JUDGMENT : This regular second appeal is filed by the defendant No.1 in O S No.276/1995 on the file of Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) at Basavana Bagewadi being aggrieved of the judgment and decree dated 30.3.2005 in R A No.213/2003 on the file of the Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) at Basavana Bagewadi, reversing the judgment and decree dated 17.11.2000 in O S No.276/1995 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) Basavana Bagewadi. The trial court had dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiffs for the relief of declaration & permanent injunction. 2. The appellant herein and respondents 6 to 12 were defendants before the trial court. The respondents 1 to 5 herein were plaintiffs. The parties herein are referred to as per their ranking in trial court. 3. Brief facts of the case are as follows: The plaintiffs had filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction in respect of suit property. The case of the plaintiffs was that, the lands bearing Sy. No. 4/1, 4/2 and 4/3 and Sy.No. 5/1 and 5/2 of Halyal Village are the suit lands and father of the plaintiffs and father of the defendants partitioned the family properties in the year, 1939. The plaintiffs’ father was allotted Sy. No. 4 (old No.1/4(a)), present Sy.No.4/1, 4/2 & 4/3 measuring 5Acres 30 guntas and father of the defendants was allotted Sy.No.5/1 & 5/2 (old No.1/4(b)) measuring 5 acres 31 guntas and revenue records were changed accordingly. The defendants’ father behind the back of the plaintiffs’ father got entered an area measuring 4 acres 18 guntas in Sy.No.1/4 (a) of plaintiffs and got entered an area measuring 7 acres 7 guntas of Sy.No.1/4(b). The plaintiffs have been in possession and enjoyment of 5 acres 30 guntas since from 1939. The plaintiffs and defendants lands are not in same level and two years back the defendants got measured the land and got P.T.Sheet showing an encroachment of 25 guntas by the plaintiffs. The defendants sought for possession of 25 guntas. Hence, the plaintiffs filed suit. 4. The defendants appeared and filed written statement denying the plaint averments and contended that the land measuring 4 Acres 18 guntas was allotted to plaintiffs’ father in Sy.No.4/1(a) and 7 acres 7 guntas was allotted to defendants’ father in Sy.No.4/1(b). The defendants sought for possession of 25 guntas. Hence, the plaintiffs filed suit. 4. The defendants appeared and filed written statement denying the plaint averments and contended that the land measuring 4 Acres 18 guntas was allotted to plaintiffs’ father in Sy.No.4/1(a) and 7 acres 7 guntas was allotted to defendants’ father in Sy.No.4/1(b). That, in the year, 1956 the survey was conducted and pothissa measurement and prepared Form – 12 as per the actual possession of the owners over their respective lands. After preparation of consolidation Takta M.E. 526 came to be effected and R.T.C. have been effected and they have been in possession of their respective lands. The plaintiffs were never in possession of more than 4 acres and 18 guntas of land. The plaintiffs started encroaching the land of the defendants recently in the year, 1990 and P.T.Sheet was prepared and showing the encroachment of 25 guntas by the plaintiffs in the land of the defendants. The defendants filed application before the Tahsildar for seeking possession of encroached land. The plaintiffs filed an appeal against the order of Tahsildar before the Assistant Commissioner and the same came to be rejected. The plaintiffs filed an application for resurvey and when the survey officials came to the land for measurement, they were sent back by the plaintiffs. As on the date of filling of the suit, the plaintiffs were not in lawful possession of an area of 25 guntas. The land bearing Sy.No.4/1 , 4/2 , 4/3 totally measuring 4 acres 18 guntas not 5 acres 30 guntas. The suit is barred by law of limitation and the court has no jurisdiction to decide as to the legality or otherwise of the consolidation proceedings as well as the phothissa measurement. 5. The plaintiffs got amended their plaint praying an alternative relief of declaration to declare them as owners by adverse possession of an area of 1 acre 15 guntas. The defendants contended that, the said relief is barred by law of limitation and the plaintiffs were never in possession of the same since,1956. Hence, they sought for dismissal of the suit. 6. The trial court framed the following issues: (1) Whether the plaintiffs prove that they are the exclusive owners of C B Nos.4/1, 4/2 & 4/3 measuring in all 5A-30Gs. Shown by letters BCEF in the plaint sketch? Hence, they sought for dismissal of the suit. 6. The trial court framed the following issues: (1) Whether the plaintiffs prove that they are the exclusive owners of C B Nos.4/1, 4/2 & 4/3 measuring in all 5A-30Gs. Shown by letters BCEF in the plaint sketch? (2) Whether the defendants prove their lawful possession of the suit lands measuring