1 2025:CGHC:55492 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SA No. 581 of 2016 Shiv Kumar Pandey S/o Late Lalaram Pandey, Aged About 60 Years R/o Village Girdhouna, Tahsil- Takhatpur, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh....Plaintiff ... Appellant versus Sitaram S/o Aghouri (Dead) Through Lrs. Nil. 1. - Fagni Bai (Deleted) As Per Hon'ble Court Order Dated. 12/03/2024. 2 - Ramkumar S/o Late Sitaram Sahu, Aged About 57 Years R/o Village Girdhouna, Tahsil Takhatpur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Tulsi Ram S/o Late Sitaram Sahu, Aged About 55 Years R/o Village Girdhouna, Tahsil Takhatpur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Chhotelal S/o Late Sitaram Sahu, Aged About 49 Years R/o Village Girdhouna, Tahsil Takhatpur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 5 - Tijram S/o Late Sitaram Sahu, Aged About 47 Years R/o Village Girdhouna, Tahsil Takhatpur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 6 - Vijay Sahu S/o Late Sitaram Sahu, Aged About 45 Years R/o Village Girdhouna, Tahsil Takhatpur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 7 - Smt. Durpati W/o Late Hariram Sahu, Aged About 50 Years R/o Village Girdhouna, Tahsil Takhatpur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 8 - Kamlesh S/o Late Hariram Sahu, Aged About 26 Years R/o Village Girdhouna, Tahsil Takhatpur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 9 - Surendra S/o Late Hariram Sahu, Aged About 24 Years R/o Village Girdhouna, Tahsil Takhatpur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 10 - Smt. Sadhna D/o Late Hariram Sahu, Aged About 21 Years R/o Village Girdhouna, Tahsil Takhatpur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 11 - Abhishek S/o Late Hariram, Aged About 16 Years (Minor) Through Natural VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Digitally signed by VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Date: 2026.01.09 18:08:02 +0530 2 Guardian Mother Durpati Bai W/o Late Hariram Sahu, R/o Village Girdhouna, Tahsil Takhatpur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 12 - State Of Chhattisgarh, Through- Collector Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ..................Defendants ... Respondents (Cause Title taken from Case Information System) For Appellant : Mr. Anand Shukla, Advocate For Respondents No. 2 to 11 : Mr. Saurabh Sahu, Advocate and Ms. Prachi Singh, Advocate For Respondent No.12/State : Mr. Aman Tamboli, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Judgment on Board 13/11/2025 1. The second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 has been filed by the plaintiff against the impugned judgment and decree dated 03.08.2016, passed by learned First Additional District Judge, Bilaspur, in Civil Appeal No. 59-A/2015, whereby the first appeal filed by the defendants has been partly allowed and the judgment and decree dated 17.03.2015, passed by learned Civil Judge Class-2, Takhatpur, District Bilaspur, in Civil Suit No. 31-A/2012 is partly set aside. 2. On an application made by the defendants under Section 152 of the CPC, the portion of “mRrjoknhx.k@izfroknhx.k dks Hkwfe [kljk ua- 369] jdck 0-15 ,dM+ dk LoRokf/kdkjh ,oa vkf/kiR;/kkjh ?kksf"kr fd;k tkrk gS” has been added in the impugned decree dated 03.08.2016 vide its order dated 30.11.2016, passed by learned First Additional District Judge, Bilaspur, in MJC No. 293 of 2016. 3 3. The second appeal is admitted on 20.06.2017 on the following substantial question of law:- “Whether the First Appellate Court was justified in reversing the finding of the trial Court by placing reliance upon revenue entries in arriving at a conclusion that the defendants are the owner of Kh. No. 369, area 0.15 acres of land?” 4. For the sake of convenience, the status of the parties shown in the suit are being referred to in the present appeal. 5. The plaintiff has filed a civil suit for declaration of his title, permanent injunction and vacant possession of the suit land bearing khasra No. 368, area 0.057 hectare situated at village Girdhouna, P.H. No. 19/30, Tahsil Takhatpur, District Bilaspur. He pleaded in the plaint that, with respect to the suit land, a ceiling case was proceeded between the then State of Madhya Pradesh and Pratap Kunwar W/o Gokul Prasad in Ceiling Case No. 801/A-90/1974-75 and vide order dated 25.02.1976, the suit land was ordered to be vested with the State Government and thereafter, legally allotted to the plaintiff by the competent authority and since then, plaintiff is in possession of the suit land. The defendant Nos. 1 to 3 started encroaching on the land of the plaintiff by putting bricks and building material, and akin to construct a house thereon. When the plaintiff tried to stop them, they became furious and did not stop their activities, and therefore, the civil suit was filed. 