1. This appeal is filed by the plaintiffs against the judgment and decree dated 15.7.1998 passed by Additional District Judge, Gohad, District Behind in Civil Appeal No. 28/97, whereby learned Additional District Judge affirmed the judgment and decree of the trial Court dated 8.3.1997 by which suit of the plaintiffs was dismissed.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellants filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction in respect of an area of Survey No.3 714/2, 3718/2, 3718/3 and old Survey No. 3675 (New No. 3675/3) over an area of 4 Bigha and 9 Biswa of land situated at Gohad, District Bhind on the ground that the said land was in possession of Nathuram and Kashiram, father of appellant No. 1 and Uncle of appellant No.2. In Samvat 2007, the land was in possession of the father of appellant No. 1 and Uncle of appellant No.2. They purchased the land vide registered sale deed dated 21.9.1948 from the then Zamindar Gauri Shankar S/o Jwalaprasad for a sum of Rs. 1,200/- and thereafter, land was recorded as Khudkasht land of Nathuram and Kashiram.

3. The appellants case was that Khasra No. 3714/2, 3718/2 and 3718/3 were the Khudkasht of his father and Khasra No. 3675/3 was his own cultivated land. In the year 1954, the Patwari recorded Khasra No. 3718/1, 3718/2, area 1 Bigha as Khudkasht land and the rest as Grass land and recorded 2 Bigha out of Khasra No. 3714 in Samvat 2008 in the name of Kashiram, Nathuram. They filed an application under section 51 of the Madhya Bharat Land Revenue Tenancy Act (for short 'the Act') for correction of entries. The Additional Tahsildar vide order dated 27.7.1963 corrected the record in the name of Nathuram and Haribabu, adopted son of Kashiram. Subsequently, the Collector took up the matter in suo motu revision and served a notice upon the appellants to show cause why the aforesaid orders passed by the Tahsildar in their favour should not be set aside because the Tahsildar even under the provisions of section 51 of the Act was not empowered to make correction in the record and the Tahsildar had proceeded to pass an order in favour of the appellants without obtaining previous sanction of the Collector (Suba). The proceedings were initiated on the basis of a complaint made by the general public vide Case No. 114/65-66-A/68. The report initiated proceedings against Nathuram and Haribabu vide Case No. 297/68 and issued notices to them. After hearing them, the Collector set aside the order passed by the Tahsildar vide Ex. P-1. They challenged the said order by filing revision before the Additional Collector. Thereafter, second revision was filed before the Board of Revenue. The learned Board of Revenue confirmed the order on 29.5.1982. The appellants challenged the said proceedings by filing the present suit and prayed that they maybe declared as owners and title holders of the suit land on the basis of order dated 27.7.1963 passed by the Additional Tahsildar vide Ex. P-1.

4. The respondent-State denied the averments made in the plaint and in para 7 of the written statement averred that the Collector, Bhind received a complaint in the year 1965. He constituted a Committee who examined the matter and submitted its report vide Case No. 117/65-66-A/68 on27.7.1965. The Collector after receiving the said report initiated proceedings in exercise of powers conferred under section 50 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 (for short 'the Code') and issued notices to Nathuram and Haribabu and drew proceedings against them vide Case No. 297/67-68. The plaintiffs challenged the said proceedings by filing Civil Suit No. 70/72 and 60/72 in connivance with Nathuram and Haribabu. It is also averred that under section 51 of the Act, the Tahsildar was not empowered to make corrections in regard to land which was recorded as Government land and the Tahsildar had proceeded to pass an order in favour of the petitioner without obtaining the previous sanction of the Collector. With the above, the r