JUDGMENT : Servesh Kumar Gupta, J. 1. By means of this appeal, the impugned judgment and decree dated 23.3.2007, rendered by the District Judge, Bageshwar in Original Suit No. 15/2004, has been challenged. 2. Shorn of unnecessary details, it is warranted to lay down certain background of the litigation in order to understand the controversy. Land, in question, is a part of the whole land bearing Khata No. 427 situated in Village Mandalsera, Patti Dug, Revenue Circle Dug, Tehsil and District Bageshwar. It admeasures 1 Nali 4 Mutthi in area, Khata number whereof is 10097. This land along with certain other was originally owned by the plaintiffs/respondents Ramesh Chandra Sah and Gopal Chandra Sah. Both brothers executed a sale deed on 30.10.1971 in favour of Ratan Singh and his brother Lal Singh. A reconveyance deed was also written on the same day with the stipulation that if Sah brothers make the payment of the whole consideration of such sale deed, then the land, in question, will be reconveyed by Ratan Singh and Lal Singh to them. When the terms of the receonveyance deed were not honoured, Sah brothers instituted the civil litigation seeking the decree as per terms of such reconveyance deed. That suit was decreed and the first appeal instituted by Ratan Singh against such decree was dismissed on 20.7.1983, where against no second appeal was preferred. Thus, the decree passed by the trial court attained the finality. 3. Eventually, the first appeal filed by Lal Singh against the judgment of the trial court was allowed, but the fact remains that Ratan Singh lost the civil litigation vis-à-vis his half share in such property. Further, the decree passed in favour of Lal Singh by the trial court in the same judgment rendered on 20.7.1983 was again challenged by Sah brothers which could ultimately be adjudicated by a coordinate Bench of this Court on 5.7.2007 and the same was allowed. So, the net result was that the brothers duo, namely, Ratan Singh and Lal Singh, lost the title over the property, in question. To make it more clear, Ratan Singh lost such title way back on 20.7.1983 itself when the judgment was passed by the Civil Judge, Almora in Civil Appeal No. 11/1981, while Lal Singh lost his title over the remaining half portion of the land when a coordinate Bench of this Court passed the judgment on 5.7.2007. To make it more clear, Ratan Singh lost such title way back on 20.7.1983 itself when the judgment was passed by the Civil Judge, Almora in Civil Appeal No. 11/1981, while Lal Singh lost his title over the remaining half portion of the land when a coordinate Bench of this Court passed the judgment on 5.7.2007. Yet, Ratan Singh executed a sale deed on 19.11.2003, regarding the land, in question, which was a part of his share in the whole property, in favour of Anand Singh Farswan, the appellant herein. Mr. Farswan after purchasing such land, constructed his house thereon and also got favourable mutation orders passed by the competent revenue authority on 22.12.2003. 4. When Ratan Singh lost the civil litigation, as indicated above, way back in 1983, Sah brothers moved the execution application against him and pursuant to such execution, the sale deed was executed by the Court itself on 16.5.2000. 5. When Sah brothers came to know regarding the sale deed executed by Ratan Singh on 19.11.2003 and the mutation orders, as passed by the revenue authority on 22.12.2003, then they filed an Original Suit No. 15/2004 seeking cancellation of such sale deed. Mr. Ratan Singh and Mr. Farswan, both resisted the suit by filing their separate written statements, but such suit was decreed vide the judgment dated 23.3.2007, which is impugned in this first appeal. 6. Learned Counsel of the appellant has strenuously argued that when the sale deed was got executed through the Court on 16.5.2000, then it was the bounden duty of Sah brothers nay the Court itself to inform about such execution to the competent revenue officers, but they did not extend any such information with the result, the revenue papers continued to bear the name of Mr. Ratan Singh. So, Mr. Farswan after verifying the name of the seller Ratan Singh, entered into the transaction of sale and purchase of the land, in question. Therefore, he should be accepted as a bona fide purchaser. 7. The above contention of the learned Counsel may be accepted as against Mr. Ratan Singh, but not against the true owners. If the name appears in the Khata or Khatauni of the revenue record, that by itself does not and cannot confer the title against the true owners. 8. Therefore, he should be accepted as a bona fide purchaser. 7. The above contention of the learned Counsel may be accepted as against Mr. Ratan Singh, but not against the true owners. If the name appears in the Khata or Khatauni of the revenue record, that by itself does not and cannot confer the title against the true owners. 8. Further, all the parties are either the adjacent neighbours or hailing from the same small place of the rural hilly area. So, it is unacceptable that Mr. Farswan was quite unaware as to what was going on and happening between the parties since the last 40 years regarding the land, in question. If Ratan Singh has played any fraud representing himself as the ostensible as well as the real owner, then such representation cannot cost the real owners, who are the plaintiffs/respondents 1 & 2 herein. 9. Learned Counsel on behalf of the appellant has drawn the attention of this Court towards certain written endorsement of concerned Patwari dated 18.11.2003, wherein it has been stated that the seller Ratan Singh is the Bhumidhar in possession of the land, in question, situated in Khata No. 427. In the opinion of this Court, it cannot be a valid defence. Otherwise, any endorsement by any Patwari will be the gospel truth, which cannot be accepted by any stretch of imagination. 10. I feel that there is no force in this appeal. It is liable to be dismissed. 11. Consequently, this first appeal is hereby dismissed with all costs throughout. 12. Interim order stands vacated. 13. Let the lower court record be sent back.