6. The defendants contested the claim of the plaintiff and filed their written statement, denied the plaint averments and pleaded that the defendants have been in possession of the suit land for more than 50 years, and their house and badi are situated thereon. Since their old house is in a 4 dilapidated condition, they collected the building material to renovate the old structure. The plaintiff himself has encroached on the adjoining land of khasra No. 369, area 0.06 hectare, by raising his construction. The suit land khasra No. 368, and the land of khasra No. 369 are adjoining, which has been purchased by the father of the defendant No.1 from Gokul Prasad in the year 1956, but in the revenue records, the name of defendant No.1 is recorded in khasra No. 369, whereas the suit land is khasra No. 368. It is also pleaded that the possession of the defendant No.1 over the suit land for 50 years is well within the knowledge of the brother of the plaintiff, namely Vishnu Prasad Pandey, but they have never raised any objection. The defendant No.1 has been dispossessed by the plaintiff and his brother Vishnu Prasad from the land of khasra No. 369, area 0.06 hectare, and in order to grab the land of both khasra numbers, i.e. 368 and 369, he filed the civil suit. It is also pleaded that the plaintiff was never in possession of the suit land, and it has been in possession of the defendants for more than 50 years. The plaintiff has not demarcated his land, and without identifying his land, he filed a suit on assumptions. It is reiterated that the defendants have purchased the suit land from Gokul Prasad through the registered sale deed dated 27.04.1956 and have been in possession of the same since then. The suit is not properly valued, and no proper court fee has been paid. No cause of action arose in favour of the plaintiff, and the suit is liable to be dismissed. 7. The defendants have also filed their counter claim under Order 8 Rule 6-A of the CPC for declaration of their title over the suit land khasra No. 368 and 369, area 0.14 acre and 0.15 acre, respectively, declaration of 5 their title over the suit land khasra No. 368 based on adverse possession, permanent injunction over both the suit land and for vacant possession of the land of khasra No. 369, area 0.15 acre from the plaintiff. In their counter claim, they pleaded that the suit land khasra No. 369, area 0.061 hectare, situated at village Girdhouna, Tahsil Takhatpur, District Bilaspur is presently recorded in the name of the plaintiff, but the defendants are in possession. Their house situated over the khasra No. 369 has collapsed; however, the plaintiff is in possession of the land khasra No. 369, which was recorded in the name of defendant No.1. Both these lands are adjoining. The land of khasra No. 369, area 0.061 hectare, was purchased by the father of the defendant No.1, namely Aghouri, from Gokul Prasad, through a registered sale-deed dated 27.04.1956 and came into possession. The land of khasra No. 369 was recorded in the name of Aghouri, but due to the negligence of the concerned halka patwari, his name could not be mutated. The suit land is self-acquired property of the father of the defendant No.1, in which, except the defendants, no one has title or any other claim. The defendant No.1 has not alienated the suit land to anyone by any mode of transfer, but the plaintiff, with the collusion of the revenue authorities, got the suit land mutated in his own name; therefore, he claimed vacant possession after demolishing the construction of the plaintiff from khasra No. 369. The defendants have also claimed title over both the suit lands and title over the land of khasra No. 368 by adverse possession. 