The court affirmed that mere entries in revenue records do not confer ownership, and concurrent findings of fact by lower courts should not be disturbed without substantial questions of law.

ORAL ORDER

1. The present appeal is filed challenging the judgment and order dated 15.12.2007 passed by the Additional District Judge and Presiding Officer, 1st Fast Track Court, Mehsana in Regular Civil Appeal No.7 of 2005, vide the said judgment and order, the Court was pleased to dismiss the appeal against the judgment and decree passed by the Joint Civil Judge, Kadi, Dist: Mehsana in R.C.S. No.143 of 2001 dated 30.12.2004.

2. Brief facts of the case are as under:

2.1 The appellant along with his brothers is the owner and possessor of the agricultural land at Village Rajpur, Taluka Kadi bearing Survey No.1039 admeasuring 1 Hectare 28 Are 49 Sq. Mtrs. as an ancestral property and thus, is in actual possession of the property and is cultivating the land since more than 45 years without any objection whatsoever from any person. About half of the land was acquired by highway authorities in 1984 and the balance land remained with the appellant. The Respondent nos.1 to 4 are remotely related to the appellant, respondent no.5 is the uncle of the appellant. The respondent no.6 had purchased the land from Respondent no.4 and 5 under the impression that they are the real owners of the land.

2.2 The appellant happened to obtain copy of Village Form 7/12 of the land of survey no.1039 on or about 09-10-2001 and came to learn that his name was missing from the same. Further that the name of the respondent Nos.4 & 5 were entered into fraudulently and the land property was conveyed to respondent No.6 by making false representation. However, the respondent no.6 was never put into possession of the land as the sellers were not in possession.

2.3 The land of Survey No.1039 was originally owned by Dabhi Chenaji and thereafter devolved into Dabhi Amraji Visaji since prior to 1961. Thereafter, there was a partition among the legal heirs of Amraji and himself. Accordingly, the land of Survey No.1039 came to be devolved in the name of his son namely Dabhi Pratapji Amraji, who became the owner by way of succession after demise of Dabhi Amraji Visaji on 23-09-1954. After partition among the heirs of great grand father Dabhi Chenaji referred above, Dabhi Punjaji and his successors had no right whatsoever in the said property and his successors were never in possession or custody of the same. The said fact is supported by the village Mutation Entry no.3778. Surprisingly, the names of successors of Dabhi Punjaji namely Dabhi Laxmanji Galabji and his legal heirs came to be entered into Village form no.6 in respect of the said land in question without any notice or knowledge to the real owners and possessors vide Mutation Entry No.7271 dt. 08-03-1988 and Entry No.7558 dated 25-01-1989. Respondent nos. 1/1 to 1/4 Jivuba w/o. Laxmanji, Kishorsinh, Dipaji, Laduba(Bakuba) and Lilaben waived their right over the said land by Mutation Entry No.7559 dt.25-01-1989. Name of Respondent No.5 Natuji Amraji was entered by way of Entry No.7564 dated 25-01-1989 by referring to some partition among brothers and all the mutation entries were recorded and certified on the same day.

2.4 The land was never in possession/ownership of Modaji and/or Natuji which can be seen from the pedigree of Mr. Chenaji Dabhi (Deceased). Pursuant to the fraudulent entries in the village record, R.T.S. Case No.6 of 1993 came to be filed by the State of Gujarat against the respondent Nos.2 to 5 wherein the competent authority categorically held that the name of the respondent No.5 herein was entered wrongly though he was not a co-parcener or in succession and accordingly was pleased to cancel the Mutation Entry No.7564 vide order dated 25-08-1998. The respondents have not challenged the said order so far. While the land was in custody and ownership of the appellants, the Respondent Nos. 4 & 5 sold the land to the Respondent No.6 without any right title or interest therein. The Mutation Entry No.8864 was consequent to the sale of the land in question to Respondent No.6, which was illegal.

2.5 It is e