( 1. ) PLAINTIFFS legal representatives are the appellants. He had succeeded in trial Court but he lost in the Court below.

( 2. ) THE suit for declaration of title admittedly is based on sale-deed, Ex. P-1, executed by Second Respondent, Udayabhan who, according to the plaintiff, being recorded as gair Maurusi tenant in Khasra Ex. PD-2, for Samvat 2007, could validly confer tide on him, The lower appellate Court, in reversing the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, held that there was discrepancy in survey numbers in the different Khasras produced in the case which was reflected in the sale-deed vitiating plaintiffs claim. Therefore, it was firstly held the Plaintiffs suit being not for rectification of the sale-deed, he could not pray for declaration. Secondly, it was held, udayabhans title based on his tenancy right was not proved because no rent receipts were proved in the case.

( 3. ) GOVERNMENT Advocate, Shri J. S. L. Sinha, with his usual vigour and vehemence, supported the impugned judgment and decree. He has drawn my attention to Section 6 of the Zamindari Abolition Act, for short, Z. A. Act, and Section 257 of the m. P. Land Revenue Code, for short, the