IMPORTANT POINT
Entries in revenue records do not create or extinguish title; the right to sue arises from the threat of dispossession, and possessory title can be sufficient to establish ownership against all but the true owner.

JUDGMENT :

KHATIM REZA, J.

Heard Mr Jitendra Prasad Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants and Mr Ganpati Trivedi learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.

2. The plaintiffs/appellants have filed this Second Appeal against the judgment and decree dated 15/12/1999, passed by the Second Additional District Judge, Kaimur, (Bhabua) whereby the learned Lower Appellate Court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment and decree dated 19-01-1994, passed by the learned Munsif, (Bhabua), in Title Suit No. 47/91.The plaintiffs had filed the Title Suit for declaration of title and confirmation of possession over the suit land admeasuring 3 decimals towards North East, bearing Khata No. 76, Revisional Survey Plot No. 1271, Schedule-‘ka’ and also for injunction. The learned Trial Court held that the suit is not barred by limitation, but on facts, it has been held that as there was entry in the revisional survey in the name of defendants, then the plaintiffs have no title over the suit land.

3. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial Court, the plaintiffs have filed Title Appeal bearing T.A. No. 12/94/47/96 before the Court of learned Second Additional District Judge, Kaimur, (Bhabua).

4. The learned Lower Appellate Court, after hearing the parties, has found and held that the plaintiffs have title over the suit land and thereby reversing the findings of the learned Trial Court, dismissed the suit on the ground of Limitation alone as because the plaintiffs have not come up within 12 years from the date of entry in the revisional survey. Against the said judgment and decree passed by the learned Lower Appellate Court, the plaintiffs-appellants have preferred the present Second Appeal.

5. On 24-09-2003, the following substantial question of law was formulated at the time of admission of the appeal:-

“(i) Whether the trial court committed error in denying the plaintiffs' title on basis of the entry in the revenue records?

(ii) Whether the appellate court committed error in holding that the suit of the plaintiff is barred by limitation?

(iii) Any other substantial questions of law may be raised at the time of hearing the appeal.”

6. The case of the plaintiffs/appellants, in nutshell, is that the plaintiffs and defendants are the members of joint Hindu family governed by Mitakshara School of law. The land bearing C.S. Plot No.688, area 10 decimals belongs to ancestor of the plaintiffs and defendants 2nd set having house and Sahan. The 'Khatiyan' of the aforesaid land was recorded as ‘Gairmajarua Malik’, but in the remarks column, possession was recorded in the name of grand father of plaintiffs and defendant no. 17. It is further case of the plaintiffs that adjacent western to Plot No.688, C. S. Plot No.689 is situated having an area of 9 decimal, over which house of Mangru Lohar was built up. Mangru Lohar died issueless, and as such, Plot No.689 came in the possession of Ex-landlord. It is further pleaded that 40-45 years ago, father of plaintiff no.1 and defendant no.17, namely, Ram Surat Hazam obtained five decimal of land in Plot No. 689 from the Ex-landlord after payment of Rs.25/-as ‘Nazrana’ and thereafter constructed the house after amalgamation of the plot nos. 688 and 689 and came in possession over the same. After amalgamation of Plot Nos.688 and 689, the plaintiffs came in peaceful possession over total 15 decimals of land having house and Sahan over it. It is further pleaded that adjacent to the Plot No.688, the defendant 1st set has his house over plot no.687 having an area of 8 decimal. At the time of Revisional Survey the C.S. plot nos. 688 and 689 is renumbered as Revisional Survey Plot No.1272 and C.S.Plot No.687 is renumbered as Plot No.1271, but due to mistake of Revisional survey Authority, the map and Khatiyan has wrongly been prepared to the effect that three decimals of land of the plaintiffs has wrongly been included in the defendants’ Plot b