JUDGMENT : 1. The defendant No.1/appellant herein has filed this appeal being aggrieved by judgment and decree dated 27.07.2017 passed by Additional District Judge, Pendra Road, District Bilaspur (C.G.), in Civil Appeal No.60A/2016, whereby the appeal filed by the plaintiff/respondent No.1 herein for declaration of title and permanent injunction has been allowed and judgment and decree dated 16.06.2016 passed in Civil Suit No.58-A/2013 by the learned Civil Judge Class-II, Marwahi, District Bilaspur has been reversed. 2. Brief facts of the case, as projected by the defendant No.1/appellant herein, is that the original plaintiff/respondent Chiraunji Lal had filed a civil suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction over 0.10 acre of land situated at village Sakola, P.C. No. 30, Revenue Circle Pendra, District Bilaspur, inter-alia on the ground that total 0.15 acre of land was purchased from Mangal Singh through registered sale deed dated 04.06.2007 and thereafter, the land was got mutated by the Gram Panchayat, Sakola vide Resolution No.4, Mutation No.14 dated 06.06.2008, according to which, the name of plaintiff was recorded over 0.10 acre of land and name of defendant No.1 was recorded over 0.05 acre of land. Thereafter, the defendant No.1/appellant herein filed Revenue Case No.80- A-6-A/2012-13 before the Tahsildar, Pendra for recording his name over 0.025 acre of land as 0.075 acre of land was purchased by plaintiff and defendant through sale deed, but the plaintiff in clandestine manner got mutated his name over 0.10 acre of land. The plaintiff was raising construction, therefore, stay was granted by Tahsildar and the building material were also seized by him. On 08.04.2023, the Tahsildar passed the mutation order in favour of the appellant/defendant. Thereafter, an appeal bearing Revenue Appeal No. 63-A-6-A/12-13 was preferred by the plaintiff before the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Pendra Road, which was also dismissed vide order dated 30.07.2013. The plaintiff sought relief to declare the orders passed by the Tahsildar and S.D.O. (Revenue) null and void & return of building materials. 3. In written statement, the defendant No.1 denied all allegations and contended that an order of mutation was got passed by Gram Panchayat in a clandestine manner, and the same has been set aside by the Tahsildar and S.D.O. 4. 3. In written statement, the defendant No.1 denied all allegations and contended that an order of mutation was got passed by Gram Panchayat in a clandestine manner, and the same has been set aside by the Tahsildar and S.D.O. 4. The learned trial Court, after appreciating oral and documentary evidence, vide judgment and decree dated 16.06.2016, dismissed the suit of the plaintiff on the ground that the partition deed, which has been relied upon by the plaintiff, is not registered according to Section 17 of the Indian Succession Act, therefore, it is not admissible according to Section 35 of Stamps Act. 5. The plaintiff/respondents herein filed an appeal against the said order and the learned lower Appellate Court reversed the finding of learned trail Court by the impugned judgment and decree dated 27.07.2017 & decreed the suit in favour of plaintiff/respondents. Hence, this appeal filed by the defendant No.1/appellant herein. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the judgment passed by the learned Appellate Court below is illegal, contrary to law and facts and is liable to be set-aside. The learned Appellate Court has failed to appreciate that the burden to prove partition between the parties was upon the plaintiff and the plaintiff has failed to prove the partition. Learned counsel further submits that the mutation order was not passed by the Gram Panchayat in accordance with law as no notice was given to the appellant before passing the order of mutation. Learned counsel also submits that the partition deed is not a registered document according to Section 17 of the Indian Registration Act, therefore, the same is not admissible. Learned counsel also submits that the sale deed dated 04.06.2007 does not describe the share of plaintiff and defendant No.1 and plaintiff has failed to examine Mangal Singh, owner of the suit land. The plaintiff has also failed to prove his possession over 0.10 acre of land. It has been also submitted by learned counsel that the Tahsildar, after complyign all the relevant provision of law, has passed the order, which is valid and sustainable in the eye of law. Therefore, the impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned lower Appellate Court is liable to be set-aside. In support of his submission, learned counsel placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Shyam Narayan Prasad Vs. Krishna Prasad and Ors. Therefore, the impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned lower Appellate Court is liable to be set-aside. In support of his submission, learned counsel placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Shyam Narayan Prasad Vs. Krishna Prasad and Ors. reported in (2018) 7 SCC 646 . 