JUDGMENT : SUBHASH CHAND, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and respondent no.1 In Person. 2. The instant appeal is preferred on behalf of the appellants against impugned Judgment dated 13th December, 2022 and decree dated 3rd January, 2023 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division)-V, Ranchi in Original Suit No.372 of 2018, whereby and whereunder the learned trial court has decreed the suit of the plaintiff. 3. The brief facts leading to this appeal are that plaintiff/respondent no.1 Suresh Nand Tiwary had instituted a suit against defendant nos.1 to 11 and against defendant no.12 as a statutory defendant with these averments that he is an original inhabitant of village Pungi, P.O. Karkara, P.S. Mandar, P.S. No.106 District-Ranchi wherein he has also renovated his native house and landed property situated therein, however, due to the professional busy schedule as one of the leading Advocates, the plaintiff mostly resides in his house Sachindanand Bhawan situated at Mohalla Hehal, (Patwatoli) P.O. Hehal, P.S. Sukhdeonagar, District—Ranchi. The plaintiff also owns and possess ancestral, paternal and self-acquired landed property in the village Pungi with a pucca residential house and orchad over an area of 3.28 acres. The paternal landed property of the plaintiff/respondent no.1 also includes an area of 5.77 acres of land pertaining to Plot Nos.38, 460, 761, 934, 935, 936, 1174, 1299 and 1300 of Khata No.71 in first revisional survey and Khata No.111 under draft of ongoing second revisional survey operation. The details of which is given at the foot of the plaint and referred herein as property in suit. The said lands are the raiyati lands of the plaintiff and he has been in exclusive possession over the same being the sole son of his mother since the year 2010, after her demise. The mother of the plaintiff had purchased an area of 6.43 acre of land out of the total area of 12.43 acre of the said R.S. Khata No.71 by virtue of a registered deed of sale dated 7th April, 1953 which was executed by one Girija Nand Tiwary son of Jagnaresh Nand Tiwary in favour of mother of plaintiff, namely, Bimala Kumari Devi @ Bimla Kumari @ Bimala Kuwari. 3.1 The land of said Khata No.71 was recorded in the first R.S. record of rights, finally published in or around the year 1935 in the names of Manu Oraon and Charwa Oraon both sons of Budhuwa Oraon of village Pungi. However in realization of the survey cost entire area of the said Khata No.71 measuring an area of 12.43 acre were auctioned and soon after final publication of the Khatiyan in Certificate Case No.806 of 1935- 36 and the same was purchased by one Jagnaresh Nand Tiwary son of Late Baldeo Nand Tiwary of village Kandari, P.S. Mandar, District—Ranchi. Accordingly, the sale certificate was granted to the said Jagnaresh Nand Tiwary and in execution of the certificate vide Execution Case No.76/A, the said Jagnaresh Nand Tiwary was put in “Khas” possession thereof through process of law on 10th July, 1936, therefore, all right, title, interest and possession of the two recorded tenants came to an end. The same vested upon the purchaser of said Court sale. The said auction purchaser continued in peaceful possession over entire area of Khata No.71 till his death in or around the year 1939 leaving behind his only one minor male issue, namely Girija Nand Tiwary, who was the vendor of the land which was sold to the mother of the plaintiff and Girija Nand Tiwary succeeded his father and came in possession of entire area of said Khata No.71. 3.2 Indeed taking advantage of Girija Nand Tiwary being minor, the then Maharaja of Chotanagpur, namely, Chintamani Sharan Nath Sahdeo dispossessed Girija Nand Tiwary from the entire area of the land on the basis of false, fabricated and illegal documents in the year 1945. The said Girija Nand Tiwary on attaining majority instituted a regular title suit being Title Suit No.103 of 1951 in the court of Sub-Judge, Ranchi against said Maharaja. This suit was ultimately decreed in favour of Girija Nand Tiwary. The Execution Case No.43 of 1952 was also instituted by the decree-holder Girija Nand Tiwary and in execution proceeding Girija Nand Tiwary was given the Khas possession of the land on 29th January, 1953. The name of the said decree holder Girija Nand Tiwary also got mutated and rent of the said land was also paid by him to the exintermediary and to the State of Bihar on vesting of estate as per provisions of The Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950. The name of the said decree holder Girija Nand Tiwary also got mutated and rent of the said land was also paid by him to the exintermediary and to the State of Bihar on vesting of estate as per provisions of The Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950. 3.3 Subsequent thereto in exercise of his right, title and possession, the said Girja Nand Tiwary transferred an area of 6.43 acres of said Khata no.71 to the mother of the plaintiff through a registered sale deed dated 7th April, 1953 and put her (the mother of the plaintiff) in “khas” possession of the same. The mother of the plaintiff remained in peaceful possession of the said land and subsequently her name was also got mutated with the state of Bihar in 1950 itself and land revenue of the same also being paid by her. The mother of the plaintiff had also transferred 66 decimals of land of Plot No.116 through registered sale deed to one Bhirgu Ram Pathak in the year 1967 and the said purchaser had constructed the residential house thereon in the year 1968 and had been residing therein along with his family. The mother of the plaintiff remained and continued in peaceful possession over the area of the land of 5.77 acre of Khata No.71 till her demise in the year 2010 leaving behind the plaintiff as her sole son and one married daughter. Thereafter the plaintiff continued in exclusive peaceful possession of the said land and other properties left by her mother. The other legal heir of his mother never objected for the same. 3.4 The father of defendant no.1 Charwa Oraon or defendant no.1 himself lost three cases filed under Section 71-A of the C.N.T. Act for restoration of the land of Khata No.71 as against mother of plaintiff and said Girja Nand Tiwary on contest in between the year 1977-87. The said cases are S.A.R. Case Nos.82 of 1977, 223 of 1979-80 and 162 of 1983-84. The said case No.162 of 1983-84 was initially allowed for some of the plots, taking erroneous view of law. Against the same the appeal was filed being S.A.R. Appeal Case No.168R15 of 1986-87 which was disposed of on 20th July, 1987 by the Additional Collector, Ranchi setting aside the erroneous order of the Special Officer S.A.R. Ranchi in S.A.R. Case No.162 of 1983-84. Against the same the appeal was filed being S.A.R. Appeal Case No.168R15 of 1986-87 which was disposed of on 20th July, 1987 by the Additional Collector, Ranchi setting aside the erroneous order of the Special Officer S.A.R. Ranchi in S.A.R. Case No.162 of 1983-84. 