JUDGMENT Devinder Gupta, J. - This is plaintiffs Second Appeal against the judgment and decree passed on June 22, 1981, by District Judge, Hamirpur and Una Districts at Una, dismissing his appeal and thereby confirming the judgment and decree passed on May 13, 1977 by Senior Sub-Judge, Una, dismissing his suit. 2. The plaintiff filed suit claiming a decree for declaration to the effect that he was owner in possession of eight plots of land measuring 32 kanals 15 marlas comprised in Khasra Nos. 207, 20X, 209, 253, 271, 276, 290 and 291 situate in village Bhadori within tehsil and District Una. By way of consequential he claimed a decree for prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with his possession and in the alternative claimed a decree for possession in case he was found to have been dispossessed It was averred in the plaint that the defendants in connivance with Halqa Patwari, Bhadori, got themselves recorded as tenant-at-will under the plaintiff on payment of Rs 80 per annum as Chakota from Rabi 1971, which entry was factually incorrect as the plaintiff never inducted them as tenants and that he was the sole owner in occupation of the property and that now for the last about two years, prior to the institution of the suit, taking undue advantage of the wrong entries in the revenue records, the defendants had started threatening the plaintiff of being dispossessed which necessitated him in coming to the Court for claiming the reliefs. The suit was instituted on January 15, 1976 and was contested by the defendants by pleading that they were in possession of the suit property as tenants at-will under the plaintiff and had become its owner on coming into force of the Himachal Pradesh Tenancy and Land Reforms Act (hereinafter to be referred as the Act) and were holding the property as such. They also took up a legal plea that the suit was barred under the provisions of the Act and the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the suit Plaintiff presented replication by controverting the allegations made in the written statement and alleging that there was no question of defendants being in occupation of the property as the land was described in the revenue records as vacant and moreover the defendants were not agriculturists but were businessmen and were never inducted as tenants on the property by him. The trial Court dismissed the suit holding the defendants to be tenants on the suit property under the plaintiff and having become its owner on coming into force of the Act. So far as the legal objections about the competency of the Civil Court to bear and decide the suit and its maintainability was concerned, the same were not pressed by the defendants and were decided against them The lower appellate Court dismissed the appeal of the plaintiff by upholding the judgment and decree of the trial Court and confirming the finding of tenancy. Though it held that there was no evidence of creation of tenancy or of payment of rent by defendants to the plaintiff yet there were as many as six factors available on record which were sufficient to come to the conclusion that the property was occupied by the defendants as tenants under the plaintiff The plaintiff has preferred the present appeal challenging the findings recorded by both the Courts below. 3. It has been argued on behalf of the appellant that the findings of fact recorded by the Courts below to the effect that the defendants were in occupation of the property as tenants are based upon inadmissible evidence. The documentary evidence relied upon by the Courts below, namely, the entries in the revenue record were forged which is apparent on the evidence on record and as the contract of tenancy had neither been alleged nor proved, as rightly held by the lower appellate Court, therefore, the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below were liable to be set aside. In so far as six factors enumerated by the lower appellate Court are concerned, it was submitted that they were neither relevant nor were conclusive to assume that the defendant were holding the property as tenants. In so far as six factors enumerated by the lower appellate Court are concerned, it was submitted that they were neither relevant nor were conclusive to assume that the defendant were holding the property as tenants. On behalf of the respondents, it was urged that the civil court had no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the suit as proprietary rights had been conferred upon the defendants under the provisions of the Act and the appellant having admitted the conferment of such rights upon the respondents, it was necessary for the plaintiff to have challenged such order, if so permissible in law, within a period of one year. It was further contended that no interference was called for with the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Courts below. 4. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have also gone through the records I find much force in the submissions made on behalf of the appellant and the appeal deserves to be allowed for the reasons to be stated hereinafter The Courts below have placed much reliance upon the entries in revenue records in which since rabi 1979 defendants were shown to be in occupation of the suit property as tenants under the plaintiff and by raising the statutory presumption available to the entries in revenue records have held them to be tenants and on coming into force of the Act have held them to have become owners. In the facts and circumstances of the case as will be discussed hereunder, no such presumption can be raised and there is no independent evidence of creation of tenancy or of payment of rent by the defendants to the plaintiff. 