The entry in the R. S. Khatian was presumed to be correct, and the plaintiffs failed to rebut this presumption. Parbati, as a limited owner under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, Section 14 (1), acquired full ownership of the property after the provisions of the Act came into force on 17th June, 1956, and her transfer to Lakshmibala was valid.

( 1 ) THE plaintiff's case is that the disputed property belonged to one Dwarika Nath Roy, whose name was properly recorded in the C. S. Khatian. He possessed the property all along and died on the 19th May, 1934, leaving his widow Jahnabi, pro forma defendant No. 3, and his mother, Mahamaya alias Parbati. Jahnabi inherited that property as Dwarika's sole heir, She and Parbati lived on the homestead left by Dwarika. Then Jahnabi went away else-where and Mahamaya alias Parbati alone managed the property. The latter breathed her last five years before the filing of the suit. By a registered kobala executed on the 9th Nov. , 1962, Jahnabi sold the suit land to the plaintiffs. But the principal defendants Nos. 1 and 2 did not allow them to take possession of the property on the assertion that they had purchased the same from Lakshmibala, who had acquired the same from her mother, Parbati, on the footing of a deed of gift. The land was erroneously recorded in Mahamaya's name in the R. S. Khatian. The suit is for a permanent and mandatory injunction and also for recovery of khas possession on the declaration of the plaintiff's title thereto.

( 2 ) DEFENDANTS Nos. 1 and 2 filed a written statement denying the plaintiff's allegations. It has been alleged, inter alia, that the disputed property belonged to Dwarika's father, Kedar Nath, who left his house in 1930 as a mendicant. So in the C. S. Khatian, the name of Kedar Nath and of his son, Dwarika, was also recorded. Dwarika had no title or possession. After Kedar Nath left his house, his wife Mahamaya possessed the property as Kedar Nath's heir. She hud her name mutated in the landlord's 'sherisla*. She gifted her property to her daughter, Lakshmibala, by a registered document on the 9th March, 1959. The latter in her turn transferred it to them.

( 3 ) THE learned Munsif believed the plaintiff's version and decreed the suit. Defendants went up on appeal and lost the same. Hence this second appeal.

( 4 ) IT has been contended on behalf of the appellants that in paragraph 7 of the plaint there is a clear averment that the suit land has been erroneously recorded in Mahamaya's name in the R. S. Khatian. But there is no prayer that there should be declaration that such entry is wrong. Kedar Nath left the world in 1930. The C. S. Khatian was finally published in 1932, when his son Dwarika was 12 years old. They were governed by the Dayabhaga School of Hindu Law. The period of 7 years envisaged by the provisions of Section 108 of the Indian Evidence Act was not considered by the courts below. In view of the entry in the R. S. Khatian, the entry in the C. S. Khatian will have no value. The plaintiffs could not prove that the property belonged to Dwarika. The mere entry in the C. S. Khalian in Dwarika's name will not confer any title on the plaintiffs because the sale in their favour was made in 1962, whereas Mahainaya gifted the suit land to her daughter, Lakshmibaia, as far back as 1959.

( 5 ) THE learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the plaintiff-respondents has contended that the fate of the appeal is concluded by the findings of fact arrived at by the learned Subordinate Judge. That court has held that the defendants could not rebut the presumption of correctness of the entry in the C. S. Khatian and could not prove that the property belonged to Kedar Nath. After that finding, the appellants cannot re-agitate that point in second appeal. Both the Courts disbelieved the evidence of the defendants and hence this Court should hold that Dwarika and not Kedar Nath was the owner of the disputed land.

( 6 ) THERE is a clear averment in paragraph 7 of the plaint that the entry in the R. S. Khatian regarding the suit land in Mahamaya's name is erroneous. Neither the learned Munsif nor the learned Subordinate Judge considered this important aspect of the case. In the case of Shankarrao v. Sambhu Wallad, reported in 45 Cal WN 57 : (AIR 1940 PC 192), Sir George Rankin stated