Hon’ble Sudhir Agarwal. J.—As requested and agreed by learned counsels for parties, I proceed to hear this matter finally and decide it at this stage.

2. Heard Sri Y.S. Bohra, learned counsel for appellants and Sri Kumar Anish, learned counsel for respondents.

3. The substantial questions of law involved in this matter are:

(1) Whether revenue entries can determine the title as held by lower Appellate Court and unless the revenue record is corrected, the title be deemed with the person whose name is entered in revenue record?

(2) Whether lower Appellate Court was right in reversing the judgment of Trial Court in Original Suit No. 166 of 1972 while in respect of Original Suit No. 574 of 1969, while deciding the First Appeal by common judgment, it has already held that as a matter of fact, no such plot on spot is available and it is only in record and, therefore, injunction sought by plaintiff of Suit No. 574 of 1969 has rightly been denied, and, whether such contradictory findings can render judgment based on perverse and illegal findings?

4. There were two suits, one filed by plaintiff-appellants i.e. Original Suit No. 166 of 1972 for cancellation of sale-deed dated 30.10.1969 and permanent injunction restraining the defendant-respondents not to interfere in the peaceful possession of the property in dispute, i.e., Plot No. 37 situate at village Pootha, Tehsil Anoopshahar, District Bulandshahar. Another suit, i.e., Original Suit No. 574 of 1969 was instituted by defendant-respondents against the plaintiff-appellants in the present second appeal, for permanent injunction restraining them (plaintiff-appellants) from interfering in the peaceful possession of the land forming part of plot No. 37 measuring 1 bigha 3 biswa.

5. The case set up by the plaintiff-appellants in Original Suit No. 166 of 1972 is that there was Abadi No. 296 wherein 10 biswa land belong to Veda and Devi and it was recorded as Abadi in the consolidation proceeding. The land situate towards west of the road. There was another plot No. 296/6 measuring 1 bigha 3 biswa belongs to Sri Imam Baksh, father of defendant Nos. 3 to 5, and it was on the eastern side of the road. Plot No. 296 was given new number as 37 and 48. Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 in a wholly illegal manner executed sale-deed in respect of plot No. 37 of which neither they were bhumidhar nor in possession. The suit was contested by defendant-respondents stating that the disputed land was part of plot No. 296/6 and was situated on the western side of road.

6. The Trial Court, i.e., 4th Additional Munsif, Bulandshahar dismissed Original Suit No. 574 of 1969 and decreed Original Suit. No. 166 of 1972 observing that land in question, which is part of plot No. 296/6, is presently numbered as 48, and situate on the east of the road and, therefore, defendant-respondents had no right or claim over plot No. 37 which is on the west of the road. Consequently, the Trial Court cancelled the sale-deed dated 30.10.1969, and, issued a permanent injunction restraining the defendant-respondents from interfering in the peaceful possession of property in dispute.

7. Two appeals were preferred. Civil Appeal No. 42 of 1977 had arisen from the decree in Original Suit No. 574 of 1969 and Civil Appeal No. 47 of 1977 had arisen from decree in original Suit No. 166 of 1972.

8. Lower Appellate Court vide judgment dated 24.8.1978 allowed Civil Appeal No. 47 of 1977 and dismissed Civil Appeal No. 42 of 1977. It has observed that Trial Court was right in dismissing Original Suit No. 574 of 1969 and consequently Civil Appeal No. 42 of 1970 arising therefrom was dismissed.

9. Coming to the decree of Trial Court in Original Suit No. 166 of 1972, it has held that in the revenue record, names of Sri Azim Khan, Bashir Ahmad and Mohammad Ali are recorded and thereafter the purchasers are Latif Khan and Shamsuddin. It further held that Khatauni is a record of title and once the name of the executants of sale-deed dated 30.10.1969 ar