JUDGMENT H.S. Thakur, J.—The appellant has preferred this second appeal against the decree and judgment passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Solan and Sirmur Districts, affirming the decree and judgment passed by the Subordinate Judge 1st Class, Nalagarh 2. A few facts relevant for the decision of the appeal may be stated. The appellant filed a suit for permanent injunction alleging that he was owner in possession of the land in suit and that the respondents were threatening to interfere in his possession. It may be pointed out at the outset that respondent No. 1 has admitted that he had been dispossessed by the appellant and on that account he has not appeared in the Court to defend the appeal. The appeal is now limited to the dispute between the appellant and respondent No. 2, Shri Bachan Singh. The suit was resisted by the respondents on the ground that they were in possession of the land as tenants. The Courts below have come to the conclusion that respondent No. 2 is a tenant of the land in dispute. 3. On the pleadings of the parties, the trial court framed the following issues : (1) Whether the plaintiff is owner in possession of the suit land ? OPP (2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief as prayed for ? OPP (3) Whether the defendant No. 2 is in possession of the suit land as tenant as alleged ? OPD (4) Whether the defendant No. 1 is also in possession as tenant, if issue No. 2 is not proved ? OPD (5) Relief. 4. The main contention of the appellant is that the courts below have wrongly come to the conclusion that respondent No. 2 holds the status of a tenant under the appellant. The appellant has vehemently challenged this finding. It is contended by him that the courts below have overlooked and in fact not considered the relevant entries in the revenue record. It is emphasised by the appellant that there is a presumption of truth attached to the entries in the revenue record and convincing evidence is necessary to be produced to negative the presumption attached to such entries. It is also contended that the courts below have not even properly appreciated the oral evidence. It is pointed out that the receipts Ex. It is also contended that the courts below have not even properly appreciated the oral evidence. It is pointed out that the receipts Ex. DA to DC, in token of the payment of rent do not pertain to the land in suit but to a different land. It is contended by Shree A.K. Goel, learned counsel for respondent No. 2, that the courts below have come to a conclusion that respondent No. 2 is the tenant of the land in dispute. On this account, it is contended that there being concurrent finding of fact on this vital question, such a finding cannot be disturbed in second appeal He has referred to a decision in Karnail Singh v. Pala Singh and another, [1983 PLR 567]. In this judgment, it has been held that wherein a suit for permanent injunction filed by the plaintiff restraining the defendant from interfering with his possession of the suit land had been dismissed by the courts below after concurrently holding that he was never in possession of the suit land, the said finding being a finding of fact based on appreciation of evidence on the record could not be interfered with in second appeal. Mr. Goel has also drawn my attention to a decision in Pandurang Jivaji Apte v. Ramchandra Gangadhar Ashtekar, [AIR 1981 SC 2235]. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in this judgment have observed that the findings of fact recorded by the two courts below are final and cannot be normally set aside by the second appellate court. He has further referred to Section 104, sub-section (4) of the Himachal Pradesh Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972, It is provided under the said section that whenever a dispute arises whether a person cultivating land of a land-owner is tenant or not, the burden of proving that such a person is not a tenant of the land owner shall be on the latter. 5. A perusal of the judgments of the courts below shows that they have not referred to the revenue entries as contained in Ex P. 1 (jamabandi for the year 1974-75) and Ex. P. 2 (khasra-girdawari). 5. A perusal of the judgments of the courts below shows that they have not referred to the revenue entries as contained in Ex P. 1 (jamabandi for the year 1974-75) and Ex. P. 2 (khasra-girdawari). It may be clarified that entries in jamabandi fall within the zone of record-of-rights and a presumption of truth is attached thereto, whereas entries in khasra-girdawari do not fail within the description of record-of-rights but they constitute a relevant fact under Section 35 of the Evidence Act, since they are recorded by a public servant in the discharge of his official duty. So far as Section 104, sub-section (4) of the Himachal Pradesh Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972 is concerned, the same shall only apply if it is definitely proved that a person h cultivating land of a landowner which fact can reasonably be ascertained from the entries in the revenue record. These entries show the appellant as an owner