in all measuring 5A 30 Gs. As on the date of the suit? (3) Whether defendants prove that they are the owners and in possession of CB No.5 measuring 7Acres 7 Guntas? (4) If so, whether the defendants 1 & 2 prove that the plaintiffs have encroached 25 guntas of land out of CB No.5? (5) Whether the plaintiffs prove that the defendants, illegally and high handedly by cutting the BC bund and tried to take possession of 25 guntas? (6) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for declaration as sought for? (7) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for a decree of permanent injunction? (8) What order or decree? Additional issue: “Whether the plaintiffs alternatively prove that they have become the owners of an area measuring 1 acre 15 guntas by way of adverse possession?” 7. The plaintiffs examined PW1 to PW4 and marked exhibits Ex P1 to P10 and the defendants examined DW1 and marked Exhibits D1 to D17. 8. The trial court dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs filed R.A.No. 213 of 2003 before the Civil Court (Sr.Dn ) and the lower appellate court had decreed the suit. Being aggrieved, the defendant No.1 has filed the present regular second appeal. 9. This court admitted the appeal and framed the following substantial questions of law on 19.6.2014: (1) Whether the lower appellate court was justified in reversing the judgment of the trial Court? (2) Whether the finding of the lower appellate court is perverse without adverting to the entries in the revenue records? (3) Whether the suit was not barred by law of limitation? 10. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondents. 11. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that lower appellate court arrived at a wrong conclusion that, M.E.213 at Ex.P6 is based on 1939 partition and parties are in possession of their respective land. 10. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondents. 11. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that lower appellate court arrived at a wrong conclusion that, M.E.213 at Ex.P6 is based on 1939 partition and parties are in possession of their respective land. Subsequent increase or decrease of land is based on no material and the RTC extracts are changed without notice to plaintiffs and the said finding is against materials on record. The lower appellate court failed to appreciate the contention of the defendants that, Sy.No. 4/1, measuring 4 acres 18 guntas allotted to plaintiffs’ father and Sy.No.4/1(b) measuring 7 acres 7 guntas was allotted to defendants’ father and they have been in possession of their respective lands and as per the possession the survey was conducted and PT sheet was prepared in the year 1956 itself. Since, 1956, the defendants and plaintiffs have been in possession of their lands and that there is a sufficient document of 1956 to clear the fact that the plaintiffs’ father was in possession of 4 acres 18 guntas. The plaintiffs have not disputed the said 1956 consolidation Takta only disputes RTC., entries. The lower appellate court has completely lost its sight on this aspect. 12. It is further submitted, the extent of land has been changed and rectified on the basis of the lands actually possessed by the owners as on that date and accordingly, M.E.526 came to be effected on 15.7.1956 and the parties have been in possession as per RTC. The plaintiffs contention that, they are in possession of the area as per the partition but, there is no evidence to prove the said contention and the plaintiffs have not challenged the said phothissa before proper forum and the said entry has attained finality and the plaintiffs have failed to prove their lawful possession. The plaintiffs have failed to prove the BC bund between the land of plaintiffs and defendants. The lower appellate court has wrongly held that defendants have admitted the BC bund. The said fact is not supported by any material. Hence, the appellate court has failed to apply its mind regarding issue Nos. 1 and 2 and wrongly reversed the finding of the trial court. 13. The plaintiffs have sought for alternative relief of adverse possession over an area of 1A 15 guntas. The said fact is not supported by any material. Hence, the appellate court has failed to apply its mind regarding issue Nos. 1 and 2 and wrongly reversed the finding of the trial court. 13. The plaintiffs have sought for alternative relief of adverse possession over an area of 1A 15 guntas. In order to prove the same the plaintiffs have to admit ownership of defendants. The plaintiffs have specifically stated in the plaint that, Sy.No. 4/1(a) belongs to them and Sy.No. 4/1(b) belongs to defendants. The partition is of the year, 1939. It is only an oral partition and the mutation on which the appellate court has relied is not a conclusive evidence. The defendants and plaintiffs have been in possession of their respective property measuring 4 Acres 18 guntas and 7 acres 7 guntas. The said fact is supported by survey records. Hence, the plaintiffs have completely failed to prove their burden regarding ownership of lawful possession of suit land. The lower appellate court has wrongly construed that the plaintiffs have proved their title and possession. 