Judgment ( 1. ) By this second appeal the defendants are challenging the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court decreeing the suit of plaintiff and which has been affirmed by learned first appellate Court by the impugned judgment and decree. ( 2. ) The facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal are that plaintiffs filed suit for declaration and injunction in respect to certain agricultural land, the description where of mentioned in the plaint and which is the subject matter of the suit. According to the plaintiffs, they are the Bhumiswami of half of the suit land and the defendants be restrained not to interfere in the possession of the plaintiffs. According to the plaint averments, plaintiffs are claiming Bhumiswami right from their father, namely, Anratiya who was having half share in the entire suit property. Further, it has been pleaded that since defendants are creating hindrance in the enjoyment of suit property, hence, the present suit for declaration of Bhumiswami right having half share in the suit property and injunction restraining defendants not to interfere in the peaceful possession of plaintiffs has been filed. ( 3. ) The defendants 1 to 6 by filing written statement refuted the plaint averments. According to the defendants their father, namely, Horalia was having 3/4 th share in the entire suit property while plaintiffs father Anratiya was having l/4th share and, therefore, the plaintiffs are not entitled to the declaration that they are having half share in the suit property as Bhumiswami. ( 4. ) The learned trial Court on the basis of averments made in the plaint and denial in the written statement, framed necessary issues and after recording the evidence of the parties, came to hold that since Anratiya and Horalia were the joint owners of the suit property and they were the real brothers, therefore, plaintiffs who are the sons of Anratiya are having only half share in the entire suit property and accordingly declared them to be the Bhumiswami upto that extent and further directed defendants not to restrain the plaintiffs. ( 5. ) The appeal, which was filed by defendants, has been dismissed by the impugned judgment and decree. ( 6. ( 5. ) The appeal, which was filed by defendants, has been dismissed by the impugned judgment and decree. ( 6. ) In this manner, second appeal has been filed by the defendants which was admitted on 26/6/2000 on the following substantial questions of law:- "(a) Whether the Courts below have erred in law in determining the extent of the share of the plaintiffs in the land in dispute? (b) Whether the suit of the plaintiffs stood barred in view of their failure to challenge the entry in the record of rights specifying the share within the time prescribed under section 107 of the Madhya Bharat Revenue Administration and Ryotwari Land Revenue and Tenancy Act, Samvat, 2007?" ( 7. ) By addressing on substaintial question of law (b) it has been contended by Shri Aniket Naik, learned counsel for the appellants, that the document Ex.D/1, which is the patta of settlement (Bandobast), Samvat year 2012 (corresponding year 1955), and during that period the relevant revenue law, namely, Madhya Bharat Land Revenue and Tenancy Act, 1950 (in short the Act) was in force and district Guna where the suit property is situated, was the part of erstwhile State of Madhya Bharat and, therefore, if the entries made in the record of rights were not challenged in the civil Court within a year, later on the said entries cannot be challenged. To buttress his submission, learned counsel has invited my attention to sections 105 and 107 of the said Act which speaks about the preparation of record of rights and civil suit regarding entry in papers prepared for record of rights. Hence, it has been contended by learned counsel that since Anratiya never challenged the document Ex.D/1 in which his l/4th share and 3/4th share of his brother Horalia has been mentioned throughout his life, now the plaintiffs who are claiming through Anratiya cannot ask and pray for declaration that they are having half share in the entire suit property. ( 8. ( 8. ) Further, it has been contended by learned counsel for the appellants by addressing the substantial question of law (a) that the approach of learned two Courts below in determining the share is contrary to the relevant law, because one more brother of Horalia and Anratiya, namely, Soma who died prior to the year 1946 when the Quanoon Mal Samvat 1983 of Gwalior State was in force and according to section 253 (6) of the Quanoon Mal, on account of the death of Soma, his share would devolve in his daughter and, therefore, the determination of the share by two Courts below is also erroneous. ( 9. ) Per contra, Shri Rathi, learned counsel for the respondent No.1, argued in support of the impugned judgment and has contended that in view of Article 58 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963 the cause of action would accrue to the plaintiffs within three years when right to sue first accrues to them and becasue the incorrect entry in the document Ex.D/1 of Samvat 2012 (corresponding year 1955) was not in the knowledge of the plaintiffs, therefore, within three years of the date of their knowledge they have filed their suit and, therefore, this appeal has no substance and the same be dismissed. ( 10. ) Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that this appeal deserves to be allowed. Regarding Substantial Question Of Law (b): ( 11. ) On going through the Patta of Settlement, year 2012 (Ex. D/1), it is gathered that in the disputed land Horalia was having 3/4th while Anratiya was having l/4th share. This Patta has been executed in Samvat, 2012 and was issued for the period 2012 to 2041. Unfortunately, this old document has been torn from several places and blank papers have been pasted at the torn places and, therefore, exact date of issuance of this Patta today cannot be gathered. But in this Patta it is very much mentioned that it was given