( 1 ) MR. D. F. Amin, learned counsel for the cippellants, Mr. R. M. Vin, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 and mr. Hukum Singh, learned Assistant government Pleader for the respondent no. 2 - State.

( 2 ) SHORT facts necessary for disposal of the present appeal are that one Chetiabhai mavjibhai Katara - husband of the plaintiff no. 1 and father of the plaintifff No. 2 to 4 was the owner of the suit land bearing survey No. 51 admeasuring 13 Acres and 2 gunthas and was cultivating the same.

( 3 ) THE said Chetiabhai Mavjibhai Katara expired in the year 1951 and thereafter, the plaintiffs became owners of the suit land. The plaintiffs say that their names were recorded in the revenue records vide mutation Entry No. 35. The defendant No. 1, who were residing at village Varoda, somehow or other, managed an entry in his favour that he had purchased the property by paying a consideration of Rs. 300=00 (Rupees Three Hundred only) and the sale was oral. After realising about the entry, the plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration that the said entry be held to be invalid and not affecting the rights of the plaintiffs. The defendant No. 1 appeared before the Court and raised number of disputes, his submission was that the entry was right and justified, he had acquired ownership rights under oral sale and that if the oral sale was bad, he has become owner of the property being in possession of the property since after 1951. The question of jurisdiction of the trial court was also raised. The learned trial court, after recording evidence and hearing the parties, dismissed the suit holding that the Civil Court has no: jurisdiction, the appeal was also dismissed, therefore, the plaintiffs are before this court.

( 4 ) MR. AMIN, learned counsel for the appellants submits that in the present set of circumstances, the appellants - plaintiffs were entitled to maintain a suit, because, the entry was contrary to law and could not be made even under the tenancy laws. His. submission is that the sale of the property worth more than Rs. 100=00 cannot be made except by registered document and if oral sale of tangible immovable property worth more than Rs. 100=00 (Rupees One hundred only) is made, then, such transaction would not be admissible, even it it is written but not registered, in view of sec. 49 of the Indian Registration Act. His submission is that though the revenue courts have absolute jurisdiction in the matters of mutation Entry, but if the orders passed by the revenue authorities are patently without jurisdiction, then, the civil court can correct their wrong.

( 5 ) MR. R. M. Vin. learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 submits that in relation to an entry in the revenue records, civil court would have no jurisdiction even if the entry is wrong, the affected person must approach the revenue authorities for correction of the Mutation Entry.

( 6 ) THE appeal has been admitted for hearing the parties on the following substantial questions of law;

" (i) In view of the fact that the entry no. 64 dtd, 12/6/j953 passed on the basis of oral sale, whether the Courts below have erred in holding that the said entry is not illegal ?

(ii) In view of the fact that the entry no. 64 was passed on the basis of oral sale, whether the Courts below have erred in holding that the civil court has no jurisdiction to decide the legality or correctness of the entry passed in the revenue record?

(iii)Whether the courts below have erred in considering document Mark 14/1 and further erred in not exhibiting the said document?"

( 7 ) ALL three questions framed by this court at the time of admission can conveniently be disposed of simultaneously. Section 17 of the Indian Registration Act provides that if some tangible immovable property worth less than Rs. 100=00 (Rupees One Hundred only) is sold and delivery of possession is also effected. then, such sale, on delivery of possession, would be complete. The law provides that if any tangible immovabl