JUDGMENT This appeal was admitted for final hearing on the following substantial question of law:- “Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case learned Courts below committed error of law in not granting decree of permanent injunction in favour of appellant relating to the suit property?” Being aggrieved by the judgment dated 13/09/10 passed by ADJ, Susner Distt. Shajapur in Civil Appeal No.40/10 whereby judgment dated 03/05/10 passed by Civil Judge, Class-II, Nalkheda in Civil Suit No.79-A/08 whereby suit filed by the predecessor in title of the appellants (Kalusingh) was dismissed, was maintained, present appeal has been filed. Short facts of the case are that Kalusingh predecessor in title of the appellants filed a suit 25/09/06 for declaration and permanent injunction alleging that Kalusingh is in occupation of the land bearing survey Nos.127 and 131 measuring 0.61 & 0.55 Are respectively situated at village Kabuli, Tehsil Nalkheda Distt. Shajapur and respondents be restrained not to interfere into the possession of the appellant and also delete the name of Devasthan recorded in the revenue record. It was alleged that in the relevant year Samvat 2007 name of Bhagwandas S/o Mehtabdas was recorded as Pukhta Morusi. After enforcement of Jamidari Abolition Act name of Bhagwandas was recorded as Pakka Tenant. Thereafter name of Chandabai W/o Bhagwandas was recorded and vide order dated 09/01/76 passed by Tahsildar name of deceased Kalusingh was recorded as Bhumiswami. It was alleged that deceased Kalusingh is in occupation of the land from Samvat 2010. It was alleged that vide order dated 26/07/06 passed by Tehsildar wherein name of Devsthan was recorded on the suit land and on that basis respondents are interfering into the possession of the appellant. The suit was contested by the respondents wherein plaint allegations were denied. It was denied that the deceased Kalusingh is owner of the suit lands. It was prayed that the suit be dismissed. After framing of issues and recording of evidence the suit was dismissed, against which an appeal was filed, which was also dismissed, hence this appeal. During pendency of appeal before this Court Kalusingh died and in his place name of appellants were recorded as Bhumiswami. Learned counsel for the appellants argued at length and submit that judgments passed by the learned Courts below are illegal, incorrect and deserves to be set aside. During pendency of appeal before this Court Kalusingh died and in his place name of appellants were recorded as Bhumiswami. Learned counsel for the appellants argued at length and submit that judgments passed by the learned Courts below are illegal, incorrect and deserves to be set aside. It is submitted that since the name of deceased Kalusingh was recorded as Bhumiswami in the revenue record, therefore, both the Courts below committed error in not granting decree of permanent injunction when admittedly Kalusingh was in possession from the time of his predecessor-in-title. It is submitted that learned Courts below overlooked the principles of law laid down by the Apex Court that a person is in settled peaceful, effective and undisturbed possession cannot be evicted without following due process of law. It is submitted that appeal be allowed and impugned judgment be set aside. Learned counsel for respondents submit that no illegality has been committed by the learned Courts below in dismissing the suit filed by the deceased Kalusingh. It is submitted that the findings recorded are concurrent finding of facts, which requires no interference. It is submitted that appeal be dismissed. From perusal of the record it is evident that to prove the case appellants have examined Kalusingh as PW/1 and Nathusingh as PW/2, while respondents have examined Santosh Malviya (Patwari) as DW/1. Apart from this appellants have filed the documents Ex.P/1 to Ex.P/21. Ex.P/1 is the order dated 26/07/06 passed by Tehsildar whereby name of deceased Kalusingh was ordered to be deleted from the revenue record, Ex.P/7 is the revenue record for Samvat 2007 i.e. 1950-51 wherein suit land was recorded as Muafi land, while name of Bhagwandas S/o Mehtabdas was recorded as Pakka Tenant. Ex.P/8 is the revenue record for Samvat 2008 I.e. 1951-51 wherein name of Bhagwandas was recorded as pakka tenant and the same position continued in Ex.P/9 to Ex.P/13 i.e. for the year 2008 i.e. 1952 to Samvat 2025. Ex.P/14 is the revenue record for Samvat 2026 wherein name of Chandabai was recorded as Bhumiswami, Ex.P/15 is the record of rights wherein name of Kalusingh was recorded in the year 1999, Ex.P/17 is the order dated 09/01/1976 passed by Tehsildar wherein right of Bhumiswami was given to the deceased Kalusingh, Ex.P/18 to 21 are the revenue records wherein name of Kalusingh was recorded as Bhumiswami from 1999-2000 to 2003-04. Respondents have filed the documents Ex.D/1 to Ex.D/4. Ex.D/1 is the revenue record for the year 1909-10 wherein name of Muafi Mandir Shri Ram is recorded as Bhumiswami, Ex.D/2 is the revenue record for Samvat 1966 wherein name of Mehtabdas was recorded as Pujari of Shri Ram Mandir, Ex.D/3 is the revenue record for Samvat 1981 wherein name of Milkiyat Sarkar was recorded as Bhumiswami and name of Muafi Shri Ram Mandir was recorded as tenant and Ex.D/4 is the list of renumbering of survey numbers. From perusal of the record it is evident that no document was filed by the respondents to demonstrate that in what circumstances name of predecessor-in-title was recorded as Bhumiswami. No responsible Officer of the respondents turned up to prove the case of respondents. In the facts and circumstances of the case this Court is of the view that learned Courts below were not justified in dismissing the suit filed by the deceased Kalusingh. Since the name of deceased Kalusingh was recorded in the revenue record, therefore, learned Courts below were not justified in refusing the decree of permanent injunction. In view of this appeal filed by the appellants is allowed. Judgment and decree passed by learned Courts below is set aside. Substantial question is answered in favour of appellants. The order passed by Tehsildar is set aside with a direction to the appellants to appear before respondent No.2 and explain his status and also explain how the name of Kalusingh (predecessor in title of appellants) was recorded in the year 1976. After submission of the reply and also after going through the entire record and also after recording of evidence, if any, respondent No.2 shall pass an appropriate order keeping in view the record for the relevant years and if the respondent No.2 is of the view that the name of the deceased Kalusingh was wrongly recorded as the property was belonging to the temple, then the respondent No.2 shall proceed with the case for taking possession of the suit land in accordance with law. Appellants are directed to remain present before respondent No.2 on 8.4.2012. With the aforesaid observations appeal stands disposed of. No order as to costs.