This is plaintiff's appeal. He lost in both the Courts below.

The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction. Parties are agreed that dispute is with regard to Survey No. 181 only. The case of the plaintiff was that he was owner of this Survey number and claims that a Patta was executed by his father Shyamlal in his favour.

The defendants contested the suit. Their plea was that in fact Shyamlal, father of the plaintiff had executed a Patta in favour of Chhutta, who is now represented by his legal representatives. According to him, the Patt.1 was given on 26th April, 1947, i.e. Samvat year 2004.

The Courts below came to the conclusion that the story put forward by the plaintiff that a Patta was executed by his father in his favour is not correct. While dealing with this aspect of the case the reasoning given was that Ex. P-11 was never acted upon. It was reasoned that had Patta been in existence then this should have been reflected in revenue-records. This did not happen till Samvat year 2007. The conclusion arrived at by the Courts below that story put up by the plaintiff is not correct, was rightly recorded.

The first appellate Court referred to the revenue entries of Samvat years 2011-2014 in which plaintiff was recorded as Pakka Tenant. Plaintiff also placed reliance on revenue record relating to Samvat period 2016-2019. It these, Chhutta was mentioned as a tenant. It may be seen that in revenue record for Samvat 2011-2014, name of Adityanath is mentioned as being in illegal possession. This entry is inconsistent with the stand taken by the plaintiff. The plaintiff was never claiming adverse possession or that his possession was unauthorised. In these circumstances, this entry cannot be relied upon. This entry does not represent the true state of affairs. The fact, however, remains that in Samvat 2011-2019 Chhutta, father of the respondents was shown to have been recorded as a Pakka Tenant.

The counsel for the appellant submits that reliance cannot be placed on Ex. D-1 because that does not indicate the survey numbers relating to which Patta was said to have been given. The reasoning given that this omission was deliberate and the purpose behind this was to cast a cloud on the title of Chhutta is sound. Chhutta was an illiterate person. The Courts below have come to a right conclusion that no advantage can be taken from this omission. The Courts below rightly came to a conclusion that Chhutta was given a Patta and he was in possession and was rightly recorded as a Pakka Krishak.

The learned counsel for the plaintiff stated that he wanted to bring on-record a sale-deed having a material bearing on the case. For this, he has filed an application under Order 41 Rule 27 C.P.C. in the first appellate Court. His contention was that the plaintiff sold Khasra No. 185. The argument advanced is that this property could not have been sold by him unless and until he was having some title over the land. It may be seen that the plaintiff was aware of this transaction but no evidence was led at the initial stage. This was rightly rejected. Even otherwise, this self-serving document can be of no assistance to the plaintiff.

The findings recorded by the Courts below are affirmed. This appeal is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.