8. The plaintiff has filed written statement of the counterclaim filed by the defendants No. 1 to 3, denied their claim and pleaded that the 6 defendants had purchased the land of khasra No. 368 through a registered sale-deed dated 27.04.1956, but they manipulated the sale- deed and the khasra No. 368 has been changed into khasra No. 369 by overwriting. Both the lands of khasra No. 368 and 369 are under the title and possession of the plaintiff. Over the land of khasra No. 369, the house of the plaintiff has been situated since 1954-55, where he has been residing with his family. He also reiterated the pleadings of the plaint that the land of khasra No. 368 was vested with the then State of Madhya Pradesh by the order dated 25.02.1976, passed in Ceiling Case No. 801/A-90/1974-75 and duly allotted to the plaintiff by the revenue authorities, and since then, he has been in possession of the same. The father of the defendant No.1 had purchased the land of khasra No. 368; however, with the collusion of the revenue authorities, he got his name mutated over the land of khasra No. 369. The defendants have no right or title over the suit land of khasra No. 369, which has been purchased by the father of the plaintiff in the year 1954- 55. The defendants are trying to dispossess the plaintiff by raising construction over the suit land, and then the suit was filed, and the defendants are restrained from interfering with the possession of the plaintiff over the suit land, and therefore, the defendants are not entitled to any relief claimed in the counterclaim. 9. Based on the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court has framed the following issues:- “1. क्या ቇኋम गिरधौना, तहसील तखतपुर ቝኌत वाद भूगिम खसीर नाबर 368 रकब 0.057 हक्टे!यार क वाद वात्वाधिधौकर ह? 2. क्या वाद उ्ሹ वादभूगिम क! सीबधौ म& या गिनाषे!धौሺኋ क) आሺኋगि+ ቚኋ+ करना! 7 क अधिधौकर ह? 3. क्या वाद उ्ሹ वादभूगिम क ቚኋगितवादण सी! रिर्ሹ आधिधौपुत्या पुना! क अधिधौकर ह? 4. क्या ቚኋगितवादण वादभूगिम खसीर नाबर 368 एवा खसीर नाबर 369 रकब कमशः2 0.14 एकड़ एवा 0.15 एकड़ क! वात्वाधिधौकर ह4? 5. क्या ቚኋगितवादण वादभूगिम खसीर नाबर 369 रकब 0.15 एकड पुर बना! मकना क6 त6ड़कर वाद सी! रिर्ሹ आधिधौपुत्या पुना! क अधिधौकर ह? 6. क्या ቚኋगितवादण वादभूगिम खसीर नाबर 368 एवा खसीर नाबर 369 क! सीबधौ म& या गिनाषे!धौሺኋ क) आሺኋगि+ ቚኋ+ करना! क! अधिधौकर ह4? 7. सीहयात एवा वाद व्याया?” 10. In support of his claim, the plaintiff has examined himself as PW-1, Shambhu Singh/PW-2 and Pappu Ram Singraul/PW-3 and relied upon the documents; B-1 Kishtbandi (exhibit P-1), Khasra Panchshala (exhibit P-2), Adhikar Abhilekh of the year 1954-88 (exhibit P-3), Sansodhan Panji of the year 1977 (exhibit P-4), photographs (exhibit P- 5 to P-12), the acknowledgment issued by Sub-Registrar, Bilaspur (exhibit P-13), application made under RTI (exhibit P-14), a receipt of PIO, office of Sub-Registrar, Bilaspur (exhibit P-15) and information disclosed under RTI (exhibit P-16), Mutation Register (exhibit P-17) and Khasra Panchshala (exhibit P-18). 11. The defendants have examined their witness Teejram Sahu/DW-1, Nigul Prasad/DW-2, Rambhau Sahu/DW-3 and relied upon the documents i.e. the information supplied by the office of Sub-Registrar, Takhatpur (exhibit D-1), certificate issued by the Sarpanch and villagers (exhibit D-2), affidavit of Chhannu Ram (exhibit D-3), affidavit of Santan (exhibit D-4), B-1 Kishtbandi (exhibit D-5), Khasra Panchshala (exhibit D-6), B-1 Kishtbandi (exhibit D-7), Khasra Panchshala (exhibit D-8 and D-9), Adhikar Abhilekh (exhibit D-10), Sansodhan Panji (exhibit D-11), 8 photographs (exhibit D-12, D-13 and D-14), sale-deed dated 27.04.1956 (exhibit D-15) and the complaint made to the police (exhibit D-16). 12. After considering the evidence led by the parties, the learned trial Court vide its judgment and decree dated 17.03.2015, dismissed the suit of the plaintiff and also dismissed the counter claim of the defendants by holding that both the parties have failed to prove their respective claims over the suit lands. 13. The plaintiff has challenged the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court against dismissal of his suit, before the learned First Appellate Court in Civil Appeal No. 61-A/2015. The defendants have also challenged the dismissal of their counterclaim before the learned First Appellate Court in Civil Appeal No. 59-A/2015. Both these first appeals filed by the respective parties were heard and decided together by the learned First Appellate Court and passed the judgment and decree on 03.08.2016, by which the appeal filed by the plaintiff (Civil Appeal No. 61-A/2015) is allowed and the appeal filed by the defendants (Civil Appeal No. 59-A/2015) is partly allowed. Learned First Appellate Court vide its judgment and decree dismissed the counter claim of the defendants with respect to the land of khasra No. 368, area 0.14 acre and held that the title of the plaintiff over the suit land is proved, then the defendants are the title and possession holders of the land khasra No. 369, area 0.15 acre. 14. Against the said judgment and decree dated 03.08.2016, passed by learned First Appellate Court, the plaintiff has filed the present second 9 appeal against partly allowing the counter claim of the defendants, by which their title and possession has been declared over the land of khasra No. 369, area 0.15 acre, and the second appeal is admitted on the substantial question of law as set out in the opening paragraph of this judgment. 