14. It is also contended, the defendants have proved the fact that plaintiffs have encroached an area of 25 guntas of defendants’ land and the appellate court held that the plaintiffs are admittedly in possession of disputed land and the defendants recently got prepared P.T.Sheet without notice to the plaintiffs and the said finding of the lower appellate court is erroneous and not supported by any material evidence. 15. It is further contended that the plaintiffs are not entitled for declaratory relief because the same is barred by law of limitation. Admittedly, the phothissa was conducted in the year, 1956 and revenue entries came to be changed. The plaintiffs cannot say now that, they were not aware of the said entry. The longstanding entries have always got presumptive value and as per the entry the suit is barred by law of limitation as the cause of action arose in the year, 1956. In the present case, the plaintiffs contend that the cause of action arose when the Tahsildar passed an order in respect of 25 guntas of encroached portion and not for 1 acre 15 guntas. The lower appellate court erred in holding that the suit is not barred by law of limitation. 16. In the present case, the plaintiffs contend that the cause of action arose when the Tahsildar passed an order in respect of 25 guntas of encroached portion and not for 1 acre 15 guntas. The lower appellate court erred in holding that the suit is not barred by law of limitation. 16. There is absolutely no evidence to show that the consolidation Takta and P.T.sheet were prepared behind the back of the plaintiffs and the plaintiffs are not aware about the RTC entries till 1995. The plaintiffs have failed to prove their title and lawful possession of 5 acres 30 guntas of land. Hence, the suit of the plaintiffs has been rightly dismissed by the trial court. The lower appellate court has decreed the suit only on the basis of M.E. 213 at Exhibit – P6, the same is not a title document and the same is not supported by any cogent evidence or material and hence, the judgment of the lower appellate court is liable to be set aside. 17. The learned counsel for the plaintiffs supported the judgment and decree passed by the lower appellate court. Thus he prays for dismissal of the appeal. 18. The defendants have absolutely not produced any single piece of document to prove that the land of defendants was increased either by plaintiffs surrendering their area to the defendants or based on any judicial order or revenue order to that effect and accordingly the extent of plaintiffs’ land is reduced. There is also no any document to show that such a change effected in the extent of lands after 1957, was with a due notice to the plaintiffs or father of plaintiffs. Therefore, the mere revenue entries with increased extent of land of defendants, does not mean that they have taken possession of their extended extent of land from the plaintiffs. Therefore the subsequent revenue entries relied on by the defendants to prove their possession in respect of 7 acres and 3 guntas of land as against 5 acres, 31 guntas allotted to them in 1939 partition, has no any consequence. The learned counsel for plaintiffs was justified in submitting that when clear area was demarcated and accepted by all concerned under the 1939 partition, as is evident from M.E. No 213 at Ex. The learned counsel for plaintiffs was justified in submitting that when clear area was demarcated and accepted by all concerned under the 1939 partition, as is evident from M.E. No 213 at Ex. P6, no reliance can be placed to the subsequent entries found in the revenue records in the absence of any admissible document between the parties either to reduce the extent of land or to increase the same. In the absence of authorizing order in respect of a revenue entry, benefit of that entry cannot be extended to a person in whose favour change was recorded as rightly held by the lower appellate court relying on a decision in AIR 2002 HP 154 (Kashi Ram v. Harebhajan Singh Bhaggi). 