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 30.10.1