3.5 The plaintiff/respondent no.1 has been in exclusive peaceful possession over the land in suit till the month of February, 2017. It is also pertinent to mention here that subsequent to court sale and prior to vesting of the estate as per provisions of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 ex-landlord used to realize the land revenue from said Girija Nand Tiwary/ family members of him. The auction purchaser of the year 1936 and subsequent to the vesting of the estate, the said Girija Nand Tiwary was recognized as tenant from the entire land of the Khata No.71 with grant of rent receipts in lieu of rent realized from him. It is also manifest from the three applications of defendant no.4, first filed to the Chief Minister, Government of Jharkhand containing seal of the Secretariat of the Chief Minister Jharkhand dated 30th September, 2016, second to the Circle Officer Mandar displaying receiving on 26th September, 2016 and third petition dated 3rd February, 2017 addressed to the Officer-in-Charge of Mandar Police Station as forwarded by Mandar Police to the court of S.D.O. Sadar Ranchi/Cout of Mrs. S. Baraik, Executive Magistrate, Ranchi for initiation of a proceeding under Section 107 of the Cr.P.C. between the defendant no.4 and another co-villager in respect of claim/counter claim over an another plot of said Khata no.71 in the court of Smt. S. Baraik, the Executive Magistrate, Ranchi. The copies of the same were made available to the plaintiff by way of information vide memo no.153 Ja. Su. Dated 9th November, 2017 from the office of S.D.O. Sadar, Ranchi, Public Information Wing letter no.2232(ii) dated 6th November, 2017 from general section of the S.D.O. Ranchi that neither any revenue demand was running in the names of any or all of the two recorded tenants or in the names of any of the family members of the two nor any payment of rent was ever made by any family members of the two recorded tenants since the year 1936 till the year 2016. It is also notable herein the said Executive Magistrate, Ranchi and Circle Officer Mandar has also supplied the information on 28th February, 2018. The plaintiff has reasons to believe that defendant taking advantage of the forged online Register-II, computerized receipt in between October, 2016 to December, 2016 began to interfere in the right, title, interest and possession of the plaintiff. 3.6 The said forged online Register-II for entire area of said khata – simultaneously along with genuine demand for entire area in the name of purchasers of said Girija Nand Tiwary make the faul play in the matter manifest. The plaintiff was constrained to file the Complaint Case No.2324 of 2018 having heard flying rumor that defendant no.1 is claiming to have obtained the rent receipt for entire area of 12.43 acres of land of Khata No.71. The plaintiff got searched online land records on 5th March, 2017 and found that revenue demand running in Register-II of Village Pungi as maintained in the Circle Office Mandar for the suit lands is ignored and the entries for the said lands are incorrectly and in conflict to the demand Register-II is displayed in online Register-II. On said knowledge of incorrect online land records plaintiff represented the matter to the Circle Officer Mandar on 9th March, 2017 along with a request application for information in the matter under speed post. However, the correction of the same has been considerably delayed. Ultimately plaintiff filed a Miscellaneous Petition No.8 of 2017 on 13th September, 2017 in the court of Circle Officer Mandar and in terms of the order dated 28th November, 2017 an order to make entry of the suit lands in the name of the mother of the plaintiff is ordered and accordingly the name of the mother of the plaintiff stands entered in on-line Register-II whereafter the plaintiff paid rent of the suit lands up to the year 2017-18 since the year 2013-14 in the name of his mother. However the said order is silent about the forged entry in the name of dead recorded tenants. The plaintiff had also filed a petition for correction of the same on 10th March, 2018. Subsequent to the police inaction in the matter of report dated 15th March, 2017, Complain Case No.2243 of 2017 was filed on 8th June, 2017. However the said order is silent about the forged entry in the name of dead recorded tenants. The plaintiff had also filed a petition for correction of the same on 10th March, 2018. Subsequent to the police inaction in the matter of report dated 15th March, 2017, Complain Case No.2243 of 2017 was filed on 8th June, 2017. The said case was sent to Mandar Police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. which was registered as Complaint Case No.2324 of 2018 pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi. As such, the plaintiff/respondent no.1 has sustained huge mental agony. With the passive support of the Mandar Police to the defendant and threats being given by the defendants/appellants to the plaintiff/respondent no.1, the defendant nos.1 to 4 and 8 to 11 also looted away the harvested paddy crops of Plot Nos.934 to 936 viz. “gone Dahar Done” from harvesting field on 21st December, 2017 worth Rs.30,000/-. Again defendant nos.1 to 4, 6, 7 and 9 to 11 looted away harvested paddy crop of Plot No.1174 worth Rs.27,000/- on 23rd December, 2017. 3.7 These two occurrence were reported by the plaintiff to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ranchi through the speed post dated 22nd December, 2017. As such the cause of action for the suit arose first time on 5th March, 2017 when the plaintiff/respondent no.1 got examined the online Register-II in respect of said land in view of the aforesaid flying rumor and found the same to be forged in which the names of two dead persons were recorded as tenants for the entire area of 12.43 acres of land of Khata No.71. On subsequent date when the offence against said land has been committed as reported to the Mandar police on 15th March, 18th June, 22nd December and 24th December, 2017 besides representations given by the plaintiff/respondent no.1 to the higher authorities of police. When the plaintiff was constrained to file informatory petition no.991 of 2017 in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi, hence, there was no way out but to file this suit for declaring the right, title, interest and possession of the plaintiff over the suit land. In alternative if plaintiff is found to be dispossessed from suit lands by criminology of the defendants/appellants then a decree of recovery of possession be given to the plaintiff. 4. In alternative if plaintiff is found to be dispossessed from suit lands by criminology of the defendants/appellants then a decree of recovery of possession be given to the plaintiff. 4. The written statement was filed on behalf of the appellant no.1 Birsa Oraon and defendant no.2 Mangu Oraon and defendant no.4 Ramesh Oraon, wherein the averments as made by the plaintiff in the plaint are denied and it is stated that the suit of the plaintiff is false, frivolous and vexatious. The suit of plaintiff is barred by limitation and also bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. The suit is also barred by the principles of waiver, estoppels and acquiescence. The suit is also barred by the provisions of Specific Relief Act, 1963, Limitation Act, 1963 and Transfer of Property Act, 1882. The suit of the plaintiff is undervalued and the court fee paid is insufficient same being no advelorum. From perusal of columns of raiyat the name of scheduled tribe has been mentioned by caste Oraon, therefore, the entire land of Khata No.71 belongs to Schedule Tribe land, as such, in contravention of Sections 46 and 73 of the Chhota Nagpur Tenancy Act, 1908, the name of raiyat who is the ancestors of defendant/appellant nos.1, 2 and 4 were having conclusive right and record of rights prevailed with them. From the very perusal of the record of rights i.e., Khatiyan as well as Register-II entire land was in the name of Mannu Oraon and Charwa Oraon both sons of Budhua Oraon who were ancestor of the answering defendants. To this effect defendant no.1, 2 and 4 had been paying rent to the State of Jharkhand up to 1st April, 2017 for the period of 2017-18 for total area of 12.40 acres of lands. The ancestor of answering defendants were in possession of the suit land since beginning and thereafter the answering defendants are in possession of the same and have been cultivating as is evident from Register-II. In view of above prayed to dismiss the plaint. 5. The learned trial court in view of the pleadings and materials on records, framed the following issues : I. Whether the suit, as framed is maintainable in its present form ? II. Whether the suit is any way false, frivolous and vexatious, and fit to be dismissed ? III. In view of above prayed to dismiss the plaint. 