15. The defendants have filed the SA No. 274 of 2021 against the judgment and decree passed by the learned First Appellate Court in Civil Appeal No. 61-A/2015, which has been dismissed on 19.12.2024, and the decree passed in favour of the plaintiff with respect to the title and possession holder of the suit land khasra No. 368, area 0.14 acre, is affirmed. 16. Learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff would submit that, the second appeal filed by the defendants bearing SA No. 274 of 2021 has been dismissed by the coordinate bench of this Court vide order dated 19.12.2024, and thus the judgment and decree passed by the learned First Appellate Court in Civil Appeal No. 61-A/2015 is affirmed. By the said judgment and decree dated 03.08.2016, passed in Civil Appeal No. 61-A/2015, the title and possession of the plaintiff is declared over the suit land khasra No. 368, area 0.14 acre of the suit land. There is no material produced by the defendants that the dismissal of SA No. 274 of 2021 is challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, and therefore, the finding of ownership and possession of the plaintiff over the land khasra No. 368, area 0.14 acre attained its finality. He would also submit that, in the present second appeal, the plaintiff has challenged the decree passed in favour of the defendants by the learned First Appellate Court in Civil Appeal No. 59-A/2015, whereby the defendants 10 have been declared the title and possession holder of the land of khasra No. 369, area 0.15 acre. He would further submit that, from the document (exhibit D-15), which is the copy of sale-deed executed by Gokul Prasad in favour of Aghouri, who is the father of defendant No.1, it is quite clear that, the father of the defendant No.1 had purchased the land of khasra No. 368, area 0.15 acre, but his name has been mutated in the revenue records over the land of khasra No. 369, which reflected from the revenue documents (exhibit D-5 to D-11). When the father of the plaintiff had purchased the land of khasra No. 368, he could not claim title over the land of khasra No. 369. There is no documentary evidence or deed of title in favour of the defendant No.1 that they acquired title over the land of khasra No. 369. Merely on the basis of the mutation of the defendant No.1 in the revenue records over the land of khasra No. 369, the learned First Appellate Court held him the title and possession holder of the said land. He would further submit that the mutation entries in the revenue records do not create or extinguish any title in favour of the person whose name is recorded in the revenue records, but they are only for fiscal purposes and to keep the record updated. Therefore, the impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned First Appellate Court suffer from perversity and illegality and are liable to be set aside. 17. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents No. 2 to 11 vehemently opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant and submits that the revenue entries are presumed to be correct unless they are rebutted. In the present case, the plaintiff is not able to rebut the presumption of correctness of the revenue entries 11 by producing any sufficient material and evidence that he acquired title over the suit land khasra No. 369. Except for the revenue entries in favour of the plaintiff also, there is no deed of any title, and the preponderance of probability goes in favour of the defendant No.1 that he is the title and possession holder of the said land of khasra No. 369. He would also submit that, the plaintiff has pleaded in his plaint as well as written statement of the counter claim that, the suit land of khasra No. 368 was vested with the then State of Madhya Pradesh by the order dated 25.02.1976 in the ceiling case and subsequently, it was allotted to the plaintiff by the revenue authorities