ORDER N.K. Mody, J. Appellant by Vidushri Sumanlata, Advocate. Respondent No. 1 by Shri R. K. Bhadang, Advocate. Respondent No. 2 by Miss Seema Sharma, Dy. Government Advocate. 1. Being aggrieved by the judgment dated 14-3-2005 passed by 1st Addl. District Judge, Jhabua in Civil Appeal No. 12-A/2005, whereby judgment dated 17-4-2000 passed by Civil Judge Class II, Petlawad in Civil Suit No. 3-A/98, whereby suit filed by Respondent No. 1 was decreed, was maintained, present appeal has been filed. 2. The appeal was admitted for hearing by this Court vide order dated 7-4-2006 on the following substantial question of law: i) Whether both the Courts have committed an error of law in decreeing the suit of the Plaintiff and in ignoring the effect of Ex. D-l, D-2 and D-3? ii) Whether the findings of fact recorded by both the Courts with regard to possession of the suit land are perverse or not? iii) Whether both the Courts have committed an error of law in holding that suit was filed within limitation? 3. Short facts of the case are that Respondent No. 1 filed a suit for declaration, possession and compensation on 14-11-1997, wherein it was alleged that Respondent No. 1 is owner of land bearing various survey numbers situated at village Dhaturia, Tehsil Petlawad, District Jhabua of which field number is 145 and changed number is 164. It was alleged that Respondent No. 1 remained in possession till April, 1997. It was alleged that Appellant has taken possession of the suit land from Respondent No. 1 forcibly. It was alleged that after obtaining record Respondent No. 1 came to know that Appellant has got her name mutated on the land bearing Survey No. 1442 without any basis and also without any intimation to the Respondent No. 1. Further case of Respondent No. 1 was that changed field number of 64 is 166, which was further changed from time-to-time as 170, 187 and lastly 1442. It was alleged that Respondent No. 1 is in occupation since last long as is evident from the year 1982-83 onwards. It was alleged that since Appellant has dispossessed the Respondent No. 1 forcibly, therefore, it be declared that Respondent No. 1 is owner of the suit land and Appellant be directed to put the Respondent in possession and compensation be awarded. It was alleged that since Appellant has dispossessed the Respondent No. 1 forcibly, therefore, it be declared that Respondent No. 1 is owner of the suit land and Appellant be directed to put the Respondent in possession and compensation be awarded. The suit was contested by the Appellant by filing the written statement, wherein it was denied that Respondent No. 1 is owner of the land in dispute and was in occupation. It was alleged that Appellant is in occupation of land since 16-17 years. It was denied that Appellant has taken possession of the suit land forcibly. It was prayed that suit be dismissed. After framing of issues and recording of evidence learned trial Court decreed the suit filed by Respondent No. 1, against which appeal was filed, which was dismissed, hence this appeal. 4. Miss Sumanlata, learned Counsel for the Appellant, argued at length and submits that impugned judgment passed by the learned Courts below is illegal, incorrect and deserves to be set aside. Learned Counsel submits that Appellant was in possession of the land vide document Ex.D/3, which is of the year 1986-87. It is submitted that the suit was filed in the year 1997 i.e. after ten years of the execution of document Ex.D/3. It is submitted that Respondent No. 1 has nowhere stated that Ex.D/3 was executed in his absence. It is submitted that Appellant never ousted Respondent No. 1 from the suit land forcibly. It is submitted that Appellant was in possession of the suit land since long as owner and never took the possession of land forcibly, therefore, suit filed by Respondent No. 1 was not in time and the learned Courts below committed error in decreeing the suit. It is submitted that appeal filed by the Appellant be allowed. 5. Shri R. K. Bhadang, learned Counsel for Respondent No. 1, submits that no illegality has been committed by the learned Courts below in decreeing the suit filed by Respondent No. 1. It is submitted that findings recorded by both the Courts below are finding of fact, which requires no interference. It is submitted that appeal filed by the Appellant be dismissed. 6. It is submitted that findings recorded by both the Courts below are finding of fact, which requires no interference. It is submitted that appeal filed by the Appellant be dismissed. 6. From perusal of the record it is evident that to prove the case Respondent No. 1 has filed the documents Ex.P/1 to P/5, which are the revenue record for the year 1981-82 to 1990-91, wherein the name of Respondent No. 1 has been recorded as Bhumiswami, while the suit was filed in the year 1997. Apart from this Respondent No. 1 has examined himself as PW-1, Devi Singh as PW-2 while Appellant has produced the documents Ex.D/1 to D/3. Ex.D/1 is the revenue record for the year 1987, wherein name of Appellant was recorded for field No. 1442 and Ex.D/2 is the Rin Pustika, while Ex.D/3 is the statement relating to changed field number in settlement. Apart from this Appellant has examined herself as DW-1 and Devla as DW-2. In the revenue record Ex.P/1 and P/2 name of Respondent No. 1 is shown as Bhumiswami for the land bearing field No. 145 and Survey Nos. 875, 876, 881, 895 and 896. Ex.P/2 is for the year 1987-88. In Ex.P/3, which is for the year 1988-89 name of the Appellant is shown as Bhumiswami for field No. 145 and 1442. In Ex.D/1 the name of Appellant has been recorded for the year 1987 for the land bearing Survey Nos. 845 and 846. Vide Ex.D/2 Bhoo Rin Pustika has been issued by the State to the Appellant. Ex.D/1 is the most important document, which is list of changed numbers of land in settlement, in column No. 4 it is written as under: -??? ??????? 143 ? ???'?- ??? ???? ???? ????? ?? ??? ?????????? ?????? ?? ????? ?? | ???? ???? ????? ?? ?? ?? ??????? ?? ?? ??????? ??? ??' ?? ?? -??? ??? ????? ?? ????? ?? ?????? ?? ?-???? ???? ?? ??? -??? ??? ????? ??? ???? ?? ??? ????? ???? ??? ??????? ??????? ??? ????? ?? ??' ?? ???? ?????? ?? ?-? ?? ??: -??? ??? ???? ?? ??? ?? ??? ???? ?? ????? ?? ????? ???? -?? ??? ????? ????? ??? ????? ???? | 7. At the bottom it is mentioned that ???? ?????? ??????? ?? ??? ?? ??????? ?? ??? ?????? ???? ?? ???? ?? ??? ????? ???? ??? ??????? ??????? ??? ????? ?? ??' ?? ???? ?????? ?? ?-? ?? ??: -??? ??? ???? ?? ??? ?? ??? ???? ?? ????? ?? ????? ???? -?? ??? ????? ????? ??? ????? ???? | 7. At the bottom it is mentioned that ???? ?????? ??????? ?? ??? ?? ??????? ?? ??? ?????? ???? ?? | there is a thumb impression of Respondent No. 1 and also thumb impression of Appellant. Case of the Appellant is that in presence of Respondent No. 1 the land was allotted to the Appellant. On the rear part of Ex.D/3 there is family tree of the Respondent No. 1 and Appellant, wherein it is mentioned that Nevji was father of Respondent No. 1. It is also mentioned that Respondent No. 1 and Appellant are the son and daughter of Nevji. The validity of the document Ex.D/3 has not been challenged by Respondent No. 1. In the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that both the Courts below committed error in decreeing the suit filed by Respondent No. 1 ignoring the effect of Ex.D/1, D/2 and D/3. This Court is also of the view that the findings recorded by the learned Courts below regarding possession of the Appellant as encroacher is perverse. In fact the Appellant is in possession of the suit land under her own rights. In view of this appeal filed by the Appellant is allowed and the impugned judgment passed by the learned Courts below stands set aside. No order as to costs.