5. The learned trial court in view of the pleadings and materials on records, framed the following issues : I. Whether the suit, as framed is maintainable in its present form ? II. Whether the suit is any way false, frivolous and vexatious, and fit to be dismissed ? III. Whether the suit is barred by principle of limitation, waiver, estoppel, acquiescence or by provisions of Transfer of Property Act ? IV. Whether any of the defendants including their ancestors have ever been in legal possession over the suit land subsequent to delivery of possession effected on dated 10th July, 1936 in Execution Case No.76/A of 1936-37 ? V. Whether the suit land was illegally transferred by the Exland Lord ? VI. Whether the suit land recorded in the R.S. Khata No.71 auctioned in certificate case as survey costs ? VII. Whether the suit land under Khata No.71 was decreed in favour of Girja Nand Tiwary plaintiff’s vendor in Suit No.103/1951. VIII. Whether the suit lands were in exclusive possession of the mother of the plaintiff and was in exclusive possession of the plaintiff in the capacity of sole son after the death of mother in 2010 ? IX. Whether the sale deed dated 7th April, 1953 executed in favour of mother of the plaintiff is any way null and void ? X. Whether there has been any contravention of Section 46 and 73 of the CNT Act, 1908 as the suit lands was recorded in the R.S. Khata No.71 in the names of ‘Scheduled Tribe’ ? XI. Whether rent receipt used by defendants are forged and fabricated without any order from any authority what so ever ? XII. Whether the suit is filed in contravention of Section 258 of the CNT Act ? XIII. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the reliefs claimed ? XIV. Whether plaintiff is entitled for the damages and loss suffered due to mischief of defendant and entitled to damages as per Schedule B of the plaint ? 6. On behalf of the plaintiff in oral evidence examined P.W.- 1 Suresh Nand Tiwary and in documentary evidence filed Ext.1 Original sale certificate dated 15th May, 1936 granted in Certificate Case No.806 of 1935-36. Ext.2 is certified copy of order sheet of Execution Case No.76/A Ex. Of 1936-37 from 20.06.1936 to 18.08.1936. 6. On behalf of the plaintiff in oral evidence examined P.W.- 1 Suresh Nand Tiwary and in documentary evidence filed Ext.1 Original sale certificate dated 15th May, 1936 granted in Certificate Case No.806 of 1935-36. Ext.2 is certified copy of order sheet of Execution Case No.76/A Ex. Of 1936-37 from 20.06.1936 to 18.08.1936. Ext.3 is certified copy of report of the peon, effecting delivery of possession in Execution Case No.76/A of 1936-37 dated 10.07.1936. Ext.4 is the certified copy of judgment dated 26.08.1952 passed in T.S. No.103/1951. Ext.5 is the certified copy of writ of delivery of possession issued in Execution Case No.43/1952. Ext.6 is the certified copy of report of delivery of possession dated 29.01.1953 submitted in Execution Case No.43/1952. Ext.7 is the certified copy of receipt given by the decree holder dated 29.01.1953 after delivery of possession. Ext.8 is registered sale deed dated 7th April, 1953 executed by Girija Nand Tiwary in favour of Smt. Bimla Kumari Devi. Ext.9 is rent receipt granted to Girija Nand Tiwary for lands of Khata No.71 by the exlandlord dated 17.05.1955. Ext.9/A is rent receipt no.256827 dated 30.01.1956 granted to Girija Nand Tiwary by the State of Bihar for R.S. Khata No.71. Ext.10 to 10/J is eleven rent receipts granted to purchaser Bimla Kumari Devi by the State of Bihar/Jharkhand dated 27.03.1959 to 30.07.2012. Ext.11 is original draft Khatian of new Khata no.111 of on going 2nd revisional survey in the name of mother of the plaintiff for suit lands. Ext.12 is the certified copy of application for restoration of land of Khata No.71 under Section 71/A of the C.N.T. Act. Ext.13 is the certified copy of entire order sheet of S.A.R. Case No.82 of 1977 from the court of the Special Officer S.A.R., Ranchi. Ext.14 is the certified copy of final order dated 15th September, 1980 as passed in S.A.R. Case No.223/79-80 by the Spl. Officer, Ranchi. Ext.15 is the certified copy of final order dated 22.07.87 as passed by the Additional Collector Ranchi in S.A.R. Appeal Case No.168R 15 of 1986-87. Ext.16 is the certified copy of final order dated 28th November, 2017, as passed by the Circle Officer Mandar in Misc. Case No.08 of 2017. Ext.17 is the Original letter no.330 II dated 8th August, 2018 from the Circle Officer Mandar by way of information under R.T.I. Act. Ext.16 is the certified copy of final order dated 28th November, 2017, as passed by the Circle Officer Mandar in Misc. Case No.08 of 2017. Ext.17 is the Original letter no.330 II dated 8th August, 2018 from the Circle Officer Mandar by way of information under R.T.I. Act. Ext.18 is the representation dated 19.07.2018 to the D.C., Ranchi with order of the D.C. Ranchi therein with receipt of the same by the C.O. Mandar. Ext.19 is the certified copy of the order sheet of Misc. Case No.5 of 2018-19 from the court of the C.O. Mandar with certified copy of enquiry report submitted in the case. Ext.20 is the certified copy of order dated 19th November, 2018 as passed by the D.C.L.R. Ranchi in Misc. Case No.5 of 2018-19. Ext.21 is the copy of written report dated 15th March, 2017 to Mandar Police with acknowledgement of receipt of copies in the office of Sr. S.P. Ranchi and rural S.P. Ranchi. 7. On behalf of the defendant in oral evidence examined D.W.-1 Jatru Oraon, D.W.-2 Arjun Bhagat, D.W.-3 Naru Oraon, D.W.-4 Lilku Oraon, D.W.-5 Temba Oraon and D.W.-6 Birsa Oraon and in documentary evidence filed certified copy of R.S. Khatian of Khata No.71 of village Pungi i.e., an admitted document as Ext.A, a rent receipt of 2018-19 in the name of ancestors of defendant as Ext.B, certified copy of judgment of C3427 of 2017. 8. The learned trial court after hearing the rival submissions of the parties and on the basis of oral and documentary evidence passed the impugned judgment and decree, whereby the suit of the plaintiff was decreed in favour of the plaintiff declaring right, title and interest of the plaintiff over the suit land and the defendant have no title over the suit land. Further the defendant was also directed to hand over vacant possession of suit land to the plaintiff within the period of 60 days of the order failing which plaintiff shall be at liberty to get the possession of vacant suit land by the process of law from the defendant. Further a decree of perpetual injunction is also passed in favour of the plaintiff restraining the defendant from any kind of disturbance in peaceful possession of the plaintiff or any successor in interest of the plaintiff over the suit land. 9. Further a decree of perpetual injunction is also passed in favour of the plaintiff restraining the defendant from any kind of disturbance in peaceful possession of the plaintiff or any successor in interest of the plaintiff over the suit land. 9. Aggrieved from the impugned judgment and decree this appeal has been preferred on behalf of the defendants on the ground that the impugned judgment and decree is based on perverse finding. The learned trial court has failed to consider the material fact that the suit land was Scheduled Tribe land and was in possession of the Raiyat who was the ancestor of the appellant/defendants. The learned trial court did not consider this material fact that in certificate case proceeding the appellants were not the party, as such, the order passed in certificate proceeding has no bearing over the right, title and interest of the appellants/defendants. The learned trial court also did not consider that in Title Suit No.103 of 1951, the Khatiyani raiyat, namely, Mannu Oraon and Charwa Oraon were not party, neither Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi was made party to the same. The learned trial court ought to have considered that after vesting of Jamindari the continuous Khatiyan Register-II running in the name of Mannu Oraon and Charwa Oraon and not in the name of mother of the plaintiff. The physical possession was of the appellant-defendant and not of the plaintiff. The learned trial court failed to consider the R.S. Khatiyan of Mannu Oraon and Charwa Oraon and Ext.B the rent receipt in the name of the Charwa Oraon and Mannu Oraon. The learned trial court did not consider that the appellant/defendants had been paying rent up to the year 2017. The learned trial court overlooked the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court reported in 2022 (2) JBCJ 315 SC. In view of the above prayed to allow this appeal and set aside the impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court. 10. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondent and perused the materials available on record. 11. In view of the above prayed to allow this appeal and set aside the impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court. 10. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondent and perused the materials available on record. 11. For disposal of this appeal following points of determination are being framed :- I. Whether the plaintiff has the right, tile and interest in the land in suit as a raiyat and in possession of the same on the basis of the sale deed dated 7th April, 1953 and prior to him his predecessor in title from whom he derived the title were having right, title and interest in the land suit as a raiyat on the basis of the sale certificate dated 15th May, 1936 ? II. Whether the appellant/defendants had any right title interest or possession in the property in suit after the order dated 10th July, 1936 passed in Execution Case No.76/A of 1936-37. 12. Point of Determination No.I : It is the admitted fact that the land in suit originally was the raiyati land of Mannu Oraon and Charwa Oraon both sons of Budhwa Oraon. The case of the plaintiff is that the total land of Khata No.71 which was recorded in the name of Mannu Oraon and Charwa Oraon in R.S. record of rights, the same land was auctioned in realization of the survey cost of entire area of Khata No.71 measuring 12.43 acres and in Certificate Case No.806 of 1935-36 in auction, the same was purchased by Jagnaresh Nand Tiwary s/o Late Baltu Nand Tiwary and sale certificate was also issued in his name. Thereafter in Execution Case No.76/A, the said Jagnaresh Nand Tiwary was put in possession of the same through the process of law on 10th July, 1936. To this effect on behalf of the plaintiff the original sale certificate has been filed as Ext.1. From the perusal Ext.1, it is found that in Certificate Case No.806 of 1935-36 in the year 1935, the sale certificate was issued in the name of auction purchaser Jagnaresh Nand Tiwary. It is also evident from the sale certificate Ext.1 that in this case the Mannu Oraon and Charwa Oraon were also party and this sale certificate was issued in regard to the land of Khata No.71. It is also evident from the sale certificate Ext.1 that in this case the Mannu Oraon and Charwa Oraon were also party and this sale certificate was issued in regard to the land of Khata No.71. The document Ext.2 is the certified copy of the order passed in Execution Case No.76/A. From perusal of the same, it is found that on 20th June, 1936, an application was filed by the auction purchaser vide Certificate Case No.806 of 1935-36 for delivery of the possession over the raiyati khata no.71 of village Pungi P.S. Mandar No.106 which was sold for non-payment of the survey and settlement cost. In this case vide order dated 23rd June, 1936, the writ of delivery for possession was issued and the possession was duly delivered to the auction purchaser on 10th July, 1936. In view of this document, it is found that in regard to raiyati land of Khata No.71 situated in village Pungi, P.S. Mandar No.106 District Ranchi the auction purchaser Jagnaresh Nand Tiwary was delivered possession on 10th July, 1936 in Execution Case No.76/A of 1936-37. From both these documents, it is evident that in regard to the land in suit which was the raiyati land of Mannu Oraon and Charwa Oraon, the same was auctioned on account of non-payment of survey and settlement cost in Certificate Case No.806 of 1935-36 and the right, title and interest of the said land vested in the auction purchaser Jagnaresh Nand Tiwary and he was also given possession of the whole of the area of the raiyati Khata No.71 on 10th July, 1936 in Execution Case No.76/A of 1936-37. As such, the right, title and interest which was vested in Mannu Oraon and Charwa Oraon the same were not extinguished forever and vested in Jagnaresh Nand Tiwary who was the auction purchaser. 12.1 It is also the case of the plaintiff that Jagnaresh Nand Tiwary died in the year 1939 and after his death Jagnaresh Nand Tiwary had left his one son, namely, Girjanand Tiwary. 12.1 It is also the case of the plaintiff that Jagnaresh Nand Tiwary died in the year 1939 and after his death Jagnaresh Nand Tiwary had left his one son, namely, Girjanand Tiwary. At the time of death of said Jagnaresh Nand Tiwary, his son Girjanand Tiwary who was the sole successor was minor and the then Maharaja of Chotanagapur, namely, Chintamani Sharan Nath Shahdeo had dispossessed Girjanand Tiwary from the area of 12.43 acres of Khata No.71 Khewat No.1 village Pungi, District- Ranchi on the basis of fabricated illegal documents in the year 1945 and settled several persons therein. Thereafter minor son of Jagnaresh Nand Tiwary on attaining majority had instituted a suit being Title Suit No.103 of 1951 against Maharaja Chintamani Sharan Nath Shahdeo and others for recovery of possession of the said land. The said case was decreed in favour of the plaintiff Girjanand Tiwary on 26th August, 1952. To this effect on behalf of the plaintiff has been filed the judgment passed in Title Suit No.103 of 1951 which is Ext.4. This suit of Girja Nand Tiwary was also decreed against all the defendants. From the perusal of this judgment, it is found that this suit was instituted for declaration of title and recovery of the possession of revisional survey Khata no.71, Khewat No.1 area 12.43 acres in village Pungi with mesne profit. This fact is also proved from the judgment dated 26th August, 1952 passed in Title Suit No.103 of 1951. Thereafter the execution case of the judgment dated 26th August, 1952 was instituted by Girja Nand Tiwary and in execution proceeding Girja Nand Tiwary was delivered possession of whole area of land of raiyati Khata No.71 on 26th January, 1953. To this effect the plaintiff has filed the Ext.5, the copy of the order passed in Execution Case No.43 of 1952. From perusal of the same, it is found that in the Court of Sub-Judge, Ranchi the Execution Case No.43 of 1952 (Girja Nand Tiwary vs. Maharaja Chintamani Sharan Nath Shahdeo and Ors.) was instituted and possession of the land of Khata No.71 in regard to all the plots, total area 12.43 acres was handed over to Girja Nand Tiwary on 26th January, 1953. Exts. 6 and 7 are the two rent receipts in regard to delivering the actual possession of the total area of the land of Khata No.71. Exts. 6 and 7 are the two rent receipts in regard to delivering the actual possession of the total area of the land of Khata No.71. 12.2 It is also the case of the plaintiff/respondent no.1 that the name of Girja Nand Tiwary was also got mutated in revenue records and land revenue was paid by him to the ex-intermediary and to the State of Bihar on vesting of the estate as per provisions of Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950. It is also the case of the plaintiff/respondent no.1 that said Girja Nand Tiwary had transferred 6.43 acres of land of Khata No.71 by way of sale deed to the the mother of the plaintiff, namely, Smt. Bimla Devi on 7th April, 1953 and possession of the said land was also handed over to Bimla Devi. Her name was also mutated in revenue records. Land revenue was also paid by Bimla Devi. Bimla Devi has also transferred 66 decimals land of plot no.116 of khata no.71 by way of sale deed to Bhirgu Ram Pathak in the year 1967. As such, the mother of the plaintiff remained the exclusive owner of the land of 5.77 acres of Khata no.71 and remained in possession of the same till 2010 and after death of Bimla Devi her son, namely, Suresh Nand Tiwary (the plaintiff) became the raiyat of the same and his name was also mutated in revenue records and remained in peaceful possession till February, 2017. On behalf of the plaintiff, the sale deed dated 7th April, 1953 has been filed. This sale deed was executed on 7th April, 1953 by one Girja Nand Tiwary in favour of Smt. Bimla Devi. The property sold is