ORDER 1. As both the second appeals have arisen out of common judgment and decree dtd. 14.12.2018 passed by First Appellate Court, therefore, are being decided by this common order. 2. Second Appeal No.217/2019 has been preferred by the appellants/plaintiffs challenging the judgment and decree dtd. 14.12.2018 passed by Additional District Judge, Lavkush Nagar, District Chhatarpur in Regular Civil Appeal No.7A/2015 affirming/modifying the judgment and decree dtd.14.9.2012 passed by 1st Civil Judge Class-I, Laundi, District Chhatarpur in Civil Suit No.43A/2011 whereby trial Court dismissed the plaintiffs’ suit in its entirety and in civil appeal preferred by the appellants/plaintiffs, First Appellate Court has decreed the suit in respect of land survey No. 307 area 0.583 hectare situated in Gram Kesripura, Tahsil Lavkush Nagar, District Chhatarpur. 3. Second Appeal No.813/2019 has been preferred by the LRs of original defendant 1-Battulal Yadav challenging the judgment and decree passed by First Appellate Court whereby plaintiffs’ suit has been decreed in respect of land survey No.307. 4. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs submits that the suit lands bearing survey No. 307, 351, 352 & 353 were purchased by plaintiff 2-Santosh Rani vide registered sale deed dtd. 25.9.1987 from predecessorin-title namely Smt. Beni Bai and received possession and this fact is clearly established by producing registered sale deed as well as the title documents of the name of predecessor-in-title Smt. Beni Bai, but First Appellate Court has committed an illegality in decreeing the suit, only in respect of land survey No.307. He submits that on the basis of available evidence, suit ought to have been decreed in its entirety. With these submissions, he prays for admission of the second appeal. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants in second Appeal No.813/2019 submits that upon due consideration of the entire material available on record, Trial Court rightly dismissed the suit in its entirety but First Appellate Court has committed an illegality in decreeing the suit in respect of land survey No.307 on the basis of revenue entries, which are not documents of title. She submits that although the defendants are not bhoomiswami of the land but they are in possession for last more than 40-45 years and even if the defendants have not acquired title by adverse possession, the suit could not have been decreed in absence of proof of title of plaintiff’s predecessor-Smt. Beni Bai, from whom the plaintiff 2-Santosh Rani purchased the land. She submits that on the basis of panchnama (Ex.D/5) the defendant’s possession for a long period, is clearly established. With these submissions, she prays for admission of the second appeal. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. In the present case the defendant did not claim his title on the basis of some documentary evidence, but claimed himself to be in possession of the land for last more than 40-45 years and both the Courts below have also found the defendant to be in possession of the suit lands however, it is held that the defendant has not perfected his title by adverse possession. Learned counsel-Ms. Sanjana Sahni has also not been able to prove long possession of defendant over the land sufficient to acquire title by adverse possession and she has not been able to point out any illegality in the findings recorded by Courts below. So far as the argument regarding long possession on the basis of panchnama is concerned, in absence of any corroborative revenue entry, the panchnama cannot be treated to be a proof in respect of long possession of the defendant over the land in question. 8. So far as the decree granted by First Appellate Court in favour of the plaintiffs regarding survey no.307 is concerned, First Appellate Court has on the basis of revenue entry of the year 1958 (Ex.P/9), found proved the title of predecessor of plaintiff 2-Santosh Rani and decreed the suit. As against the said old revenue entry, the defendant has not been able to produce any other revenue entry or evidence in rebuttal to the title of Smt. Beni Bai over the land survey no.307. As both the parties are claiming their title and possession on the basis of revenue entries, therefore, in my considered opinion First Appellate Court does not appear to have committed any illegality in placing reliance on the revenue entry (Ex.P/9) regarding title of Smt. Beni Bai i.e. the predecessor-in-title of plaintiff 2-Santosh Rani, which is also clear from Ex.D/13. 9. As both the parties are claiming their title and possession on the basis of revenue entries, therefore, in my considered opinion First Appellate Court does not appear to have committed any illegality in placing reliance on the revenue entry (Ex.P/9) regarding title of Smt. Beni Bai i.e. the predecessor-in-title of plaintiff 2-Santosh Rani, which is also clear from Ex.D/13. 9. After arguing at length, learned counsel for the appellants/plaintiffs has not been able to point out any documentary evidence showing title of Smt. Beni Bai over the land survey No. 351, 352, 353, therefore, in considered opinion of this Court First Appellate Court does appear to have committed any illegality in decreeing the suit only in respect of survey No. 307. 10. In view of the aforesaid discussion and upon due consideration of the entire material available on record, this Court does not find any illegality in the judgment and decree passed by First Appellate Court. 11. Resultantly, in absence of any substantial question of law, both the second appeals fail and are hereby dismissed. 12. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.