Judgment: Rohit Arya, J. 1. This second appeal by defendants under Section 100 of CPC is directed against the judgment and decree dated 27th October, 2009 passed by Second Additional District Judge, Morena in Civil Appeal No. 03-A/2009; confirming the judgment and decree dated 26/2/2009 passed by 2nd Civil Judge, Class-I, Morena in Civil Suit No. 15-A/2008. Plaintiffs' suit for declaration and permanent injunction has been dismissed. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that following substantial question of law arises in this appeal for consideration:- Whether, trial Court was justified dismissing the suit by entertaining a suspicion on the basis of words 'Villa Patta' or 'Pakka Krashak' written in revenue records by red ink in Samwat 2007-2008 ignoring the fact that as regard other agricultural land same endorsements were made? 3. Suit land is an agricultural land falling in survey No. 990 (old Survey No. 645) area 1 bigha 6 biswa (0.27 hectare) situated at village Morena, Tahsil and District Morena. Plaintiffs' filed a suit inter alia contending that originally one Natthi S/o Hariya was Bhoomiswami of the suit land. Vide sale deed dated 16/5/1984, he had transferred the title of the suit land in favour of one Shanti Devi. Sale deed was registered on 18/5/1984. Thereafter, said Shanti Devi had transferred the suit land in favour of plaintiff No. 1 by execution of a registered sale deed dated 8/3/1999, pursuant thereof, the revenue records have been corrected and plaintiff's name have been recorded as Bhoomiswami. No one else much less defendant No. 1 to 16 have any right, title or possession over the suit land, and therefore, they have no right to dispossess or threaten for forcible dispossession to the plaintiff from the suit land. Defendants though tried, however, failed to seek protection by the local police and the local administration. Against the illegal apprehended act of dispossession by the defendants, plaintiffs filed the suit for declaration and possession. 4. Defendants No. 1 to 16 have filed written statement denying the plaint allegations as well as execution of alleged sale deeds dated 18/5/1984 and 8/3/1999. It is contended that in fact the suit land is a open pond being used for Nistar purposes by the villagers where cattle of the village also used to drink water. The land use has not been changed by Natthi S/o Hariya or Shanti Devi. It is contended that in fact the suit land is a open pond being used for Nistar purposes by the villagers where cattle of the village also used to drink water. The land use has not been changed by Natthi S/o Hariya or Shanti Devi. At no point of time, they had any title or possession over the suit land. Hence, these two have no right to transfer the same in favour of plaintiffs by execution of the alleged sale deeds. The Mutation as has been done in the revenue records is out of collusion and connivance of plaintiffs with the local revenue employees. It is submitted that in fact the suit land since the time of Zamindari era is a pond being used for cattle's drinking water and Nistar purposes. Manipulation in the revenue record is with the influence of brother of the plaintiffs who was serving as a Patwari in Morena Tahsil. In Samwat 2007 at the time of abolition of Zamindari Act such lands were used for agricultural purposes and thereafter the suit land has all along been continued to be as a pond and no title over the suit land was continued with Zamindar as it was not being used for agricultural purposes, hence, no one had any right to claim Bhoomiswami rights over the suit land as successor or transferee of the Zamindar much less Natthi S/o Hariya or Shanti Devi. 5. Trial Court based upon the aforesaid pleadings, framed issues and allowed the parties to lead evidence. Trial Court has found that certain entries are entered by red ink in the revenue records in respect of the suit land by writing Pakka Krashak. That apart, upon critical evaluation of the evidence on record, trial Court has found that plaintiffs had no title over the suit land and likewise dismissed the suit. 6. On appeal, before the first appellate Court, the plaintiffs had moved an application under Order XLI Rule27 of CPC to bring on record certain additional facts that in certain copies of khasra panchshala of Samwat 2007-2008 to demonstrate the fact that the endorsement of the word "Vila Patta" and "Pakka Krashak" in the revenue record with red ink was in fact in respect of