in possession of the land in dispute. In this background, the other evidence on record has to be examined whether the said entries have been properly rebutted or not. The appellant has examined P.W. 1 Shri Kartar Singh, who is a lambardar. He has stated that the appellant is the owner with possession of the land in dispute. In his cross-examination, he has stated that the appellant keeps on going to Delhi and his mother cultivates the land. He has, however, stated that since one year he is not keeping bullocks. He has further asserted that his mother was keeping bullocks 9. Looking at the evidence on record, I am convinced that the courts below have failed to take into consideration the entries as reflected in Ex. P. I and P. 2 (jamabandi for the year 1974-75 and khasra-girdawari for Kharif 1975 and Rabi 1976). It is settled law that presumption of truth is attached to the entries in the revenue record and to rebut such a presumption convincing and reliable evidence is required. A perusal of the oral evidence also produced by the parties shows that the evidence produced by the appellant is more convincing than the evidence produced by the respondents. All the same, assuming that even if the oral evidence is evenly balanced, the reliance has to be placed on the entries in the revenue record. A perusal of the oral evidence also produced by the parties shows that the evidence produced by the appellant is more convincing than the evidence produced by the respondents. All the same, assuming that even if the oral evidence is evenly balanced, the reliance has to be placed on the entries in the revenue record. have no hesitation in observing that the courts below have not considered the evidence on record in accordance with the settled principles of the appreciation of evidence. In fact, the entries in the revenue record have been kept out of consideration while coming to the conclusion that respondent No. 2 is a tenant of the land in dispute. It may be pointed out that it is the official duty of the revenue officials to make entries at the time of the inspection of crops, in the khasra-girdawari. The respondents have not produced any such entries. On the contrary, Ex. P. 1 and P. 2 apparently show that the appellant has been in possession of the land in dispute. The respondent No. 2 has produced receipts Ex. DA, DB and DC in token of the alleged payment of Chakauta at the rate of Rs. 50, In the said receipts, the description of the land has not been given. As pointed out earlier above, the respondent No. 1 has stated that he was paying ‘Chakauta of Rs. 200 whereas, according to him, the Ghakauta should have been Rs. 800. If it is so, it cannot be believed that the appellant could have given the land in dispute to respondent No. 2 on a Chakauta of Rs. 50 only. 10. The net result of the above discussion is that the appellant is in possession as an owner of the land in dispute and the respondent No. 2 is not settled as a tenant of the said land. From the facts and circumstances as they appear from the record, respondent No. 2 has been most probably threatening the appellant to take forcible possession of the land in dispute on the basis of the alleged receipts Ex. DA, DB and DC, under the pretext that the said receipts related to the land in dispute. As such, the appellant is entitled to the relief of injunction as prayed for by him. 11. It is desirable to consider the contention of Mr. DA, DB and DC, under the pretext that the said receipts related to the land in dispute. As such, the appellant is entitled to the relief of injunction as prayed for by him. 11. It is desirable to consider the contention of Mr. A.K. Goel, learned counsel for respondent No. 2, that this Court may not disturb the concurrent finding of both the courts below that the respondent No. 2 is a tenant of the land in dispute. It is true that normally this Court will not in second appeal disturb a concurrent finding of fact. However, 1 am of the view that where the lower court ignores material evidence with respect to the fact in issue, its finding can be interfered with even in second appeal. As pointed out earlier above, the courts below have completely ignored the entries in the revenue record which carry the presumption of truth. Such a presumption has not been rebutted by the respondent. 12. In the alternative, it is contended by Mr. Goel that in case the courts below have failed to consider the material evidence, it is in the interest of justice that the matter be remanded to the trial court for fresh decision with a direction that the evidentiary value of the entries in the revenue record be considered. I am not inclined to agree to this suggestion. The parties have led their evidence and the same has been thoroughly considered by me. 13. In view of the foregoing discussion and reasons, I have no alternative but to set aside the decree and judgment passed by the lower appellate court affirming the decree and judgment of the trial court and to allow the appeal with costs. Consequently, the appeal is allowed with costs and the suit as filed by the appellant/plaintiff is decreed. Appeal allowed.