and since then, he is in possession, but there is no document to that effect that the land of khasra No. 368 was actually allotted to him. Against the claim of khasra No. 368 of the plaintiff, the defendant No.1 has produced the registered sale-deed dated 27.04.1956, through which the land of khasra No. 368 was purchased by the father of defendant No.1, which is the deed of title of the defendant No.1. The lands of khasra No. 368 and 369 are adjoining and the plaintiff tried to take advantage creating a doubt over its identification, therefore, the judgment and decree passed by learned First Appellate Court is justified and the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 18. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records of the learned trial Court as well as First Appellate Court with utmost circumspection. 19. In the present case, the plaintiff has filed the suit claiming his title, injunction and possession over the suit land khasra No. 368, area 0.057 hectare, with the pleading that the land of khasra No. 368 was allotted to him by the revenue authorities after its vesting with the State 12 Government in a ceiling proceeding against Pratap Kunwar W/o Gokul Prasad. The defendants claimed that the father of defendant No.1, namely Aghouri had purchased the suit land khasra No. 369 from Gokul Prasad through a registered sale-deed dated 27.04.1956, and their names have been mutated in the revenue records. It is also the pleading of the defendants that the land of khasra No. 369 is possessed by the plaintiff by constructing the house and badi thereon, and the defendants are in possession of the land of khasra No. 368 for more than 50 years, which after its purchased through a registered sale-deed dated 27.04.1956 from Gokul Prasad. The defendants have prayed for the relief of a declaration of title in both the lands of khasra No. 368 and 369, and also claimed title over the land of khasra No. 368 by virtue of adverse possession and also claimed vacant possession over the land of khasra No. 369, area 0.15 acre. 20. One important fact in the case of both parties is that the suit of the plaintiff as well as the counterclaim of the defendants have been dismissed by the trial Court. Both of them have separately filed a first appeal before the learned First Appellate Court, in which the appeal filed by the plaintiff against dismissal of his suit (Civil Appeal No. 61-A/2015) is allowed, and he was declared the title and possession holder of the land khasra No. 368, area 0.14 acre on the basis of the revenue entries and preponderance of probability. The second appeal filed by the defendants against the judgment and decree passed in Civil Appeal No. 61-A/2015 is dismissed by the coordinate bench of this Court vide order dated 19.12.2024, passed in SA No. 274 of 2021 on the ground of limitation. Although no deed of title has been filed by the 13 plaintiff in support of his claim and his case also rests on the revenue entries. The document (exhibit D-15) shows that the land of khasra No. 368, area 0.15 acre is sold by Gokul Prasad to Aghouri, who is the father of defendant No.1 through registered sale-deed dated 27.04.1956, which is the deed of title in favour of the father of defendant No.1, yet the title of the said khasra No. 368 has been declared in favour of the plaintiff on the basis of the revenue entries. Though the father of defendant No.1 had purchased the land of khasra No. 368, his name has been recorded over the land of khasra No. 369. There is no deed of title in favour of the defendant No.1 with respect to khasra No. 369. The challenge by the defendants against the judgment and decree passed in Civil Appeal No. 61-A/2015 is dismissed in SA No. 274 of 2021. 21. One more aspect emerges in the case that the plaintiff has claimed the area of the land of khasra No. 368 as 0.057 hectares. The defendants have claimed in their written statement that the land of khasra No. 368 is having area of 0.14 acre and the land of khasra No. 369 is having area of 0.15 acre (0.061 hectare). In the sale-deed (exhibit D-15), the land of khasra No. 368 is having area of 0.15 acre and as per the pleadings of the parties, 0.15 acre is of the land khasra No. 369. From the pleadings of the defendants in the written statement as well as counterclaim, it transpires that they purchased the land of 0.15 acres and are in possession of the same, which is the land of khasra No. 369, though in the sale deed it is mentioned as khasra No. 368. It further transpires that there is a dispute of the identification of the land of khasra No. 368 and 369, as both the lands are adjoining and there is no 14 agreed map or any demarcation report. 