number of lands as recorded in the Khasra Panchshala and therefore, exception could not have been taken as regards endorsement in the name of plaintiffs. The first appellate Court having considered the submission, had taken on record the aforesaid documents. The first appellate Court has reconsidered the entire evidence on record in para 15, 16, 17 and found that by registered sale deed, the suit land has been transferred earlier by the erstwhile owner/Bhoomiswami Natthi S/o Hariya in favour of Shanti Devi and thereafter by Shanti Devi in favour of plaintiff-Suresh vide registered sale deed dated 8/3/1999. Possession thereof was accordingly delivered and revenue records were corrected upon transfer of rights by registered sale deeds. Further upon perusal of Ex. P/5 to P/10, revenue Khasra Panchshala and other documents, since beginning suit land has been shown to be of the ownership of Natthi S/o Hariya and the suit land is all along been shown as Pokhar (Pond). On perusal of Khasra Panchshala of Samwat 2007-2008 (At the time of abolition of Zamindari), it has been found that during the Zamindari Era, Uttam Bagera was Zamindar of the suit land and thereafter, name Nathi S/o Hariya has been shown as Gair Dakhilkar Krashak in revenue record and thereafter, after coming into force the Zamindari Abolition Act, 1951 by force of Section 5 and 38 of M.P. Zamindari Abolition Act, plaintiffs had acquired status of Pakka Krashak and land did not vest in the State. Thereafter, in revenue records, name of Nathi has all along been shown as Pakka Krashak. The suspicion or doubt endorsed by the trial Court for the reasons that word 'Villa Patta' and 'Pakka Krashak' were added in the revenue record was found to be misplaced. Apart from the suit land other lands in the same village in the khasra panchshala of the Samwat 2007-2008, on perusal, it is found that similar entries were made and plaintiffs' case was not exceptional and this appears to have been done for the reasons that the name of erstwhile Zamindar during the Zamindari era has all along been shown as Bhoomiswami prior to abolition of Zamindari or subsequent thereto. As such the first appellate Court has found that plaintiffs are registered Bhoomiswami and have lawful possession over the suit land. That apart the first appellate Court in para 17 of the impugned judgment has found that as per the khasra panchshala entries, suit land is an open pond and therefore, it cannot be said that the suit land is being used for agricultural activities. That apart the first appellate Court in para 17 of the impugned judgment has found that as per the khasra panchshala entries, suit land is an open pond and therefore, it cannot be said that the suit land is being used for agricultural activities. That apart suit land is not being used for public purposes and is not a public land. With the aforesaid findings, the first appellant Court has concluded that the judgment and decree passed by trial Court dismissing the suit is not sustainable. Accordingly, by setting aside the impugned judgment and decree, the first appellate Court has decreed the suit to the effect that the plaintiffs are Bhoomiswami and possession holder of the suit land falling in survey No. 990 area 0.27 hectare and defendants having no right, title or interest over the suit land have been restrained from interfering with the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs over the suit land and issued permanent injunction against any illegal action of the defendants. 7. Having gone through the judgment and decree passed by first appellate Court, this Court is of the opinion that first appellate Court was fully justified having decreed the suit as the plaintiffs have acquired right of Bhoomiswami by virtue of the sale deed as the original owner had the status of Pakka Krashak at the time of abolition of Zamindari after coming into force the Zamindary Abolition Act, 1951 by force of Sections 5 and 38 and therefore, Natthi S/o Haria had valid right and title to execute the sale deed in favour of Shanti Devi and in turn Shanti Devi had full rights and title to execute the sale in favour of plaintiffs and thus, revenue records have been properly maintained. In the opinion of this Court, the first appellate Court has not committed any error of law in decreeing the suit. Accordingly, the substantial question of law is answered in favour of plaintiffs and against the defendants. Appeal sans merits, is hereby dismissed.