JUDGMENT : Goutam Bhaduri, J. 1. Since both the appeals are arising out of same judgment and decree dated 31-10-2018 passed by the Second Additional District Judge, Raigarh, in civil suit No.A/50/2011 they are being heard and decided together by this common judgment. 2. FA No.674 of 2018 is preferred by the defendant No.1, who was purchaser and FA No.79 of 2019 is preferred by the defendantsNo.2 & 3 from whom the defendant No.1 purchased the part of property. 3. In order to appreciate the facts, it would be necessary to show the genealogical tree of the family, which is as under : 4. Dharamsingh had four sons namely; (i) Ramprasad, (ii) Sadhuram,(iii) Bansidar and (iv) Lochan Prasad. On the part of property the plaintiffs No.1 & 2 namely; Teejmati & Yodhram, respectively are claiming through Lochan Prasad. Plaintiffs No.3 & 4 namely; Dhaniram & Tejram, respectively are claiming through Sadhuram and plaintiffs No.5 & 6 namely; Bhojnath & Tilakram, respectively are claiming through Bansidar filed a suit on one side whereas the defendants No.2 & 3 namely; Dolnarayan & Sagarmati, respectively claiming through Ramprasad on the other side. 5. According to the plaint averments, the ancestors of the plaintiffs and the defendants No.2 to 4 had two set of lands, one is at village Chhuipali and another is at village Chhatamuda, District Raigarh, which were shown in Schedule A & B of the plaint. According to the plaintiffs, the oral partition was effected between the ancestors in respects of lands situated at village Chhuipali and at village Chhatamuda both. It is pleaded that it was in the knowledge of defendant No.2 (seller) and co-ownership was divided. Ramprasad, through whom defendants No.2 & 3 claimed their right, was given a larger chunk of land at village Chhuipali, as compared to area of land fallen to the share of other three brothers namely; Sadhuram, Bansidar and Lochan Prasad, therefore, they were given the lands at village Chhatamuda. The dispute is about land bearing kahsra No.246 situated at village Chhatamuda. The dispute is about land bearing kahsra No.246 situated at village Chhatamuda. According to the plaintiffs, Ramprasad did not get any land at village Chhatamuda and though the partition was admitted, but surreptitiously the legal heirs of Ramprasad got the land mutated in respect of village Chhatamuda and thereafter, on 20-11-2009 the defendants No.2 & 3 Dolnarayan & Sagarmati, sold the land bearing Khasra No. 246 area of 1.598 hectare to defendant No.1 Anubhav Builders. The plaintiffs stated that since they admitted the fact that Ramprasad did not get any land at village Chhatamuda and larger chunk was given at village Chhuipali and the names were mutated accordingly. Therefore, the sale deed executed in favour of the defendant No. 1 by two of the land holders would be non est and declaratory suit was filed for permanent injunction and declaration to the effect that the sale deed dated 20-11-2009 in respect of Khasra No. 246 admeasuring 1.598 Hectares be declared as null and void and in case the possession was not found they may be given the possession. 6. In the written statement the defendants No.2 & 3 namely; Dolnarayan and Sagarmati admitted the partition of land at village Chhuipali and Chhatamuda during the life time of their ancestors. It was stated, however, in such partition Khasra No. 246 admeasuring 1.598 Hectares, Ramprasad got the land at village Chhatamuda and he was in possession and after his death on 23.07.2003 the defendants No. 2 & 3 came into possession and till the date of sale they were in possession of the land. Consequently, the sale was defended. 7. The purchaser/defendant No.1 stated that after verification of revenue records they have purchased the land and since the names of defendant No.2 and 3 were mutated in respect of subject land they had purchased the same for valuable consideration. 8. During the course of trial, six witnesses were examined on behalf of the plaintiffs and on behalf of the defendants two witnesses were examined. Thereafter, on the basis of pleadings, the learned trial Court framed as many as 17 issues and decreed the suit. Hence these two appeals. One (FA No.674 of 2018) is preferred by the defendant No.1 and another (FA No. 79 of 2019) is preferred by defendant No. 2 & 3. 9. (i) Mr. Thereafter, on the basis of pleadings, the learned trial Court framed as many as 17 issues and decreed the suit. Hence these two appeals. One (FA No.674 of 2018) is preferred by the defendant No.1 and another (FA No. 79 of 2019) is preferred by defendant No. 2 & 3. 