22. The defendant No.1 claimed that his father purchased the land of khasra No. 369, area 0.15 acres, through a registered sale deed dated 27.04.1956 (Exhibit D-15). The name of his father was mutated in the revenue records over the land of khasra No. 369, area 0.15 acre and in the Sanshodhan Panji (exhibit D-11), the name of the father of defendant No.1 has been mutated on the basis of the said sale-deed dated 27.04.1956 and his possession is also mentioned in the said document. In the Adhikar Abhilekh (exhibit D-10), also, the name of the father of defendant No.1 is mutated over the land of khasra No. 369, area 0.15 acre, and thereafter, the said land of khasra No. 369, area 0.061 hectare, is recorded in the name of defendant No.1 in Khasra Panchshala and Kishtbandi B-1 (exhibit D-5 to D-9). Further, the possession of the defendant No.1 is shown in a sketch map prepared by the concerned Patwari (exhibit D-12) over the land of khasra No. 369. Against these documents of the defendants, the plaintiff has filed the revenue entries and the documents (exhibit P-1 and P-2), in which the land of khasra No. 368, area 0.057 hectare is recorded in his name. The land of khasra No. 368, area 0.14 acre was vested with the State Government of Madhya Pradesh vide order dated 25.02.1976 in Revenue Case No. 801/A-90/1974-75, and the entries have been made in the documents (exhibit P-3 and P-4), however, there is no document filed by the plaintiff that he acquired title over the land of khasra No. 369, area 0.15 acre. If the documents are tallied with its khasra number and area, it reflects that, the father of defendant No.1 had purchased 0.15 acre of land, which has been mutated in the revenue records as 15 khasra No. 369, though the sale-deed shown khasra No. 368, whereas the 0.14 acre of land is recorded under khasra No. 368, and from the document (exhibit P-17), it has been mentioned that after vesting with the State Government, it was allotted to the plaintiff i.e. the land of khasra No. 368, area 0.14 acre. It further transpires that, in the document (exhibit P-18), the 0.15 acre of land consists of khasra No. 369, which is recorded in the name of Aghouri, who is the father of defendant No.1. 23. Since, the defendants have claimed both the lands of khasra No. 368, area 0.14 acre and khasra No. 369, area 0.15 acre, but they have the deed of title with respect to the land of 0.15 acre, which is recorded in the revenue records as khasra No. 369, though the sale-deed shows its khasra No. 368. The plaintiff has no document of his ownership over the 0.15 acre of land, either of khasra No. 368 or 369. The land of khasra No. 368, area 0.14 acre, has already been decided in favour of the plaintiff that he is the title and possession holder over the said land of khasra No. 368, area 0.14 acre. 24. It is nobody’s case that the land of khasra No. 368, having 0.29 acre, out of which the plaintiff was allotted 0.14 acres by the revenue authorities after vesting it with the State Government, and the remaining 0.15 acres of land was sold by Gokul to Aghori. It is also nobody’s case that any third person is claiming over the land of khasra No. 369, area 0.15 acre, or the plaintiff is claiming that the land of khasra No. 369, area 0.15 acre, was also allotted to him by the revenue authorities. Though the plaintiff claimed in the written statement of the counterclaim that, after purchase of the land of khasra No. 369, area 0.15 acre, he 16 constructed a house and was residing thereon, however, there is no deed or title in favour of the plaintiff with respect to the land of khasra No. 369, area 0.15 acre. 25. From the overall consideration upon the evidence produced by the parties, the preponderance of probability goes in favour of the defendant No.1 that, his father had in fact purchased the land of khasra No. 369, area 0.15 acre and he came into possession of the same and accordingly his name was also mutated in the revenue records, which continued till the filing of the suit. The plaintiff has nothing in his favour with respect to the title or possession over the said land of khasra No. 369, area 0.15 acre. The respective claims of both parties are based on the entries made in the revenue records, and in addition to that, the sale-deed