1. The appellant has filed this second appeal under section 100 of CPC against judgment and decree dated 22.10.2010 passed by learned Vth Additional District Judge in Civil Appeal No. 25-A/10 confirming the judgment dated 17.8.2010 passed in Civil Suit No. 13-A/09 by learned 6th Civil Judge, Class II, Gwalior, MP.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff/appellant has filed a suit for declaration of title cum Bhumiswami and permanent injunction in respect of survey No. 1822, 1823 total area 2 bigha 1 biswa situated in city Gwalior on the ground that the suit land was recorded in the name of Shri Jagmohan Singh who was father of appellant. On the date of abolition of Zamindari, the entry of appellant’s father’s name was continued in the name of father of appellant till Samvat 2013.Thereafter, the entry was changed without giving notice to late Shri Jagmohan Singh and no opportunity of hearing was given to him. The Bhumiswami right were confirmed that father of Jagmohan Singh and thereafter on appellant/plaintiff by virtue of Madhya Bharat Land Revenue Tenancy Act that father of appellant was pacca Maurisi tenant at the time of abolition of Jagiris and after coming into force of MP Land Revenue Code, he has become Bhumiswami.

3. The defendants in their written statement admitted that the disputed land was Raitwari land in Samvat 1997 and denied all the allegations by mentioning that no tenancy right is accrued ot late Shri Jagmohan Singh when he was in Khudkast on 2.10.1951, when the Zamindari was abolished.

4. Learned trial Court by impugned judgment and decree dismissed the suit by holding that it has not been proved that plaintiff has acquired Bhumiswami rights by virtue of possession having possession over the suit land. It is further held that defendants have not tried to dispossess the plaintiff illegal. The appeal filed against the impugned judgment and decree was also dismissed. Therefore, the appellant has filed this appeal.

5. Appellant has filed this appeal on the ground that judgment and decree passed by both the Courts below are absolute contrary to law and suffers from non consideration of legal position as involved in the matter. The findings of both the Courts below are perverse.

6. The following substantial questions of law has been framed by this Court vide order dated 7.5.2011.

“(I) Whether both the Courts below erred in disbelieving the documents of Khasra entries Ex.P-1 to Ex/P-5 whereby father of the plaintiff and thereafter plaintiff has acquired “Bhumiswami” rights under the provisions of MP Land Revenue Code, 1959 and overlooking the provisions of section 117 of MP Land Revenue Code 1959?”

Detailed discussion

7. Learned counsel for the appellant has drawn attention towards the statement of plaintiff witnesses regarding possession over the suit land since before coming into force of MB Land Revenue and Tenancy Act which was supported by khasra entries of Samvat of the year 1951 in which land has been recorded in the ownership as Raitwari Samvat 2008 and name of Jagmohan Singh has been recorded in column No. 5 cultivator (krishak), who is shown as Maurishi. The khasra entries are Exhibit P-1. In Khasra entries of year 1941, the same entry has been shown as Exhibit P-2, Thereafter, the same entry continued till in khasra entries of 2009 and 2010 Exhibit P-3 and khasra entries of 2010 to 2014 Exhibit P-4. It is further submitted that in khasra entries of Samvat 2019, name of Jagmohan Singh has been shown in column No. 10 by mentioning his illegal possession on suit land (Exhibit P-5) and same entry continued in the khasra entries of Samvat 2010 to 2023 Exhibit P-6, khasra entries of Samvat 2024, Exhibit P-7, khasra entries of 2034 P-8, khasra entries of Samvat 2040 Exhibit P-9.

8. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that learned trial Court by paragraph of impugned judgment relied on the documents Exhibit P-1(C) to Exhibit P-3 (C) on the ground that those certified copies are