shown of Khata No.71 in village Pungi Thana No.106 in regard to Plots Nos.1174, 934, 935, 936, 1300, 1299, 38, 116, 460 and 761 under Khewat No.1 total area 6.43 acres. From perusal of the sale deed, it is found that the complete details are given in the sale deed, how the vendor Girja Nand Tiwary had derived the title of the land which was sold by him by way of this sale deed. On behalf of the plaintiff/respondent no.1 have also been filed the land revenue receipts which were issued in the name of raiyat Girja Nand Tiwary and after execution of the sale deed, same were issued in the name of Bimla Devi. On behalf of the plaintiff/respondent no.1 have also been filed the land revenue receipts which were issued in the name of raiyat Girja Nand Tiwary and after execution of the sale deed, same were issued in the name of Bimla Devi. These revenue receipts are Ext.9 and 9/A in the name of Girja Nand Tiwary. Ext.10 to 10/J are eleven receipts in the name of Bimla Devi, who is the mother of the plaintiff/respondent no.1. From all these receipts, it is evident that in revenue records, the name of Girja Nand Tiwary was mutated and after the execution of the sale deed the name of Bimla Devi was mutated in revenue record as raiyat and land revenue of the same was paid by Bimla Devi, the mother of the plaintiff. 12.3 It is also the case of the plaintiff/respondent no.1 that in second R.S. survey of the land, this Khata No.71 was given new Khata No.111 in the name of mother of the plaintiff Bimla Devi and land revenue was also paid by Bimla Devi in regard to whole area of the land of new Khata No.111 old Khata No.71. To this effect on behalf of the plaintiff has been filed Ext.11. From perusal of the same, it is found that new khata number was given 111 in place of khata no.71 in the settlement. The name of raiyat is shown Bimla Devi. 12.4 It is also the case of the plaintiff/respondent no.1 that the defendant no.1 Birasa Oraon s/o Late Charwa and Charwa Oraon has himself had lost three cases which were filed by them under Section 71-A of the C.N.T. Act for restoration of the land of Khata No.71 against the mother of the plaintiff and also against Girja Nand Tiwary. The S.A.R. Case No.162 of 1983-84 was initially allowed for some of the plots taking erroneous view of law and the order passed in the said S.A.R. case was challenged in S.A.R. Appeal Case No.168 R 15 of 1986-87 which was decided by the Additional Collector, Ranchi on 29th July, 1987 by setting aside the erroneous order passed by the Special Officer, S.A.R. Ranchi. Likewise, Charwa Oraon and Budhwa Oraon also lost their case for restoration of the possession under Section 71 A of the CNT Act against Girja Nand Tiwary also. Likewise, Charwa Oraon and Budhwa Oraon also lost their case for restoration of the possession under Section 71 A of the CNT Act against Girja Nand Tiwary also. To this effect on behalf of the plaintiff in documentary evidence has been filed Ext.12, 13, 14 and 15. Ext.12 is the application for restoration of the land in CNT Act of the year 1977. Ext.13 is Restoration Case No.82 of 1972. Ext.14 is Restoration Case No.223 of 1979-80 and Ext.15 is Restoration Appeal Case No.168 R 15 of 1986-87. Ext.12 is the application given by Charwa Oraon s/o Budhwa Oraon in regard to land of khata no.71, Khasra No.s, 935, 936, 1168, 1174, 771, 29 and 46 of village Pungi Circle Mandar, District-Ranchi. From perusal of the Ext.13, it is found in S.A.R. Case No.82 of 1977, Charwa Oraon vs. Bimla Devi the Special Officer, SAR Ranchi, the said application vide order dated 7th February, 1977 was admitted for hearing and notice was issued to the Opposite Party-Bimla Devi. Thereafter vide order dated 20th September, 1977, it was ordered that since the land was purchased in auction, as such, the proceeding under Section 71 A of the CNT Act will not be applicable. Ext.14 is in regard to order dated 15th September, 1980 in SAR Case No.823 of 1979- 80. By this order the rehearing of SAR case was also refused. Ext.X/8 is the copy of the order dated 31st December, 1986 passed in SAR Case No.162 of 1983-84 Charwa Oraon vs. Gijranand Tiwary. From perusal of this order, it is found that Special Officer SAR, Ranchi has passed order of restoration of land of khata no.71 from Girjanand Tiwary and Bimla Devi to Charwa Oraon. This order dated 31st December, 1986 was also assailed by Smt. Bimla Devi in appeal before the Court of Additional Collector, Ranchi which was registered SAR Case No.168 R 15 of 1986-87 and the Additional Collector vide order dated 22nd July, 1987 set aside the order passed by the Special Officer dated 31st December, 1986 and found that the plea under Section 208 of CNT Act could not be taken in this case, hence, there was not transfer against the provision of the said section of CNT Act and the appeal was allowed. On behalf of the plaintiff also filed the receipts of land revenue Ext.X/3 to X/5. On behalf of the plaintiff also filed the receipts of land revenue Ext.X/3 to X/5. From perusal of this receipts it is found that these receipts are in the name of raiyat Bimla Devi of Khata no.71 in regard to Khasra no.1174, 1299, 1300, 38, 460, 461, 434, 935, 936 total area 5.77 acres. These land revenue receipts are of 13th December, 2017, 6th February, 2019 and 9th August, 2019. Ext. X is the correction in regard to name from Bimla Devi to Suresh Nand Tiwary. This transfer in regard to mutation in revenue record shows that after death of Bimla Devi, her son Suresh Nand Tiwary became the raiyat of the said land of khata no.71. The land revenue receipts are also being filed on behalf of the plaintiff dated 20th September, 2020 Ext.X/1. Revenue receipt dated 5th April, 2022 Ext.X/2. Revenue receipt dated 22nd September, 2020 Ext.X/6. Revenue receipt dated 5th April, 2022 Ext.X/7. All these receipts are in the name of plaintiff Suresh Nand Tiwary who is recorded raiyat of Khata No.71. 13. On behalf of the plaintiff P.W.-1 Suresh Nand Tiwary has examined himself. He has deposed all the averments made in the plaint and denied the averment made by the defendant in his written statement and deposed in regard to all these documentary evidence. 14. Per contra, it is the case of the appellant/defendant that they were never party in the sale certificate proceeding, as such, the said alleged certificate is not binding upon them and they are in exclusive possession of the land since the time of their ancestors, namely, Mannu Oraon and Charwa Oraon. 14.1 On behalf of the defendants oral evidence has been adduced but there is no documentary evidence has been adduced to rebut the documentary evidence adduced on behalf of the plaintiff. It is also proved from the certificate proceeding in which the raiyati land of khata no.71 of Mannu Oraon and Charwa Oraon was sold for non-payment of the cost and settlement of the cost as well. The said land was acutioned and in the year 1935, the same was purchased by Jagnaresh Nand Tiwary, therefore, after issuance of sale certificate in the name of Jagnaresh Nand Tiwary, the right, title and interest which was vested in Mannu Oraon and Charwa Oraon the same were extinguished. The said land was acutioned and in the year 1935, the same was purchased by Jagnaresh Nand Tiwary, therefore, after issuance of sale certificate in the name of Jagnaresh Nand Tiwary, the right, title and interest which was vested in Mannu Oraon and Charwa Oraon the same were extinguished. If the defendants on the basis of any other fake entry claimed their right, the same cannot be relied upon. On behalf of the defendants no contrary evidence has been adduced to rebut that sale certificate issued in auction proceeding was ever challenged by Mannu Oraon or Charwa Oraon or his descendants. It is also found that in sale certificate proceeding Mannu Oraon and Charwa Oraon was also party, therefore, this contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is not found sustainable. Further on behalf of the defendants/appellants, the proceedings for restoration of possession under Section 71 A of CNT Act were also initiated which was ultimately dismissed and it was held that proceeding