is there in favour of the defendant No.1 with respect to 0.15 acre of land, though its khasra number is disputed, but no any third claim is there. In such a state of evidence, the preponderance of probability is in favour of the defendant No.1 that he has acquired title over the land of khasra No. 369, area 0.15 acre. 26. In the matter of “Pratap Singh (dead), through Legal Representatives and others v. Shiv Ram (dead), through Legal Representatives” 2020 (11) SCC 242, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has considered the presumption of correctness of the entries made in the record of rights. Though it is a rebuttable presumption, until it is rebutted, the same can be presumed as correct. In para 21 of its judgment, it has been held that:- “21. This Court in Vishwa Vijai Bharti v. Fakhrul Hasan, (1976) 3 SCC 642 held that the entries in the revenue 17 record ought to be generally accepted at their face value and courts should not embark upon an appellate inquiry into their correctness. But the presumption of correctness can apply only to genuine, not forged or fraudulent entries. This Court held as under: “14. It is true that the entries in the revenue record ought, generally, to be accepted at their face value and courts should not embark upon an appellate inquiry in to their correctness. But the presumption of correctness can apply only to genuine, not forged or fraudulent, entries. The distinction may be fine but it is real. The distinction is that one cannot challenge the correctness of what the entry is the revenue record states but the entry is open to the attack that it was Made fraudulently or surreptitiously. Fraud and forgery rob a document of all its legal effect and cannot found a claim to possessory title.”” 27. In the present case, learned First Appellate Court has considered that, in the rebuttal of the documents filed by the defendants, the plaintiff has not filed any document and the documents filed by the defendants demonstrated their title and possession over the suit land khasra No. 369, area 0.15 acre and has declared title and possession holder of the suit land khasra No. 369, area 0.15 acre in favour of the defendants. 28. Be that as it may, from the pleadings of the parties, their evidence and documents produced by them in support of their respective claims, it appears that the plaintiff is claiming his title and possession over the land of Kh. No. 368 area 0.14 Acres, but in fact, he is in possession of the land, which could be the land of Kh. No. 369, area 0.15 Acres. Although he does not have any deed of title and only mutation entries are in his favour, the fact remains that Second Appeal No. 274/2021, 18 filed by the defendant, has been dismissed, though it is dismissed on the ground of limitation. Vice versa, the defendant is claiming title and possession over the land of Kh. No. 369 area 0.15 Acres, but he is in possession of the land, which could be the land of Kh. No. 368 area 0.14 Acres. The defendant is claiming the land of Kh. No. 369, which has been mutated in his name in the revenue records, but the deed of title (Ex. D-15) in favour of the defendant bears the land of Kh. No. 368. Both parties are claiming title and possession of each other's land, and the issue cannot be adjudicated without there being any proper identification of the land over which the parties are in possession at present. 29. The plaintiff's claim is over the land of Kh. No. 368 area 0.14 acres, for which the decree has been passed in his favour by the learned first appellate Court. He might not have any grievance against the declaration of title and possession in favour of the defendant over the land of Kh. No. 369 area 0.15 acres, yet he challenged the decree passed in favour of the defendant. Therefore, the actual physical possession of the parties over the respective lands as claimed by them was required to be ascertained before passing the decree by the learned first appellate Court. 30. The plaintiff is not claiming his title and possession of the land of Kh. No. 369. His suit is with respect to the land of Kh. No. 368 area 0.14 acre and not for Kh. No. 369 area 0.15 acre. Therefore, he and the defendant, as well, cannot benefit from both the lands of Kh. No. 368 and 369. The learned first appellate court should have determined whether the parties are in possession of their respective lands or not by 19 calling the demarcation report from the concerned revenue authorities, and then to decide the issue. Both the first appeals filed by the respective appellants have been decided by the first appellate Court on the basis of the entries in the revenue records. 