5. Before the trial Court, plaintiff tendered in evidence Ex. P-l copy of Jamabandi for the year 1972-73, in which the entire suit land Is shown to be in occupation of defendants as non-occupancy tenants on payment of Rs 80 per annum as Chakota. This entry was under challenge in the suit. Besides this, plaintiff also have produced and proved Ex PW 3/A, copy of entries in Khasra Girdawari from kharif 1971 to rabi 1975 in which in rabi 1971 name of defendants appeared for the first time showing them to be in occupation of the property on payment of Rs. 80 per annum as rent under the plaintiff. Besides this, plaintiff also have produced and proved Ex PW 3/A, copy of entries in Khasra Girdawari from kharif 1971 to rabi 1975 in which in rabi 1971 name of defendants appeared for the first time showing them to be in occupation of the property on payment of Rs. 80 per annum as rent under the plaintiff. Prior to it, the entire suit property is recorded to be in self cultivating possession of the plaintiff. Plaintiff had also made a challenge to this entry, which is in the name of defendants, being the result of connivance with the Halqa Patwari. It appears that in view of the serious allegations made about the conduct of the Halqa Patwari, who appeared to have entered the name of defendants as tenants, who admittedly was put under suspension by the higher authorities, the lower appellate Court directed the original revenue records to be produced in Court and its photostat copies were ordered to be placed on record. Both the parties agreed to this. It may be mentioned here that no exhibit mark was put on this photostat copies of revenue records. The lower appellate Court also permitted the respondents to place on record, by way of additional evidence, copy of entry in daily diary of Patwari dated October 6, 1971. 6. In order to appreciate the respective contentions of the parties, it would be profitable to make reference to the photostat copies of the revenue records placed on the record of the lower appellate court In the copy of Khasra Girdawari for the period from 1-10-1969 to 3-4-1972, entries in the first five columns are in Devnagri Script. Under column No. 14 against Khasra No 207, in Urdu script, it is mentioned that defendants are in occupation of the suit land as tenants on payment of Chakota at the rate of Rs. 80 per annum. This writing has been made over two diagonal strokes (WATTAR). Below this entry in the same column against Khasra Nos. 208 and 209 word ditto has been scribbled in Urdu script. Against the remaining Khasra numbers, namely 253, 271, 276, 290 and 291 making one line of the diagonal stroke as the base, words "Basharah Khasra No. 123" has been mentioned except against Khasra No 271 where it has been written in Urdu script. 208 and 209 word ditto has been scribbled in Urdu script. Against the remaining Khasra numbers, namely 253, 271, 276, 290 and 291 making one line of the diagonal stroke as the base, words "Basharah Khasra No. 123" has been mentioned except against Khasra No 271 where it has been written in Urdu script. In the copy of Khasra Girdawari from 1973 onwards, initially under column No. 3 against Khasra No. 207, the entry was "Khud Kasht" in Devnagri script but subsequently after striking off the said entry, in Urdu script, names of defendants have been shown as non-occupancy tenants on payment of Rs. 80 per annum as Chakota. There are no initials on the cuttings and over-writings. Khasra Nos. 270, 271 and 290 are shown to be in occupation of the owner, namely, the plaintiff appellant. There is no entry against Khasra No. 291. In the copy of Jamabandi for the year 1972-73, in the column of cultivation, firstly, the name of Babu Ram son of Gangu was shown but subsequently after striking out the said entry, names of defendants have been shown. Similarly, in the column of rent, after striking out the original entry new entry has been made. The cuttings have not been authenticated by putting initials or signatures. In the same copy of Jamabandi for the year 1972-73, against Khewat No. 113, Khatauni No. 428, six khasra numbers were entered, namely, 123, 115, 126, 207, 208 and 209 but three khasra numbers, namely, 207 to 209 have been struck-off. These copies of Khasra Girdawaries and Jamabandis are the photostat copies of the original which were placed on the record. The question, in these circumstances, which arises for consideration is as to whether any reliance can be placed upon these entries or not and whether the entries could be said to have been made by the revenue officials regularly in the discharge of their official functions. 