in Samvat 2012 (corresponding year 1955). Unfortunately, this old document has been torn from several places and blank papers have been pasted at the torn places and, therefore, exact date of issuance of this Patta today cannot be gathered. But in this Patta it is very much mentioned that it was given in Samvat 2012 (corresponding year 1955). On going through section 105 of the Act of 2007 and the relevant revenue record, the Patta (Ex.D/1), this Court finds that this patta was given in settlement year of Samvat 2012 and in the patta it has been clearly mentioned that Anratiya is having l/4th share while Horalia is having 3/4th share in the suit property and, therefore, according to me, under section 107 of the said Act, if any person is aggrieved by an entry contained in record of rights prepared under section 105 of the Act other then an entry regarding rent or revenue may within twelve months from the date on which new settlement is announced under section 110 of the said Act may institute a declaratory suit in civil Court to get said entry modified or cancelled. No suit was filed by Anratiya challenging the document Ex.D/1 that his l/4th share has been incorrectly mentioned and indeed he is having half share in the suit property, therefore, according to me, since within one year no such declaratory suit was filed by Anratiya, the plaintiffs who are claiming through Anratiya are not entitled to claim half share in the suit property. ( 12. ) I do not find any merit in contention of learned counsel for the respondents that it is borne out from the record that Anraitiya has died somewhere in the year 1957 and, therefore, in absence of any specific date mentioning the issuance of Ex.D/1 in Samvat 2012 (corresponding year 1955), it cannot be argued that Anraitya could not file the suit since he died prior to the expiry of one year from the date of the issuance of Patta. I have considered this argument also. On going through Khasra (Ex.P/6), which is of Samvat 2013 to 2017, this Court finds that in the column of 2015 there is an endorsement that Anratiya had died and accordingly the names of Gendalal and Ramprashan who are plaintiffs and sons of Anratiya as well as the widow of Anratiya, were mutated upto the l/4th share of Anratiya. On going through Khasra (Ex.P/6), which is of Samvat 2013 to 2017, this Court finds that in the column of 2015 there is an endorsement that Anratiya had died and accordingly the names of Gendalal and Ramprashan who are plaintiffs and sons of Anratiya as well as the widow of Anratiya, were mutated upto the l/4th share of Anratiya. Hence, according to me, learned counsel for the respondents cannot take advantage that the relevant document Ex.D/1 which is of Samvat 2012 (corresponding year 1955) which is torn and certain slips are pasted by which the date has become hidden will not give any benefit to them because according to Ex.P/6, in Samvat 2015 the name of present plaintiffs and their mother have been mutated. Nowhere in Samvat 2015 it has been mentioned that plaintiff are minors, as argued by learned counsel for respondents. Even otherwise, the widow of Anratiya whose name was mutated along with the plaintiffs to the extent of 1/4 th share of Anratiya never challenged the Patta of settlement (Ex.D/1). The factum of the date of death of Anratiya has not been mentioned in the column of Samvat 2014 (corresponding year 1957) which would mean that the entry in Ex.D/1 was never challenged by Anratiya throughout one year. Even if the date of issuance of settlement of Patta (Ex.D/1) is presumed to be 31/12/1995, since in Samvat 2013 and 2014 (mentioned years 1956 and 1957) it has not been mentioned that Anratiya had died and the mutation of respondents/plaintiffs and their mother was made in the next year i.e. 2015, according to me, Anratiya was alive for more than one year from the date of the issuance of the settlement Patta (Ex. D/1), which was issued in the year 1955. Hence, according to me, since Anratia never challenged the settlement Patta (Ex.D/1) within one year nor his wife and the present plaintiffs challenged the said Patta within one year of its date of issuance even if it is held that Anratiya had died before the expiry of one year from the date of the issuance of the Patta, according to me, in view of Section 107 of the said Act, the present suit is barred by the prescribed period of limitation. ( 13. ) The approach of learned Courts below runs de hors to section 105 and 107 of the said Act. ( 13. ) The approach of learned Courts below runs de hors to section 105 and 107 of the said Act. Hence, it is hereby held that the suit is not maintainable since it was not filed within twelve months of the date of the issuance of the settlement Patta (Ex.D/1). Needless to say that in the said Patta (Ex.D/1) the shares are ascertained and specifically it has been mentioned that Anratiya was having l/4th while Horalia was having 3/4th share, hence, it is hereby held that plaintiffs are having only l/4th share in the suit property. The substantial question of law (b) is answered accordingly. Regarding Substantial Question of Law (a): ( 14. ) Since the facts of the suit is decided while answering the substantial question of law (b), according to me, it is not necessary to answer substantial question of law (a). ( 15. ) Ex. Consequenti this appeal succeeds and is hereby allowed. The judgment and decree passed by two Courts below is hereby modified and the plaintiffs are hereby declared to be the Bhumiswami of l/4th share in the suit property. Since the holding is still joint, the parties, if so advised, may file the proceeding under Sec. 178 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code to get their shares demarcated and to obtain separate possession. Since the holding is still joint the defendants/appellants are directed not to interfere in the joint possession of plaintiffs. ( 16. ) Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case it is directed that the parties shall bear their own costs throughout.