31. Order 41 Rule 33 of the CPC gives power to the appellate Court to pass any decree or order as the case may require, notwithstanding that the appeal is as to part only of the decree and may be exercised in favour of all or any of the parties, although such parties may not have filed any appeal or objection against such decree. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of "Choudhary Sahu (Dead) by LRs. v. State of Bihar" 1982 (1) SCC 232, held in para 12 and 13 that :- “12. The object of this rule is to avoid contradictory and inconsistent decisions on the same questions in the same suit. As the power under this rule is in derogation of the general principle that a party cannot avoid a decree against him without filing an appeal or cross-objection, it must be exercised with care and caution. The rule does not confer an unrestricted right to re-open decrees which have become final merely because the Appellate Court does not agree with the opinion of the court appealed from. 13. Ordinarily, the power conferred by this rule will be confined to those cases where as a result of interference in favour of the appellant further interference with the decree of the lower court is rendered necessary in order to adjust the rights of the parties according to justice, equity and good conscience. While exercising the power under this rule the Court should not lose sight of the other provisions of the Code itself nor the provisions of other laws, viz., the Law of the Limitation or the Law of Court Fees etc.” 32. Recently, in the matter of "Satya Prakash Dwivedi v. Munna alias 20 Chandrabhan Yadav and Others", 2025 (5) SCC 525, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that :- “12. Upon a plain reading of Order 41 Rule 33 CPC, it reveals that the appellate court has the power to pass any decree or order which ought to have been passed, and to pass such other decree or order as the case may require. Notwithstanding that the appeal is against a part of the decree, this power may be exercised by the court in favour of all or any of the respondents although such respondent may not have filed any appeal or objection. However, the said power must be exercised with caution or circumspection, particularly, in the absence of there being any cross-objection or appeal filed by the respondents. Such a power has to be exercised in exceptional cases when its non- exercise will lead to difficulties in the adjustment of rights of the parties. 13. The aforesaid Rule does not confer unrestricted rights to interfere with decrees which are not assailed merely because the appellate court does not agree with the opinion of the court appealed from. It is the duty of the appellate court to decide the appeal in accordance with law. The appellate court must apply its judicial mind to the evidence as a whole while deciding a case and a judgment on merits should not be lightly interfered with or reversed purely on technical grounds unless it has resulted in failure of justice.” 33. Considering the entire facts of the case and evidence available on record, and while exercising the power of Order 41 Rule 33 of CPC, this Court is of the opinion that the matter needs to be remitted back to the learned First Appellate Court to ascertain the possession of the respective parties over the subject land as per their claim, by calling the demarcation report from the concerned revenue authorities and after giving opportunity of hearing to the parties, decide the appeal in 21 accordance with law. 34. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the appellant is allowed. The impugned judgment and decree dated 03-08-2016, passed by the learned first appellate court in Civil Appeal No. 59-A/2015, is set aside. The matter is remitted back to the learned first appellate Court to decide the first appeal No. 59-A/2015 afresh, after calling the report from the concerned revenue authorities with respect to possession of the parties over their respective lands and ascertaining their possession over their respective lands, and to give a proper opportunity of hearing to the parties, keeping in view of the provisions of Order 41 Rule 23, 23-A and 25 of the CPC, in accordance with law. 35. Parties to bear their own cost(s). Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge ved