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents supported the impugned judgment and decree passed by the Appellate Court. 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 9. The instant appeal has been admitted on 14.06.2022 on the following substantial question of law. “1 Whether the finding recorded by the First Appellate Court was justified in relying upon the partition deed (Ex.P/15) which was not registered ignoring the provisions of Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908 ? 2. Whether the finding of the First Appellate Court was justified in recording the finding that the plaintiff is entitled to get 0.10 acres of land on the count of mutation of his name in the revenue record ignoring the well legal settled position that the revenue record does not declare the title over the suit property? 10. The learned trial Court, on the basis of pleading of the parties, framed following issues :- 1- D;k xzke ldksyk i0g0u0 30] jk0fu0ea0 ,oa rglhy is.Mªk] ftyk&fcykliqj N0x0 esa fLFkr Hkwfe [k0ua0 82@3 jdck 0-15 ,dM+ oknh ,oa izfroknh dzekad 1 ds }kjk jdck dze'k% 0-10 ,dM+ ,oa 0-05 ,dM+ oknHkwfe ij oknh ,oa izfroknh dzekad 1 ukekarj.k vkns'k fnukad 04-06-2007 ds vuqlkj vius&vius fgLls dh Hkwfe ij dkfct \ 2- D;k izfroknh dzekad&1 ds i{k esa uk;c rglhynkj is.Mªk }kjk ikfjr vkns'k jk0iz0dz0 80&v&6&v@2012&13 fnukad 08-04-13 'kwU; ,oa voS/k gS \ 3- D;k okn LFky ij j[kk gqvk Hkou fuekZ.k lkexzh fof/k fo:) :i ls tIr djk;k x;k gS \ 4- D;k izfroknh dzekad & 1 }kjk oknHkwfe ij gLr{ksi fd;k tk jgk gS \ 5- D;k oknh }kjk okn dk mfpr ewY;kadu dj Ik;kZIr U;k; 'kqYd pLik fd;k x;k \ 6- D;k oknh dk okn le; ckf/kr gS \ 11. Out of the aforesaid issues, the issue No.1 is important issue. 12. Before the learned trial Court, both the parties have filed several documents to substantiate their claim. Out of the aforesaid issues, the issue No.1 is important issue. 12. Before the learned trial Court, both the parties have filed several documents to substantiate their claim. It is not disputed that according to the sale deed (Ex.P/6), Chiranji Lal Gupta (Plaintiff) and Laxman Prasad (defendant) are the bonafide purchaser of land bearing Khasra No.82/3, Rakba 0.15, 0.061 hectare. 13. Appellant Laxman Tiwari has stated in his examination-in-chief that he along with plaintiff has purchased the land admeasuring 0.15 acre out of Khasra No.82/3 and both of them hold half of the share of the said property, but he admitted in para 3 of cross-examination that it is true that his signature is there in Kisan Kitab Pustika. In Kisan Kitab Pustika 0.5 acre of land was registered in his name. The plaintiff had registered less land in Kisan Kitab Pustika. This witness has also admitted in para 4 of cross-examination that it is true that his signature is there in partition deed on ‘B to B’ part. This witness volunteers that his signature was taken on plain paper in the said document. This witness has also admitted in para 5 of his cross-examination that it is true that his signature is there in police complaint (Ex.P/9) and he admitted in para 6 that it is true that his signature is there in demarcation panchanama. Further, this witness, in para 7 of his cross-examination, denied that the plaintiff had purchased 10 decimal land from suit property but he admitted this fact that after purchasing the land and after mutation, the part of the land was recorded in his old rin pustika. 14. The learned lower Appellate Court has also recorded the finding that the appellant/defendant did not challenge the entry in rin pustika and order passed by the Tahsildar. The appellant also admitted his signature in partition deed (Ex.P/15) and copy of resolution of meeting of Gram Panchayat (Ex.P/16) but he never objected the same and suddenly he filed an application before Tahsildar. The learned Appellate Court in para 12 to 21 has rightly appreciated oral and documentary evidence especially the admission of appellant Laxman Tiwari and allowed the appeal of plaintiff. The finding recorded by the learned Appellate Court is based on proper appreciation of oral and documentary evidence. The learned Appellate Court in para 12 to 21 has rightly appreciated oral and documentary evidence especially the admission of appellant Laxman Tiwari and allowed the appeal of plaintiff. The finding recorded by the learned Appellate Court is based on proper appreciation of oral and documentary evidence. This Court does not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned Appellate Court and the substantial question of law as framed above by this Court is answered in affirmative. 15. The appeal being without any substance is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. 16. Let appellate decree be drawn accordingly.