.2010. Feeling aggrieved, the plaintiffs have preferred the instant second appeal. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused the case file. 8. Learned counsel for the appellants vehemently contended that Paul Singh – predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs purchased 72 kanals land including the suit land vide sale certificate dated 06.04.1965 (Annexure P-1), pursuant to public auction held on 14.11.1964 and sale confirmed in his favour on 11.12.1964. It was also contended that mistakenly, suit land of khasra no. 42//11 was also sold to Kurda Ram – predecessor of defendants no. 1 and 2 vide sale certificate dated 06.04.1965 (Annexure P-2), vide which Kurda Ram purchased 39 kanals 04 marlas land including the suit land, pursuant to auction held on 22.11.1964 and sale confirmed on 11.12.1964 by Settlement Commissioner. It was further contended that vide order Annexure A-3 dated 22.08.1966, passed by Naib Tehsildar (Sales), necessary correction was made pursuant to statement made by Kurda Ram and accordingly, suit land khasra no.42//11 was held to be auctioned in favour of Paul Singh – predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs. 9. I have carefully considered the aforesaid contentions, but the same cannot be accepted. 10. Admittedly, since the issuance of sale certificates dated 06.04.1965 (Annexures P-1 and P-2), Kurda Ram – predecessor of defendants no.1 and 2 was recorded to be owner in possession of the suit land in the revenue record. Thus, when the plaintiffs purchased the suit land, their vendors or their predecessors-in-interest were not recorded to be owners of the suit land in the revenue record. In spite thereof, the plaintiffs chose to purchase the suit land from the said vendors, with eyes wide open. Thus, when the plaintiffs purchased the suit land, their vendors or their predecessors-in-interest were not recorded to be owners of the suit land in the revenue record. In spite thereof, the plaintiffs chose to purchase the suit land from the said vendors, with eyes wide open. Consequently, it does not lie in the mouth of the plaintiffs to contend that Kurda Ram was not owner of the suit land. In fact, sale certificates (Annexures P-1 and P-2) were issued regarding the suit land of khasra no.42//11 in favour of Paul Singh ( predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs) as well as in favour of Kurda Ram ( predecessor-in-interest of defendants no.1 and 2). However, pursuant thereto, Kurda Ram was recorded to be owner in possession of the suit land and the said entries were never challenged by the plaintiffs or their predecessors-in-interest. Much emphasis is laid on behalf of the appellants on order Annexure A-3 dated 22.08.1966 passed by Naib Tehsildar (Sales). However, this is not even an order, but is only a report or recommendation. According to this document, land of khasra no.42//11 had already been auctioned to Paul Singh and was again auctioned to Kurda Ram, but said Kurda Ram made statement that this land may be excluded from the land purchased by him and he was ready to purchase the remaining land measuring 31 kanals 04 marlas for the same sale consideration. Accordingly, Naib Tehsildar recommended that necessary correction/release order has to be passed by Settlement Commissioner, who had passed the earlier order of confirmation of sales. Naib Tehsildar, therefore, sent his recommendation to Tehsildar. However, there is nothing on record to depict as to what happened to this recommendation made by Naib Tehsildar. It is apparent from the revenue record that no such correction was ever made and Kurda Ram continued to be owner in possession of the suit land. The plaintiffs cannot be said to have become owners of the suit land, when their vendors or their predecessors-in-interest were never recorded to be owners of the suit land. Sale certificate regarding suit land was issued in favour of Paul Singh – predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs and Kurda Ram – predecessor-ininterest of defendants no.1 and 2. The plaintiffs cannot be said to have become owners of the suit land, when their vendors or their predecessors-in-interest were never recorded to be owners of the suit land. Sale certificate regarding suit land was issued in favour of Paul Singh – predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs and Kurda Ram – predecessor-ininterest of defendants no.1 and 2. Document Annexure A-3 would reveal that Paul Singh (predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs) had come to know of the alleged mistake regarding sale of suit land to both the parties i.e. Paul Singh and Kurda Ram, but in spite thereof, necessary correction order was not obtained from the Settlement Commissioner i.e. competent authority. Merely on the recommendation of Naib Tehsildar made on 22.08.1966, the plaintiffs cannot be held to be owners of the suit land. The said recommendation was not taken to logical conclusion for more than 33 years till the filing of the suit. Moreover, neither plaintiffs nor their predecessorsin- interest ever came in possession of the suit land. Consequently, suit for mere declaration would also not be maintainable in view of proviso to Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. For the reasons aforesaid, I find no illegality in the judgments and decrees of the courts below so as to warrant interference in the instant second appeal. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for determination in the instant second appeal. The appeal is without any merit and is accordingly dismissed in limine. --------------