by the Additional Collector, Ranchi under Section 71 A of CNT Act was not applicable after the sale certificate issued in the year 1935 in which the right, title and interest of Mannu Oraon and Charwa Oraon were extinguished for non payment of settlement and cost as well by way of auction sale and in that auction sale Jagnaresh Nand Tiwary purchased the same and after his death his son Girja Nand Tiwary became the raiyat of the same. Girja Nand Tiwary became the raiyat of the same, though Girja Nand Tiwary was also being the minor was dispossessed by the then Maharaja Chintamani Sharan Nath Shahdeo and ultimately on attaining the majority Girja Nand Tiwary also filed the title suit for possession of the land of raiyat Khata No.71 which was also decreed and thereafter Execution Case No.43 of 1952 was also filed and Girja Nand Tiwary was delivered possession of the same. Thereafter Girja Nand Tiwary sold the land by way of registered sale deed to Bimla Devi, mother of the plaintiff and on the basis of the sale deed in revenue records in place of Girja Nand Tiwary the name of Bimla Devi was mutated as raiyat and after death of Bimla Devi in the year 2010, the name of her son Suresh Nand Tiwary was mutated in revenue record of raiyati Khata no.71 as raiyat and till date he has been paying the land revenue of the same. 15. After appraisal of the oral and documentary evidence adduced on behalf of both the parties, it is well proved that the plaintiff is the raiyat of the suit land on the basis of sale deed dated 7th April, 1953 and has been in peaceful possession of the same having right, title and interest therein till February, 2017 and prior to him his predecessor in title had the right, title and interest over the land in suit as Raiyat on the basis of sale certificate dated 15th May, 1936. Accordingly, the Point of Determination No.I is decided against the appellants and in favour of the respondent no.1 16. Point of Determination No. II : Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that it is the admitted fact that Mannu Oraon and Charwa Oraon were the raiyat of land of Khata No.71 and if any sale certificate was issued in certificate proceeding and in that certificate proceeding, the defendants being not party, the sale certificate issued is not binding upon them. The land in suit was the Scheduled Tribe land and upon the same no right, title and interest can accrue to any other person. The appellants/defendants have also filed the land revenue receipts and they are in active possession of the same. This fact is also proved on behalf of the defendants/appellants by the oral evidence. 16.1 On behalf of the defendants in documentary evidence has been filed the Khatiyan, copy of the Register-II and receipts of the year 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17 and 2017-18 has been adduced. 16.2 From perusal of the khatiyan, it is found that Originally Mannu Oraon and Charwa Oraon were the raiyat of Khata no.71. In column no.17 of this khatiyan, there are entries in regard to payment of rent in the name of Mannu Oraon and Charwa Oraon. 16.2 From perusal of the khatiyan, it is found that Originally Mannu Oraon and Charwa Oraon were the raiyat of Khata no.71. In column no.17 of this khatiyan, there are entries in regard to payment of rent in the name of Mannu Oraon and Charwa Oraon. The receipt of land revenue dated 14th September, 2013 is in the name of Mannu Oraon and Charwa Oraon. The land revenue receipt dated 9th January, 2017 is in the name of Mannu Oraon and Charwa Oraon. Revenue receipt dated 1st April, 2017 is also in the name of Mannu Oraon and Charwa Oraon. Register-II land revenue dated 23rd August, 2018 also show the name of Mannu Oraon and Charwa Oraon of Khata No.71. 16.3 Learned counsel for the appellants/defendants has submitted that the appellants are in active physical possession of the land in suit and land revenue has been paid by them in the name of Mannu Oraon and Charwa Oroan. As such, the certificate proceeding in which the sale certificate was issued and in title suit which was decreed in favour of Girja Nand Tiwary in the same they were not party, those orders have no bearing on the revenue entries which are still in revenue record in the name of Mannu Oraon and Charwa Oraon. The defendant’s witnesses have also proved the possession of the defendants in the land in suit. 17. Per contra, the respondent no.1 appearing In Person opposed the contentions made by the learned counsel for the appellants and contended that the land revenue receipts which are being filed on behalf of the defendants of the year 2013 to onward are forged receipts and entry in the Register-II is also forged one. Those entries have no bearing at all because they were not based on any order passed by any competent authority. On the basis of the same no right, title and interest can accrue upon them. So far as the possession of the defendant in the land in question is concerned, the same is also after February, 2017 and this suit was filed on behalf of the plaintiffs in the year 2018. The plaintiffs were dispossessed from the land in question by exercising criminology upon him and if their possession is on the land in question after February, 2017 on the basis of the same no right, title can accrue to them. The plaintiffs were dispossessed from the land in question by exercising criminology upon him and if their possession is on the land in question after February, 2017 on the basis of the same no right, title can accrue to them. The plaintiff has also sought relief for possession of the suit land from which he was evicted by the defendants in February, 2017. 18. From perusal of the Register-II and also the revenue receipts which have been filed on behalf of the defendants, it is found that all revenue receipts which were of the year 2013, 2014, 2017 and 2022 onwards, the same are in the name of Mannu Oraon and Charwa Oraon, who had died much earlier. After death of Mannu Oraon and Charwa Oraon, no proceeding for mutation was initiated by the descendants of Mannu Oraon and Charwa Oraon before any competent authority. Therefore, these land revenue receipts even if are in the name of Mannu Oraon and Charwa Oraon, who had died much before the same does not confer any title to the defendants or his predecessors. 18.1 Herein, it is also pertinent to mention that in Register-II, the entry of Mannu Oraon and Charwa Oraon is made as raiyat. The same is without any order passed by any competent authority. The same no significance in the eyes of law. Herein it is also relevant that admittedly initially Mannu Oraon and Charwa Oraon were the raiyat of the land in suit but their right, title and interest were extinguished for non-payment of the settlement and cost as well in the certificate proceeding in the year 1935 wherein the raiyat land of Khata No.71 of Mannu Oraon and Charwa Oraon was auctioned and in that auction Jagnaresh Nand Tiwary was auction purchaser and sale certificate was issued in his favour. After issuance of sale certificate in execution proceeding, the possession of the total area of all plots of Khata No.71 was given to said Jagnaresh Nand Tiwary. As such at that time all right, title and interest were extinguished by Mannu Oraon and Charwa Oraon. After his death, Jagnaresh Nand Tiwary left his minor son Girja Nand Tiwary and he was also illegally dispossessed by Maharaja Chintamani Sharan Nath Shahdeo and Girja Nand Tiwary on attaining majority filed the title suit and also for possession of the land of raiyati khata no.71 in the year 1953. After his death, Jagnaresh Nand Tiwary left his minor son Girja Nand Tiwary and he was also illegally dispossessed by Maharaja Chintamani Sharan Nath Shahdeo and Girja Nand Tiwary on attaining majority filed the title suit and also for possession of the land of raiyati khata no.71 in the year 1953. That suit was also decreed in favour of Girja Nand Tiwary and in execution of the decree passed in that case, the said Girja Nand Tiwary was also delivered possession of the suit land. Thereafter Girja Nand Tiwary had sold the land of khata no.71 to Bimla Devi by way of registered sale deed and on the basis of the sale deed the name of Bimla Devi was also mutated as raiyat in revenue records. The several land revenue receipts have been adduced on behalf of the plaintiff in the name of Bimla Devi and prior to the execution of the sale deed in the name of Girja Nand Tiwary as well. After death of Bimla Devi, the name of his son, Suresh Nand Tiwary (the respondent no.1 in this case) was mutated in revenue record as raiyat. Several land revenue receipts have been adduced on behalf of the respondent— Suresh Nand Tiwary. In raiyati khata no.71, the name of raiyat is shown Suresh Nand Tiwary. 