9. (i) Mr. B.P. Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the appellants would submit that in the kist bandi katoni, in respect of the suit land i.e. Khasra No. 246 admeasuring 1.598 Hectare, which is part of sale deed (Ex.P/5), names of defendants No. 2 & 3 were shown and boundaries were also mentioned. He would further submit that the trial court has relied upon Ex.P/31 and the note ( Vhi ) therein, but in the cross-examination PW-5 Mandhar Gupta categorically stated that the said note ( Vhi ) was written after the parties had left meaning thereby it has no value because it was written behind the back of the defendants. This witness also subjected to certain suggestion given to the defendant by the plaintiff which shows that name of Ramprasad was recorded in the record of right in respect of land at Chhatamuda, therefore, the said suggestion would lead to admission and the subject of oral partition cannot be accepted with respect to khasra entry. (ii) Learned counsel would submit that in respect of village Chhatamuda, earlier name of Ramprasad was recorded in 2009-10 vide Ex.P/4, a photocopy of which was filed by the plaintiff wherein the name of Ramprasad was recorded in respect of land at village Chhatamuda and after his death, the names of his legal heirs were recorded. Referring to Ex.P/6 and Ex.P/7, learned counsel would submit that in respect of land bearing Khasra No.246, which is dispute, Teejmati and Dolnarayan were shown in the record of right, therefore, the oral partition was not proved that it was acted upon and the finding of the learned trial court is faulty, which needs interference. 10. (a) Mr. Referring to Ex.P/6 and Ex.P/7, learned counsel would submit that in respect of land bearing Khasra No.246, which is dispute, Teejmati and Dolnarayan were shown in the record of right, therefore, the oral partition was not proved that it was acted upon and the finding of the learned trial court is faulty, which needs interference. 10. (a) Mr. Roop Naik, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, per contra, would submit that Ex.P/2, Ex.P/3 & Ex.P/4 would show that while the oral partition was effected Ramprasad got 4.355 Hectares of land at village Chhuipali whereas Lochan, Sadhuram and Bansidar got 1.283 Hectares, 1.276 Hectares and 1.277 Hectares, respectively but the name was continued and from Ex.P/31, which was of 2-2-1996, it shows that since larger chunk of land was given to Ramprasad as per oral partition at village Chhuipali, as such, he adjusted his right and left the land to three brothers at village Chhatamuda. (b) Learned counsel would also submit that partition so effected is admitted by defendant No.2 and in respect of land sold the evidence would show that he even failed to identify his land as to which part he is in possession. Learned counsel would next submit that in the circumstances of this case, the note ( Vhi ) which was appended to Ex.P/31 and signed by Ramprasad too would suggest that he admitted the fact that he got larger chunk of land at village Chhuipali, therefore, by an adjustment over a partition the larger part of land was given to three brothers and the plaintiffs, who are claiming through three brothers, are in possession of the land, but surreptitiously with the connivance of the Revenue Officers, the defendants No.2 & 3 got their name mutated in the revenue records. Referring to Ex.P/5 & Ex.P/6, learned counsel would submit that on the same day the names of defendants No.2 & 3 were recorded in respect of the land at village Chhatamuda and name of the purchaser was mutated which shows that it was done in a hurried manner which shows the intention. (c) Learned counsel went through the statement of PW-5 Mandhar Gupta to submit that the oral partition has been proved, which is supported by the revenue documents. Consequently, the defendants No.2 & 3 did not have any right to sale the land bearing khasra No.246 to defendant No.1. (c) Learned counsel went through the statement of PW-5 Mandhar Gupta to submit that the oral partition has been proved, which is supported by the revenue documents. Consequently, the defendants No.2 & 3 did not have any right to sale the land bearing khasra No.246 to defendant No.1. He would submit that the impugned judgment and decree passed by the trial Court is well merited, which do not call for any interference. 11. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties at length and perused the record. 