' The petitioners through this civil revision have assailed the orders of the First Appellate Court dated 3-12-1995 by virtue of which the suit filed by the present petitioners for declaration and possession, which had been decreed by the trial Court in their favour, was dismissed.
2. The facts in brief are that the petitioners/plaintiff's predecessor-in-interest Gothi filed a suit for declaration that in accordance with the Revenue Record he is owner in possession of the suit property detailed in the headnote of the plaint and remained so till 1981-1982 and when the consolidation proceedings were effected in the village his name was deleted from the Revenue Record and consequently the later entries in the Revenue Record are of no legal value, as such prayed for declaration with regard to his ownership and possession. The respondents/defendants contested the suit on various grounds including the ground that the plaintiffs are not in possession of the property; that the defendants are in possession of the property as their predecessor-in- interest had purchased the suit property from the predecessor-in-interest of the present plaintiff in the year 1939 and for this purpose a Mutation No,2942 was attested on 5-11-1939. The trial Court, on the pleadings of the parties. Framed the following issues:--
(1) Whether the plaintiff is owners in possession of the 1/4th share of the disputed property and are against facts and law? OPP.
(2) Whether the defendants Nos.1 to 9 have matured their right over the disputed property through adverse possession? OPD.
(3) Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action? OPD.
(4) Relief.
' The parties were given an opportunity of hearing and the trial Court 1-3-1990 decreed the suit in favour of Gothi. The predecessor-in-interest of the present petitioners. The respondents/defendants filed an appeal before the First Appellate Court fromwhere their appeal was accepted vide judgment dated 13-12-1995. Resultantly the judgment and decree of the trial Court was set aside and the suit of the predecessor-in-interest of the present petitioners was dismissed. The petitioners feeling themselves aggrieved have filed the present revision petition.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties. The perusal of the record reveals that the only question worth consideration is whether the predecessor-in-interest of the present petitioners was the owner of the property or whether the respondents/defendants are owner of the property by way of alleged purchase effected in 1939 in their favour and if so whether the petitioners are entitled to the relief of declaration and injunction claimed for and analyzing the material available on record and the judgments of both the Courts below the verbal evidence remains of no value in presence of a Mutation No,2942 dated 5-11-1939, which stands attested in favour of the respondents/defendants with regard to the same property as having been purchased by them from the predecessor-in-interest of the present petitioners. Apart from it no evidence verbal or documentary had been made available that the abovesaid mutation was attested forgedly and fabricatedly and it was against the facts and property in question was never transferred in favour of the respondents. The plaintiffs also did not claim any relief for the purpose of setting aside of the mutation after declaring it as having been executed by way of collusiveness or fraud or otherwise being not maintainable.
4. In view of the above discussion, the judgment of the First Appellate Court as a result of which the suit of the predecessor-ininterest, of the present petitioners was dismissed does not suffer from any illegality or material irregularity and neither any case of non-reading or misreading of evidence on record is established, as such the present revision petition is without any substance or force and is dismissed accordingly.