18.2 As such in view of above, the forged entry in Register-II or the revenue receipts which were issued in the name of deceased Mannu Oraon and Charwa Oraon have no bearing as the right, title and interest in the land in suit of the defendant. So far as the possession is concerned, the respondent no.1 was illegally dispossessed in 2017 and by way of the impugned judgment, the possession of the suit land has been handed over to the respondent no.1. The illegal dispossession has been challenged by the plaintiff in the year 2018 while he was dispossessed in the month of February, 2017. As such no right, title and interest can accrue to the defendants/appellants on the basis of the illegal possession which was challenged just within one year of dispossession by the plaintiff. 19. This Court is of the considered view that the revenue entries do not confer title, rather are for fiscal purpose. As such no right, title and interest can accrue to the defendants/appellants on the basis of the illegal possession which was challenged just within one year of dispossession by the plaintiff. 19. This Court is of the considered view that the revenue entries do not confer title, rather are for fiscal purpose. If the revenue entries are made in revenue record without adopting the rules prescribed and without any order passed by competent authority, same are non est in the eyes of law; no right, title or interest can accrue on the basis of such forged or fake revenue entries. 19.1 The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of H.P vs Keshav Ram and others reported in AIR 1997 SC 2181 at paragraph 4 has held as under : “4. In view of the rival contentions, the question that arises for consideration is whether the plaintiffs have been able to establish their title and the Courts below were justified in declaring plaintiff's title. As has been stated earlier the only piece of evidence on which the Courts below relied upon to decree the plaintiffs' suit is the alleged order made by the Assistant Settlement Officer directing correction of the record of right. The order in question is not there on record but the plaintiffs relied upon the register where the correction appears to have been given effect to. The question, therefore, arises as to whether the entry in the settlement papers recording somebody's name could create or extinguish title in favour of the person concerned? It is to be seen that the disputed land originally stood recorded in the name of Raja Sahib of Keonthal and thereafter the State was recorded to be the owner of the land in the record of right prepared in the year 1949-50. In the absence of the very order of the Assistant Settlement Officer directing necessary correction to be made in favour of the palintiffs, it is not possible to visualize on what basis the aforesaid direction had been made. But at any rate such an entry in the Revenue papers by no stretch of imagination can form the basis for declaration of title in favour of the plaintiffs. But at any rate such an entry in the Revenue papers by no stretch of imagination can form the basis for declaration of title in favour of the plaintiffs. To our query as to whether there is any other document on the basis of which the plaintiffs can claim title over the disputed land, the learned counsel for the plaintiffs-respondents could not point out any other document apart from the alleged correction made in the register pursuant to the order of the Assistant Settlement Officer. In our considered opinion, the Courts below committed serious error of law in declaring plaintiff's title on the basis of the aforesaid order of correction and the consequential entry in the Revenue papers. In the circumstances, the appeal is allowed and the judgment and decree passed in all the three forums are set aside. The plaintiffs' suit dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.” 19.2 The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Jattu Ram vs Hakam Singh and others reported in AIR 1994 SC 1653 at paragraph 3 has held as under : “3. Section 119 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (for short 'The Act') envisages that if any party to an exchange is ........... by reason of any defect in title of the other party deprived of the thing or any part of the thing received by him in exchange, then, unless a contrary intention appears from the terms of the exchange, such other party is liable to him ...... for the return of the thing transferred ........The admitted case is that the appellant had exchanged his lands with the first respondent. Due to defect in title, the first respondent had suffered a decree of 2/3rd share of the minors who had admittedly taken possession of an extent of 52 kanals 10 marlas from the appellant. The appellant was deprived of that property and the first respondent is liable to return to the appellant to the extent of 52 kanals 10 marlas. Obviously, in fartherance of the oral understanding the appellant came in possession of 47 kanals 1 marla in exchange. The entry in column 9 thus fortifies the stand of the appellant. The sole entry on which the appellate Court placed implicit reliance is by the Patwari in Jamabandi. It is settled law that the Jamabandi entries are only for fiscal purpose and they create no title. The entry in column 9 thus fortifies the stand of the appellant. The sole entry on which the appellate Court placed implicit reliance is by the Patwari in Jamabandi. It is settled law that the Jamabandi entries are only for fiscal purpose and they create no title. It is not the case that the appellant had any knowledge and acquiesced to it. Therefore, it is a classic instance of fabrication of false entries made by the Patwari, contrary to the contract made by the parties, though oral. The first respondent admitted that he received no rent from the appellant. Thus it is clear that the plea of the first respondent that the appellant was his lessee-at-will is a false one. It is not his case that for the loss suffered by the appellant, the respondent had compensate him by paying the price of that land. It is, therefore, too credulous to believe that he let the appellant in possession of the plaint scheduled property as a tenant-at-will and is a deliberate, desparate and false plea set up by him, which unfortunately found favour with the appellate Court and the High Court paid no attention to go into the crucial question and dismissed the appeal as usual, in limine. The contention of Sri Ujagar Singh, the learned Senior counsel that the appellant's sons purchased 8 kanals of land from his client was a step in aid to woodwink the innocent appellant and a self serving. Thus we are constrained to hold that the decree of the appellate Court is perverse, apart from manifestly illegal. It and the High Court decree are accordingly set aside and that of the trial Court is restored and the appeal is allowed with costs throughout.” 19.3 The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Municipal Corporation, Gwalior vs Puran Singh alias Puran Chand reported in AIR 2014 SC 2665 at paragraph 30 has held as under : “30. It and the High Court decree are accordingly set aside and that of the trial Court is restored and the appeal is allowed with costs throughout.” 