12. The primary contention of the plaintiffs is that they were claiming through Sadhuram, Bansidar and Lochan. According to the plaint allegations and the pleadings, Dharamsingh through whom they got the property situated at villages Chhuipali and Chhatamuda, oral partition was effected in between the ancestors and the defendant seller are claiming through Ramprasad. According to the plaintiffs, both the properties situated at village Chhuipali and Chhatamuda were thrown in common hotchpotch and the oral partition was effected. By effect of such partition, Ramprasad got larger chunk of land at village Chhuipali and, as such, by way of adjustment he allowed the other brothers to take larger chunk of land at village Chhatamuda. The dispute is about land which falls in village Chhatamuda. 13. We went through the evidence of the parties wherein PW-1 Dhaniram Patel stated that Ramprasad, who is the husband and father of the defendants No.3 & 2 Sagarmati & Dolnarayan, respectively, since in the partition got a larger chunk of land i.e. 5.383 hectares at village Chhuipali his name was separately recorded in record of rights at village Chhuipali. To prove the same, Ex.P/2, Ex.P/3 & Ex.P/4 have been placed on record. It is not in dispute that about the mutation entry of such land, which shows Lochan, Sadhuram and Bansidar got less part of land i.e. 1.283, 1.276 and 1.277 hectares, respectively at village Chhuipali as compared to Ramprasad. 14. The question which falls for consideration is as to whether the defendants No.2 & 3, who claimed through Ramprasad, sold the land situated at village Chhatamuda did not get any land in said village and whether Ramprasad did get a part of property as per kist bandi katoni (Ex.P/6) at village Chhatamuda. 15. 14. The question which falls for consideration is as to whether the defendants No.2 & 3, who claimed through Ramprasad, sold the land situated at village Chhatamuda did not get any land in said village and whether Ramprasad did get a part of property as per kist bandi katoni (Ex.P/6) at village Chhatamuda. 15. Perusal of Ex.P/6 it is manifest that in respect of land at village Chhatamuda along with name of Teejmati, W/o Lochan and others name of Dolnarayan and Sagarmati are also recorded along with other land holders. It include the disputed land bearing khasra No.246. Further apart from khasra No.246, other 13 lands of different khasra Nos. are also recorded. Subsequently, Ex.P/6 & Ex.P/7 would show that khasra No.246 admeasuring 1.598 hectares was recorded in the name of defendant No.1, who purchased the property by way of Ex.P/5. The remark column would show that the defendants No.2 & 3 sold the land to defendant No.1. Along with sale deed, kist bandi katoni is also attached wherein in the column of name of land owners along with Modram, Lochan names of Dolnarayan, Sagarmati, the sellers and Bansidar is also recorded. Ramprasad died on 23-7- 2003. It is not in dispute that the said kist bandi katoni, which is issued by the Revenue Officer, shows the name of seller in respect of suit property bearing khasra No.246 admeasuring 1.598 hectares along with other brothers. 16. Ex.P/31 wherein heavy reliance is placed is of land record entry in respect of village Chhuipali. Ex.P/31 is a record of right, and at it bottom bears the signature of Ramprasad, through whom the defendant had claimed property along with other brothers at village Chhatamuda. According to this revenue entry, Ramprasad got larger chunk of land at village Chhuipali. The note ( Vhi ), which is written in Ex.P/31, record the fact that Ramprasad, Sadhuram, Lochan and Bansidar jointly holds the land at village Chhatamuda and as per partition Ramprasad did not get any land at Chhatamuda, consequently, at village Chhuipali Ramprasad had got a larger chunk of land. PW-5 Mandhar Gupta has recorded and made the said additional entry in Ex.P/31. According to his statement, the said endorsement was made on 2-2-1996. PW-5 Mandhar Gupta has recorded and made the said additional entry in Ex.P/31. According to his statement, the said endorsement was made on 2-2-1996. In the cross-examination he admitted the fact that the said note ( Vhi ) was recorded after Ramprasad, Kripasindhu, Mehattar Das Kotwar had left the place and it was written at the instance of Lochan, Sadhuram and Bansidar and thereafter they signed it. Therefore, if any endorsement like admission was made behind the back of someone which is prejudicial to his interest it cannot be considered against