7. The Himachal Pradesh Land Records Manual contains detailed instructions with respect to making of entries in various revenue records and the functions which are to be discharged by the revenue officials. Chapter 9 pertains to the harvest inspection- Para 9.2 thereof provides for the form of Khasra Girdawari or harvest inspection book. Para 9.3 deais with Instructions regarding the entries to be made therein. Chapter 9 pertains to the harvest inspection- Para 9.2 thereof provides for the form of Khasra Girdawari or harvest inspection book. Para 9.3 deais with Instructions regarding the entries to be made therein. Patwari is expected to visit his Patwar circle during rabi and kharif for making entry In the harvest inspection book. While carrying out the harvest inspection, if the Patwari finds that there is no change in the cultivation in kharif, he is supposed to put a line across the ablong space provided for changes in the register from right hand top corner to the left hand bottom corner and in diagonal from left hand top to the right hand bottom if no change is found in rabi. Instruction further provide that entry in the fourth column of the crop inspection register will be the same as in the column of cultivation of last Jamabandi. Para 9.9 contains detailed instructions and procedure for preventing errors in the Khasra Girdawaries, which reads as under:— "9.9. The following subsidiary instructions should be observed for preventing errors etc. in the khasra girdawari: — (a) The Patwari must enter in his diary a list of all field numbers in which any change of cultivating occupancy or rent has occurred in the following form :— changes in rent-field numbers so and so ; changes in cultivating occupancy field numbers so and so ; and place this list before the field Kanungo at next visit for verification. The numbers so entered will be verified by the Kanungo and totalled under his signature. But if the change is such as to necessitate an entry in the register of mutations it need not be entered in the diary as well. (b) Whenever a patwari has to alter an entry once made in the kbasra girdawari he must enter it in his diary. But no such alteration should be made after the bachh papers of the harvest have been drawn up or corrected. The field Kanungo is bound to inspect the Patwaris diary and he should be directed to check the alterations which have been made in the Khasra Girdawari very carefully. If at the preparation of the Jamabandi an entry in the khasra girdawari is found to be incorrect, it will nevertheless be retained unaltered, but the correct entry will be noted in red ink and will be attested by the Kanungo." 8. If at the preparation of the Jamabandi an entry in the khasra girdawari is found to be incorrect, it will nevertheless be retained unaltered, but the correct entry will be noted in red ink and will be attested by the Kanungo." 8. The respondents in order to show that change in the month of October, 1971 showing them to be in occupation of the suit property as tenants was made authorisedly have placed reliance upon Ex. R 1, copy of entry in Roznamcba (daily diary of Patwari) dated October 6, 1971. No reliance can be placed upon this copy of Roznamcha as the same is not in consonance with the instructions contained in the Land Records Manual. Para 379 of the Manual makes a provision that Patwari is required to keep both a diary (Roznamcha) and a work book and para 3 81 provides for making various entries in the said diary, one of which is entry with respect to changes of cultivating, occupancy and rent as required under para 9. 9. From the entry contained in Ex. R-1, it is not shown that any change in cultivation of the Khasra Nos. referred to therein with respect to occupancy or lent was found by the Patwari Merely khasra numbers have been mentioned. Had there been any change in the cultivation, the entry would have been that change in cultivation has been found with respect to these khasra numbers. Even the column of Khasra Girdawari meant for recording changes contains diagonal strokes, meaning thereby that no change in cultivation was found by the Halqa Patwari m Rabi and Kharif in that year On the top of the column there is no mention as to on what date the Patwari carried out the inspection- Had a change in cultivation actually occurred, there would have been no "WATTAR" (diagonal stroke). In the presence of two strokes in this column and mention of words Khud Kasht" in the fourth column in the next crop harvest inspection register, the only inference which can be drawn is that initially the entry was in the name of the plaintiff but was subsequently altered by some one showing the defendants to be in occupation of the property by making cuttings and over-writings. Presumption of correctness which attaches to entries in revenue records is with respect to those entries which are regularly made by the revenue officials in the discharge of their day-today functions and not to those entries which on the face of it are of suspicious character and appears to have been made subsequently by either making cuttings or over-writings on the earlier entries. 9. Column Nos. 12, 13, 15 and 16 in the copy of Khasra Girdawari for the period 1-10-1969 to 3-3-1973 show that the entire land was either vacant or barren. The nature of vacant land is shown as Barani, which means cultivable but it remained uncultivated since 1970 onwards till 1976, whereafter according to the instructions contained in the Land Records Manual it was shown as Banjar. 