Applicants are advised to review Article 188 Supreme Court verdict so that no error can be identified at the record level of the revised decision, however, they submitted that This is a case of extreme prisoners. The Supreme Court was opposed, however, in the interest of justice once again the record was looked at and no error / error or illegality was found in the judgment which is reviewed, in the present case, the case entered into the year 1937. Was made; while the declaration and possession case was established on the transfer of 26 3 1994, the forerunner of the applicant was aware of the transaction of exchange, he himself entered into mutation on 3 7 1937 which was confirmed 8 6 1939. Occurred in the presence of both parties. The transfer survived until 1990, but no lawsuit was ever brought in to challenge its transfer authorization. The physical possession of the property changed hands in 1939. The transfer survived until 1949 and, despite this, the applicant's predecessor remained satisfied and quiet for 53 years. The person belonging to another village had been in physical possession of his former property in the village, therefore, in front of him, was the suit established by the applicant, who was the legal heir of the said transfer, on 26 3 1994. Hopefully a timely revision request was dropped