19.3 The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Municipal Corporation, Gwalior vs Puran Singh alias Puran Chand reported in AIR 2014 SC 2665 at paragraph 30 has held as under : “30. The High Court committed a grave and manifest error of law in reversing the well reasoned judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court by simply placing reliance upon Khasara entries even without properly appreciating the settled law that Khasara entries do not convey title of the suit property as the same is only relevant for the purposes of paying land revenue and it has nothing to do with ownership.” 19.4 The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Narasamma and Ors v. State of Karnataka and Ors. reported in 2009 AIR SCW 2653 at paragraph has held as under :- “12. In our view, this decision on the face of it cannot be applied in the facts and circumstances of the present case because the aforesaid decision was rendered in a case which was covered under the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948. Furthermore, in the aforesaid decision, the concurrent findings on the question of possession was not in favour of the person who was claiming to get his name registered as an occupancy right holder in respect of the land in dispute, whereas in the present case, the concurrent findings of fact on the question of possession by the High Court as well as by the Land Tribunal stood in favour of the appellants. At the risk of repetition, in the present case both the Land Tribunal and the High Court held that the appellants were in possession of the land in dispute and the entries in the Record of Rights also stood in their names showing that the nature of cultivation was gutha (rent) and also the appellants were in possession of the same. As noted herein earlier, the respondent had failed to produce any document or material to show to the contrary. Therefore, the onus was on the respondent to show by producing material that the appellants had not acquired SC1853 any status of occupancy right although they were found to be in continuous possession of the land in dispute. As noted herein earlier, the respondent had failed to produce any document or material to show to the contrary. Therefore, the onus was on the respondent to show by producing material that the appellants had not acquired SC1853 any status of occupancy right although they were found to be in continuous possession of the land in dispute. (See : Gajadhar Prosad Singh and Ors. v. Sheo Nandan Prosad Singh and Ors. [23 CWN 304]. Since the respondent had failed to produce any material or document to prove that the appellants had not acquired any status in respect of the land in dispute and had failed to show that the entries in the Record of Rights were wrong, we do not find any ground to reject the claim of the appellants for conferring status of occupancy right holder in respect of the land in dispute. In view of our discussions made hereinabove, we do not find any support to rely on the decision of this Court in the case of Jattu Ram v. Hakam Singh and Ors. [ 1993 (4) SCC 403 ] that since the appellants had failed to prove their status of tenancy in respect of the land in dispute, they were not entitled to any relief. It is true that the entries in the revenue record cannot create any title in respect of the land in dispute, but it certainly reflects as to who was in possession of the land in dispute on the date the name of that person had been entered in the revenue record. That apart, in that decision of this Court, on which reliance was placed by the learned Counsel for the respondent, it was admitted that the landlord did not receive any rent from the person in possession. Relying on this admission of the person from whom no rent was received, it was found that the plea of tenancy was a false one. Relying on this admission of the person from whom no rent was received, it was found that the plea of tenancy was a false one. As noted herein earlier, in the present case, not only the revenue records clearly show that the appellants were in continuous possession of the land in dispute, and the admission of the respondent that the appellants were tenants in an earlier recovery proceedings, and in the absence of any document having been produced by the respondent to show that the entries in the Record of Rights were wrong, it is not possible for us to rely on the aforesaid decision cited by the learned counsel for the respondent. So far as the decision of a learned Judge of the Bombay High Court in the case of Rita Premchand and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. [2001 (4) MLJ 671] is concerned, there is no dispute about the proposition enunciated in the said decision which says that the entries in the revenue records are not dispositive or conclusive on questions of title and that the revenue record cannot create any title and are relevant only for fiscal purposes. This proposition is not disputed, nor can we dispute it. In view of our discussions made hereinabove and accepting the principles enunciated in the aforesaid decision of the Bombay High Court we are of the view that the name of the appellants should be registered as an occupancy right holder in respect of the land in dispute. Accordingly, the application of the appellants shall stand allowed and consequent thereupon the orders of the Land Tribunal as well as the Division Bench and the learned Single Judge of the High Court shall stand set aside.” 19.5 The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India v. Vasavi Co-op. Housing Society Ltd. reported in AIR 2014 Supreme Court 937 at paragraph 17 and 20 has held as under : “17. This Court in several Judgments has held that the revenue records does not confer title. Housing Society Ltd. reported in AIR 2014 Supreme Court 937 at paragraph 17 and 20 has held as under : “17. This Court in several Judgments has held that the revenue records does not confer title. In Corporation of the City of Bangalore v. M. Papaiah and another (1989) 3 SCC 612 : ( AIR 1989 SC 1809 ) held that "it is firmly established that revenue records are not documents of title, and the question of interpretation of document not being a document of title is not a question of law." In Guru Amarjit Singh v. Rattan Chand and others (1993) 4 SCC 349 this Court has held that "that the entries in jamabandi are not proof of title". In State of Himachal Pradesh v. Keshav Ram and others (1996) 11 SCC 257 this Court held that "the entries in the revenue papers, by no stretch of imagination can form the basis for declaration of title in favour of the plaintiff." 20. We are of the view that even if the entries in the Record of Rights carry evidentiary value, that itself would not confer any title on the plaintiff on the suit land in question. Ext.X-1 is Classer Register of SC943 1347 which according to the trial court, speaks of the ownership of the plaintiff's vendor's property. We are of the view that these entries, as such, would not confer any title. Plaintiffs have to show, independent of those entries, that the plaintiff's predecessors had title over the property in question and it is that property which they have purchased. The only document that has been produced before the court was the registered family settlement and partition deed dated 11.12.1939 of their predecessor in interest, wherein, admittedly, the suit land in question has not been mentioned.” 20. Accordingly, in view of above discussions and appreciation of evidence on record, the Point of Determination No.II is also decided against the appellants and in favour of the respondent no.1. 21. In view of discussions made hereinabove and keeping in view the settled legal proposition of law as held by the Hon’ble Apex Court, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court bears no infirmity and illegality and this appeal deserves to be dismissed. 22. 21. In view of discussions made hereinabove and keeping in view the settled legal proposition of law as held by the Hon’ble Apex Court, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court bears no infirmity and illegality and this appeal deserves to be dismissed. 22. Accordingly, this first appeal is, hereby, dismissed and the impugned judgment and decree is, hereby, affirmed. 23. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, also stands dismissed.