10. In order to properly appreciate the position, it is necessary to refer to the oral evidence available on record. PW-1, Mool Singh, Lambardar of the village, stated that the suit land was in occupation of the plaintiff and the entire land was lying fellow. Only grass was stated to be growing on the land and the cattle of the plaintiff used to graze therein. According to this witness, defendants were running a shop for the last twenty years and did not belong to agricultural community and had no bullocks etc. to plough the fields, Nika Ram was stated to be Halqa Patwari, who had made various false entries in revenue records and on coming to know of his misdeeds, by the Deputy Commissioner he was placed under suspension. PW-2, Hakam Singh, is the resident of the same village end has stated that the defendants were engaged in karyana business for the last more than 30 years and defendant No. 1, who was Pradhan of Nayaya Panchayat, wielded considerable influence over the revenue staff and that Nika Ram Patwari was put under suspension for tampering with the revenue records, PW-3, Waryam Singh, Halqa Patwari at the time of making the statement stated that it was on February 2, 1976, that changes in the revenue records were made by Nika Ram Patwari and prior to such change the entries were in the name of plaintiff. Plaintiff appeared as PW-4 and claimed himself to be in occupation of the property by stating that the defendants were never inducted as tenants by him over the suit land Taking undue advantage of his absence from the village, the defendants, who were influential persons, got manipulated the disputed entries in the revenue records There was no question of defendants being in occupation of the property as they were engaged in business and that the land was lying uncultivated In cross-examination the plaintiff admitted that he was putting a Rehri at Hoshiarpur. DW-1 and DW-2, who appeared on behalf of the defendants, stated that the land was in occupation of defendants since for the last about 7/8 years. It is pertinent to mention here that DW-2 was not residing in the village but was working as Coolie at Shimla. Dhani Ram, defendant, who appeared as DW-3 stated that it was during summer season of 1970-71 that he took the land from the plaintiff on rent and was still in occupation of the same. He denied that the land was lying fellow. 11. The nature of the suit land, as per the entries in the revenue records, is cultivable yet the same remained uncultivated. Had the defendants been inducted as tenants on the land, there was no reason why it was still being shown as uncultivated till the year 1973, whereafter it was recorded as Banjar. The reason for the land lying fellow is that the plaintiff was carrying on business by putting Rehri at Hoshiarpur. Admittedly, defendants were also carrying on business. No evidence has been led by them that they actually cultivated the suit land. In the absence of any plea and proof of actual contract of tenancy, it is hard to believe that in the wake of Land Reforms Legislation, a land-owner would induct tenant upon his land on a paltry rent of Rs. 80 per annum. PW-ii was positive in his assertion in saying that the entries were manipulated in the year 1976, which fact is also fortified by the aforementioned documentary evidence wherein cuttings and over-writings have been made over the entries which existed earlier. Defendants had admitted the ownership of plaintiff over the suit land. 12. 80 per annum. PW-ii was positive in his assertion in saying that the entries were manipulated in the year 1976, which fact is also fortified by the aforementioned documentary evidence wherein cuttings and over-writings have been made over the entries which existed earlier. Defendants had admitted the ownership of plaintiff over the suit land. 12. In view of the aforesaid discussion and in the facts and circumstances of the case, it has to be held that the defendants have miserably failed to prove creation of any tenancy in their favour. The entries in the revenue records showing them to be in occupation of the suit land cannot be relied upon. The finding recorded by the Courts below were based upon entries in revenue records which are highly suspicious in character and cannot be sustained in law and deserves to be set aside. 13. The argument put forth by the defendants that the civil court had no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the suit and suit in the present form was not maintainable has been made merely to be rejected. These legal objections were intact taken by the defendants before the trial Court but were not pressed and the same now cannot be allowed to be taken up before this Court in second appeal. Moreover, there is no order which is shown to have been passed under the provisions of the Act by the Land Reforms Officer. Ex A-I is only a mutation of conferment of proprietary rights which has been attested in the absence of the plaintiff without any notice to him. Jurisdiction of civil court to go into the questions connected with conferment of proprietary rights is not ousted when the statutory authority has not acted in conformity with the fundamental principles of judicial procedure. No other point was urged before me. 14. In view of the above, the appeal succeeds and is allowed. The judgment and decree passed by the Courts below are set aside. The suit of the plaintiff is decreed and a decree is passed in his favour declaring him to be the owner in possession of the suit land and by way of consequential relief the defendants are restrained from interfering in any manner with his possession over the said land. The defendants will pay the costs of the plaintiff throughout. Appeal allowed.