19. Therefore, only on the basis of a revenue entry, the defendants cannot complain that plaintiffs did not take any action right from 1957 to 1995. In the present case the plaintiffs are admittedly in possession of disputed 25 guntas of land of which the defendants are now seeking possession. The trial court has relied on the P.T. sheet as per Ex. D17 got prepared at the instance of defendants. The plaintiffs have pleaded and given evidence that the defendants got prepared P.T. sheet in view of the dispute with neighboring land owners and on the strength of such P.T. sheet the defendants started asserting that plaintiffs have encroached 25 guntas of land in the land belonging to the defendants. The P.T. sheet is admittedly got prepared by the defendants that too in a dispute between defendants and their neighboring land owners. There is absolutely no evidence to show that the same was prepared with due notice to the plaintiffs. Therefore no reliance can be placed on the P.T. sheet as per Ex D-17, to hold that plaintiffs were not in possession of suit property. The trial court has failed to appreciate these material aspects and the evidence and the legal aspects involved in the case and merely on the strength of revenue entries and on the basis of P.T. sheet as per Ex.D. 17 prepared at the instance of the defendants, it has recorded negative findings on issue Nos. 1 and 2. The trial court has failed to appreciate these material aspects and the evidence and the legal aspects involved in the case and merely on the strength of revenue entries and on the basis of P.T. sheet as per Ex.D. 17 prepared at the instance of the defendants, it has recorded negative findings on issue Nos. 1 and 2. This court for the reasons stated above has found that the negative findings recorded by the lower court on issue Nos.1 and 2 based on revenue entries and the P.T. sheet, without notice to the plaintiffs, cannot be relied to disprove the case of plaintiffs. The defendants have not placed any evidence to show that on the strength of revenue entries effected in 1957, they came in possession of the extended land which was duly taken from the possession of plaintiffs, at any point of time. In the absence of any such material evidence, the admitted partition of 1939 and the extent of lands shown thereunder will have to be accepted. Therefore for these reasons, it has to be held that plaintiffs have proved their right and possession in terms of 1939 partition. 20. There is no any renunciation of any extent of land by the plaintiffs in favour of the defendants nor at any point of time possession was taken by the defendants to the extended extent of land as against the extent of land found in 1939 partition. The lower court based on the P.T. sheet as per Ex. D – 17 relied by the defendants and the revenue entries has recorded findings that defendants are in possession of 7 acres, 7 guntas of land and that 25 guntas of land has been encroached by the plaintiffs. It is all the while the case of plaintiffs that the BC bund is the demarcated boundary between the lands of plaintiffs and defendants. The defendants have not claimed anything in the written statement that their land extends beyond the BC bund to the Western side. Therefore the evidence of DW -1 to that effect cannot be looked into. The disputed area even according to the case of defendants is in the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs, for which the defendants have taken recourse before the Revenue Forums to take possession. Therefore the evidence of DW -1 to that effect cannot be looked into. The disputed area even according to the case of defendants is in the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs, for which the defendants have taken recourse before the Revenue Forums to take possession. The defendants have to first establish their ownership right and title to the disputed 25 guntas of land and then have to take possession of the land through process of Law. It is pertinent to note that the defendants have not made any counter claim in the written statement nor claimed the relief of possession of 25 guntas of land. The defendants also not claimed that they are the owners of disputed 25 guntas of land. Therefore in the absence of such pleadings by the defendants, the affirmative findings recorded by the trial court with regard to the ownership of disputed 25 guntas of land does not survive. The defendants have to first establish their right in respect of extended area and then seek for possession of disputed 25 guntas of land from the plaintiffs. The trial court without there being any counter claim or relief claimed by the defendants in the written statement has given affirmative findings on issues No.3 and 4 in the suit filed by the plaintiffs to establish their ownership right over 5 acres and 30 guntas of land admittedly through the partition of 1939. Therefore the affirmative findings recorded by the trial court on issue Nos. 3 and 4 are also not sustainable. 21. In the circumstances, I am of the view that the lower appellate court was justified in reversing the judgment of the trial court, findings of the lower appellate court are not perverse and the suit of the plaintiffs was not barred by law of limitation. In fact, the lower appellate court did refer to the revenue entries and rightly did not extend the presumption on the ground that the said entries are not supported by any documents. Substantial questions of law are accordingly answered. In the result, the regular second appeal is liable to be dismissed and it is accordingly dismissed. Judgment and decree passed by the lower appellate court decreeing the suit of the plaintiffs is upheld. No order as to costs.