JUDGMENT 1. This appeal by defendants under section 100 CPC is directed against the confirming judgment and decree dated 19.4.2012 passed by VI Addl. District Judge, Rewa in Regular Appeal No. 100-A/2010. 2. The trial Court has decreed the suit for declaration and possession vide judgment and decree dated 14.5.2008 passed in Civil Suit No.139-A/2003. 3. The plaintiff has filed the suit inter alia contending that the suit land; an agricultural land described in Para 2 of the judgment of appellate Court was of the ownership and in possession of late Chandu who died in the year 1965. The plaintiff is a daughter and sole survived heir of late Chandu. Since she was married, one labourer Pardesi was deputed to look after the suit land. He was ploughing the field and harvesting the crops, on her behalf. After death of Pardesi, his daughter Kalavati and son-in-law Shivsagar continued to plough the field and harvesting crops. Initially Kalavai got her name mutated in place of Pardesi in revenue record, and thereafter, her husband Shivsagar got his name substituted. Plaintiff came to know about the same on 10.12.1999, and thereafter, obtained certified copies of revenue entries / documents on 14.10.1999. As defendants defied the title of the plaintiff, therefore, she has filed the instant suit for declaration that the revenue entries are null and void and for possession of suit land with mesne profits. 4. Defendants had filed written statement and denied the plaint allegations with the contention that the suit land was of the ownership and in possession of Pardesi. He used to pay the land revenue. Late Chandu had died in the year 1954 instead not in the year 1965. He was issueless. No objection whatsoever was raised during the proceedings of change of entries before the revenue Court. After death of Chandu, late Pardesi came in lawful possession and after his death the suit land was mutated in the name of his daughter Kalavati by virtue of natural succession. Thereafter with the consent of Kalavati, the suit property was mutated in the name of her husband Shivsagar. With the aforesaid pleadings, the suit was sought to be dismissed. 5. On such pleadings of parties, the trial Court framed the issues and allowed the parties to lead evidence. 6. Thereafter with the consent of Kalavati, the suit property was mutated in the name of her husband Shivsagar. With the aforesaid pleadings, the suit was sought to be dismissed. 5. On such pleadings of parties, the trial Court framed the issues and allowed the parties to lead evidence. 6. Upon critical evaluation of the evidence, the trial Court found that the mutation in the name of defendants was without any authority of law as against the entitlement of the plaintiff by virtue of natural succession after demise of late Chandu. Besides, the alleged possession of defendants is found to be unlawful, and consequently, the trial Court decreed the suit. 7. The first appellate Court has reconsidered entire facts and evidence placed on record and confirmed the findings of the fact recorded by the trial Court. 8. Learned counsel for the appellants/defendants though tried to criticize the impugned judgments and decrees passed by Court below but, has not been able to substantiate the same with evidence placed on record. 9. Heard. 10. Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties and careful perusal of the impugned judgments and decrees, the moot question arises for consideration is as to: "Whether the appellants/defendants can claim right over the suit property in absence of any conveyance deed in their favour or acquisition of title by any other mode whatsoever?" 11. Moreover, the Courts below have also found that the defendants neither in hostile possession nor any claim whatsoever was made over the suit land in the written statement asserting title by adverse possession. 12. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court is of the view that the appellants/defendants cannot claim any right over the suit property to the exclusion of the plaintiff only for the reason that their name was recorded in the revenue record. 13. Law is well settled that the revenue entries cannot confer title upon the party and are always subject to civil adjudication of rival claim on the question of title. That apart, both the Courts below upon proper appreciation of evidence have recorded impeccable findings of fact. The entire gamut of the matter is in the realm of fact. No question of law, much less; substantial question of law arises warranting interference under section 100 CPC. The appeal sans merit and is hereby dismissed. No order as to cost.