JUDGMENT : Heard on the question of admission. 2. The appellant has filed this appeal being aggrieved by judgment and decree dated 31.01.2013 passed by 4th Additional District Judge, Rewa in C.A. No. 45-A/09 whereby the judgment and decree dated 15.05.2009 passed by the Additional Civil Judge, Class-I, Sirmour District Rewa in C.S. No. 941-A/06 has been set aside and the suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff has been decreed. 3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the suit had been filed by the respondent/plaintiff claiming possession and mesne profit in respect of khasra nos. 561 and 562/1 area 13 acres of village Amvi District, Rewa. It is submitted that the suit was dismissed by trial court by holding that the respondent/plaintiff had failed to establish his title but the judgment and decree of the trial court has been set aside by the first appellate court by reversing the finding recorded by the trial court in this regard. 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that the judgment and decree of the first appellate court suffers from perversity and non-application of mind as the appellate court has failed to take into consideration the documents filed by the appellant, specifically Documents Ex. D/42 and D/43 which indicate that the appellant/defendant had purchased the land in question through a public auction and that the Tahsildar had conducted the proceedings in which the land was purchased by him and in such circumstances, he became the owner thereof. 5. It is submitted that in view of the aforesaid, the impugned judgment and decree of the appellate court suffers from perversity and deserves to be set aside. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant, it is observed that the first appellate court in paragraph 13 to paragraph 19 has extensively dealt with the aforesaid issue and has also considered Ex. D/42 and D/43 which have been relied upon by the defendant/appellant. The appellate court after considering the aforesaid documents has observed that there is no mention of khasra nos. 561, 562/1 in the aforesaid documents and therefore, it is not clear whether they relate to the disputed land. The court below has considered this aspect along with Documents Ex. D/31, D/27, D/28, D/33, D/34, D/35, D/36, D/37 as well as Ex. The appellate court after considering the aforesaid documents has observed that there is no mention of khasra nos. 561, 562/1 in the aforesaid documents and therefore, it is not clear whether they relate to the disputed land. The court below has considered this aspect along with Documents Ex. D/31, D/27, D/28, D/33, D/34, D/35, D/36, D/37 as well as Ex. P/1, P/2, P/3, P/4 and P/5 which are the khasra entries relating to land in question from the year 1950 to 1975 and in the aforesaid khasra entries the name of the respondent/plaintiff has been recorded as Bhumiswami along with other and there is no mention of the name of the appellant/defendant. 7. The appellate court has also taken into consideration the admission made by the appellant/defendant to the effect that prior to 1950 and 1951 the land belonged to the respondent/plaintiff and the admission of the appellant/defendant to the effect that he did not take any steps to get his name recorded in the revenue record as Bhumiswami from 1951 till the date of filing of the suit. 8. The first appellate court has reversed the finding of the trial court and decreed the suit filed by the respondent/defendant on the basis of aforesaid analysis and has arrived at a conclusion that as the name of the respondent/plaintiff in khasra nos. 561, 562/1 was duly recorded as Bhumiswami along with certain other persons during the entire period and as the appellant/defendant has not filed any documents to indicate that he was ever recognized as Bhumiswami of the land in question as he did not take any steps to get his name recorded in the revenue record, therefore the suit deserves to be decreed. 9. Apparently, the finding recorded by the appellate court is based on proper appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on the record and does not suffer from any perversity or material irregularity. Accordingly, I find no substantial question of law arising for adjudication in the present appeal. The same being meritless is accordingly, dismissed.