JUDGMENT : Amitav K. Gupta, J The instant Second Appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 30.05.2002 passed by the court of the learned 7th Addl. Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi in T.A.NO.64 of 1999 whereby the lower appellate court set aside the judgment and decree of dismissal of Title Suit no.213/1995 by the learned Subordinate Judge-VII, Ranchi. The first appellate court, while allowing the appeal, however remitted the matter to the trial court for measurement, demarcation and delineation of the suit land of the plaintiff. 2. For the sake of convenience the original plaintiff i.e., respondent-Ist party, herein shall be referred to as the plaintiff and the appellant herein, shall be referred to as the defendant. 3. Brief facts of the case is that the plaintiff instituted the suit for declaration of his right, title and interest over the suit property and also for confirmation of possession. The suit property is a piece of land within Khata no.43, C.S.Plot No.254, area 40 decimals corresponding to M.S.Plot no.1602, area 24 decimals of the said total 40 decimals. It is alleged that in the cadestral survey the land was recorded in the name of the grand father of the plaintiff. That sometimes in the year 1929, some land within the said plot was acquired for construction of road and as a result of the acquisition, compensation was paid to the predecessor of the plaintiff but some portion of the land, which was not acquired, was possessed by the plaintiff. It is alleged that in course of mutation, some dispute arose due to which the suit was instituted by the plaintiff. 4. The original defendant no.1, namely, Lal Ambika Nath Shahdeo, appeared and admitted the case of the plaintiff and conceded that previous litigation with the plaintiff was a result of mistake and that the land owned by the plaintiff was not the land claimed by him. This fact was discovered by him after getting the land measured and demarcated. 5. The original defendant no.2, who is the appellant herein, has opposed the case of the plaintiff alleging that the entire land of plot no.254 was acquired for Ranchi Municipal Corporation and compensation was paid for the same. That since no land remained hence there was no question of any title of the remaining land with the plaintiff or his predecessor-in-interest. 6. That since no land remained hence there was no question of any title of the remaining land with the plaintiff or his predecessor-in-interest. 6. The learned trial court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff, holding that the plaintiff was not in possession over the acquired land nor had title over the suit property. The learned first appellate court, however, allowed the appeal on the point of possession and remanded the matter to the trial court to get the portion of the land measure, delineated and demarcated, which had not been taken for Municipal Road, drain and lake. 7. Being aggrieved with the judgment and decree, Ranchi Municipal Corporation i.e. defendant/appellant preferred this second appeal which has been admitted on the following substantial question of law;- “Whether the appellate court, while reversing the finding recorded by the trial court, has considered the document, the material exhibits in its right perspective? Whether the entries in the revenue record and the issuance of rent receipts will be conclusive evidence of title in respect of the property and the same can be rebutted by adducing positive evidence of title and possession?” Liberty was given to formulate other questions s in course of hearing. 8. Having heard the arguments advanced by the counsels and from the brief facts of the case as enumerated above, it is abundantly clear that the following facts are admitted:- (i) C.S.Plot no.254, Khata no.43 was owned by the grandfather of the plaintiff. (ii) There was acquisition of land in the year 1929 in favour of Ranchi Municipality. Now the dominant question falling for determination before this Court is whether there was any residuary land left in the said C.S. Plot no.254 of Khata no.43. 9. In order to determine the said questions the oral evidence is not required to be looked into because the document of acquisition would establish the said fact. The acquisition proceeding is an admitted document. Exhibit 'C' shows that 1.30 acres of land in plot nos. 254, 253, 251; part of plot nos.249, 299, 223, plot no.242 and part of plot no.241 was acquired. Exhibit 'D' also shows the same. Exhibit 'C' is the copy of the Gazette Notification. Exhibit 'D' is also the copy of the Gazette. The acquisition proceeding is an admitted document. Exhibit 'C' shows that 1.30 acres of land in plot nos. 254, 253, 251; part of plot nos.249, 299, 223, plot no.242 and part of plot no.241 was acquired. Exhibit 'D' also shows the same. Exhibit 'C' is the copy of the Gazette Notification. Exhibit 'D' is also the copy of the Gazette. Exhibit 'E' is the copy of the order of Administrator, Ranchi Nagar Nigam with respect to the Final Publication No.13528-II/L-274-R dated 17.12.1929 certifying that the entire plot no.254 was acquired. 10. The above documentary evidence, which is unrebutted, rather admitted in the pleading as well as evidence, conclusively establishes that the entire plot no.254, part of which is the subject matter of the suit, was acquired in the year 1929. This documentary evidence alone demolishes the claim of the plaintiff hence there is no question of any land remaining in the said plot accordingly the question of title of the plaintiff does not arise. The first appellate court has apparently misread the documentary evidence and has failed to appreciate the admitted documentary evidence, which ex-facie, demolishes the case of the plaintiff. The first appellate court therefore committe derr or of law in allowing the appeal. 11. Incidentally the argument of adverse possession is also required to be answered. In this context it is well settled that the plea of title and that of adverse possession are mutually conflicting and self-destructive. The claim of title destroys the claim of adverse possession and vice-versa claim also does not hold good. 12. The second question of law as framed is now a settled proposition of law that entries in the revenue records are not and cannot be considered to be documents of title. 13. In view of the discussions made above, it is apparent that the judgment impugned suffers from illegality on account of non-appreciation of the documentary evidence and therefore, the same is set aside. In fact there is no substantial question of law evolved in the present appeal. The suit of the plaintiffs/respondents was rightly dismissed by the trial court. 14. In the result the appeal is hereby allowed.