him. In any case the said endorsement was made in respect of possession when it was recorded at village Chhuipali. Perusal of Ex.P/31 would show that after the revenue column it left out some place, the note ( Vhi ) was written, in that gap that too after Ramprasad, through whom the defendants No.2 & 3 claimed, had left the place. Even otherwise any private remark on the revenue document do not have much evidentiary value. As against that record of right of village Chhatamuda (Ex.P/6), name of defendants Dolnarayan and Sagarmati recorded as joint owner of lands at village-Chhatamuda. The said entries being revenue entries have a presumptive value of correctness unless proved otherwise. The plaintiffs only asserted that entries in such records were manipulated with connivance of Revenue Officers. If such allegations have been made the same is required to be established beyond reasonable doubts. A simplicitor statement of fraud would not be sufficient to rebut such presumptive value of revenue records. 17. The primary case of the plaintiffs was that after the oral partition names of the parties were recorded separately in the record of right in respect of villages Chhuipali and Chhatamuda. If at the village Chhatamuda, which is a disputed property name of Ramprasad was deleted as per partition which should have been proved by definite evidence instead the evidence on record shows that in respect of land at village Chhatamuda name of Ramprasad continued. The document kist bandi katoni part of the revenue record attached with the sale deed (Ex.P/4) and (Ex.P/6) affirmed the said fact. 18. The document kist bandi katoni part of the revenue record attached with the sale deed (Ex.P/4) and (Ex.P/6) affirmed the said fact. 18. In the matter of Vineeta Sharma v Rakesh Sharma and Others, (2020) 9 SCC 1 , the Supreme Court laid down the principle that heavy burden of proof upon proponent of oral partition before it is accepted such as separate occupation of portions, appropriation of the income, and consequent entry in the revenue records and invariably to be supported by other contemporaneous public documents admissible in evidence when defence of oral partition is raised. It further held that Court has to be very extremely careful in accepting the same, and only if very cogent, impeccable, and contemporaneous documentary evidence in shape of public documents in support are available, such a plea may be entertained, not otherwise. The Supreme Court also reiterated that the plea of an oral partition or memorandum of partition, unregistered one can be manufactured at any point in time, without any contemporaneous public document needs rejection at all costs. 19. The Supreme Court in the matter of Chinthamani Ammal v Nandagopal Gounder and Anr., (2007) 4 SCC 163 held that in law there exists a presumption in regard to the continuance of a joint family, which raised a plea of partition is to prove the same. Even separate possession of portion of the property by the co-sharers itself would not lead to a presumption of partition. Several other factors are required to be considered. 20. Since the suit was by the plaintiffs and they failed to prove the fact because of oral partition the seller did not have any right alienation even if made in excess of share, the alienee may opt to seek transferred property, to the share of the transferor, so that equities are worked out in a fair manner. 21. Defendants No.2 & 3 have executed the sale deed in respect of the property, which fell to their share i.e. khasra No.246 admeasuring 1.598 hectares. The boundaries mentioned in the sale deed and kist bandi katoni, are same. 22. 21. Defendants No.2 & 3 have executed the sale deed in respect of the property, which fell to their share i.e. khasra No.246 admeasuring 1.598 hectares. The boundaries mentioned in the sale deed and kist bandi katoni, are same. 22. Applying the well settled principles of law laid down by the Supreme Court and for the reasons mentioned hereinabove, in our considered opinion, the plaintiffs have failed to prove the oral partition that consequence of large chunk of land having received at village Chhuipali, Ramprasad did not get any land at village Chhatamuda wherein the suit property situates. 23. As an upshot, both the appeals are allowed and the impugned judgment and decree dated 31-10-2018 passed by the Second Additional District Judge, Raigarh, in civil suit No.A/50/2011 is set aside. 24. There shall be no order as to cost(s). 25. A decree be drawn accordingly.