SANJAY K. AGRAWAL, J.

1. The substantial question of law involved, formulated and to be answered in the second appeal preferred by the plaintiffs is as under:-

“Whether entries in record of rights maintained by the Revenue Authorities do not confer any title on plaintiffs/appellants?”

[For the sake of convenience, the parties would be referred hereinafter as per their status shown and ranking given in the suit before the trial Court].

2. Original plaintiff-Thakurram filed a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction stating inter-alia that he is title-holder of the suit land and defendants No.1 to 3 have no right and title to interfere with his peaceful possession and consequently, decree as prayed for be granted in his favour.

3. The defendants filed their written statement denying the plaint allegation and claimed title and possession over the suit land. The trial Court after appreciating oral and documentary evidence available on record, by its judgment and decree dated 18.1.1999 decreed the suit, which was reversed by the First Appellate Court, against which, this second appeal under Section 100 of the CPC has been filed by the appellants/plaintiffs, in which substantial question of law has been framed by this Court, which has been setout in the opening paragraph of this judgment.

4. Mrs.Kiran Jain, learned counsel for the appellants/plaintiffs, would submit that a copy of record of rights, which was prepared under Section 115 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (hereinafter called as “the Act of 1959”) would confer title to the plaintiffs over the suit land, therefore, the First Appellate Court is absolutely unjustified in dismissing the suit by granting appeal, as such, the second appeal deserves to be allowed and the judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court deserves to be set aside.

5. On the other hand, Mr.Vivek Tripathi, learned counsel for respondents No.1 to 3, would support the impugned judgment & decree and submit that entry in revenue records does not confer title on person whose name appears in record of rights and title can only be decided by competent civil Court.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions made herein-above and also went through the records with utmost circumspection.

7. It is the case of the original plaintiff-Thakurram that he has purchased the suit land from defendants’ father in public auction and thereafter he became title and possession holder of the said land and his name was recorded in revenue records including Ex.P/1, which is copy of adhikar abhilekh prepared under Section 115 of the MP Land Revenue Code, 1954, in which the plaintiff’s name is recorded as Bhoomiswami in the suit land bearing No.1007/4 area 2.36 acres with the following note:-

^^rglhynkj egksn; /kjet;x<+ ds jk-iz- Ø- 1@v&16@75&76 esa ikfjr vkns'k fnukad 16-5-77 ds vuqlkj lqUnj lk; oYn Fkku flag oxSŒ tkfr daoj lkfdu equUn dh Hkwfe [k-u- 1007@1 ls jdck 0-955 yxku 1-25 iSa- vk; uhykeh esa Jh Bkdqj jke oYn /ku lk; }kjk ysus ds dkj.k Bkdqj jke ds uke mDr Hkwfe HkwfeLokeh ,oae ntZ dh xbZA

lgh

vLi"V^^

8. On behalf of the plaintiffs, three witnesses namely Ramcharan (PW-1), Shivkumar (PW-2) and Maheshram (PW-3) have been examined. On being asked by counsel for the defendants, all these witnesses have clearly stated in their cross-examination that Shri Thakur Ram-original plaintiff had purchased the suit land from the defendants’ father Sunder Sai in public auction and obtained ownership and possession. On the other hand, the defendants’ witnesses Rajkumar (DW-1), Kewla Bai (DW-2), wife of Sunder Sai (original holder of land) and Haitram (DW-3) all have denied the fact of public auction and purchase by original plaintiff-Thakur Ram for want of knowledge. The above-stated piece of evidence followed by entry in Ex.P/1 clearly establishes the fact of acquisition of title by original plaintiff-Thakur Ram in public notice, which is duly recorded in Ex.