JUDGMENT

Nanavutty, J - This is a defendants' appeal against an appellate judgment and decree of the learned District Judge of Sitapur upholding the judgment and decree of the Honorary Assistant Collector of Sitapur. This case arises out of a suit for profits brought by the plaintiff Bhudar Singh in respect of village Saraura for the years 1336 Fasli to 1338 Fasli. The trial Court held that although the name of Salik Ram was entered in the khewat as the owner of 2 bighas 9 biswas of cultivated land in the village in suit, he really had no right to the ownership of that land since Ramshar Bakhsh Singh, through whom Salik Ram claims the land in suit, did not have any land left in the village to sell to Salik Ram at the time when the sale deed in favour of the latter was executed, namely, on 20th March 1925. A sum of Rs. 8, which Salik Ram is said to have realized from a tenant of the land, was therefore decreed in favour of the plaintiff to make up the deficiency in his share of the profits. Salik Ram appealed, but the learned District Judge upheld the decision of the trial Court and dismissed the appeal. Salik Ram came to this Court in second appeal, and, by his order dated 8th December 1933, the late Hon'ble Chief Judge of this Court remanded the case to the lower appellate Court under Order 41, Rule 23, Civil P.C., for the decision in the light of the observations made by him.

2. The learned District Judge on remand again took the view that, though Salik Ram is recorded as a co-sharer in the village to the extent of 2 bighas 9 biswas of land and mutation has been effected in his favour on the basis of the sale deed by Rameshar Bakhsh Singh, yet the sale deed conferred no rights whatsoever on Salik Ram because Rameshar Bakhsh Singh had no right left in the village which he could sell, and therefore the sale deed as well as the order of mutation in favour of Salik Ram were nullities and worthless. The learned District Judge has held that the fact of a wrong entry in the khewat can be no justification for giving effect to a sale deed which is found to be void. Salik Ram has appealed against this decision, and on his behalf his learned Counsel has argued that it was not open to the Honorary Assistant Collector of to the learned District Judge to question the entry in the khewat showing Salik Ram as owner of 2 bighas 9 biswas of land in the village in question, and in support of his contention a ruling reported in Gajadhar Singh v. Har Prasad AIR 1926 Oudh 462 has been cited, in which it was held that it was sufficient for the plaintiff, in order to establish his title for the share of profits, to prove that his name stood recorded in the khewat, and that the Revenue Court need not go behind the entries in the revenue papers in deciding the case.

3. He has also cited a Full Bench decision of the Allahabad High Court reported in Durga Prasad v. Hazari Singh (1911) 33 All 799, in which it was held by five learned Judges of the Allahabad High Court that in a suit instituted under the provisions of the Agra Tenancy Act (which are analogous to the Oudh Rent Act) where the plaintiff is recorded as having proprietary title entitling him to institute a suit, the revenue Court is not competent to go behind the record and receive evidence and itself try the question of proprietary title. I am in entire agreement with this Full Bench decision of the Allahabad High Court. In the present case the lower Courts were not competent to enter into the question of the validity of the title of Salik Ram under the sale deed or to question the correctness of the entry in the khewat showing Salik Ram as owner of the 2 bighas 9 biswas of the cultivated land. That being my view of the matter, this appeal must succeed. I accordingly allow this appeal, set aside the judgment and decree of the lower appellate Court, and modify the judgment and decree of the trial Court to this extent that I dismiss the plaintiff's suit as against Salik Ram. The appellant Sali