JUDGMENT Arun Kumar Goel, J —This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 23 12 1988 passed by Additional District Judge (I), Kangra at Dharamshala in Civil Appeal No. 458/86-74 of 1988 whereby judgment and decree passed by Sub-Judge L»t Class, Kangra at Dharamshala in Civil Suit No 87/83 dated 23-10-1986 has been upheld. 2. Chandu Lal deceased respondent plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction for restraining the defendant-appellant from interferring with his possession in any manner whatsoever, cutting the trees and dispossessing the plaintiff from suit land comprised in Khata No 17 min, khatauni No. 25, Khasras No 48, 51, 75, 93 and 115, area measuring 1-01-19, situate at Kfohal Sunehr, Mauza Ghurkari, Tehsil and District Kangra as per jamabandi for the year 1978-79. According to plaintiff he is the person recorded in possession of payment of rent and as per entry in column of remarks of jamabandi for the year 1978-79 mutation No. 70 has been entered as Gair Moroosi and decision whereof is pending Plaintiff claimed to be in peaceful possession of the land in question and, therefore, prayed decree for permanent injunction. This suit was contested and resisted by the appellant/defendant who pleaded that he is in possession of khasra Nos. 93 and 75 whose corresponding old numbers arc 59 and 56 and in respect of other land he claimed to be in possession of the same Besides this, he pleaded estoppel, as also non-joinder of necessary parties, namely, Sh, Ranbir Singh and the suit is not maintainable in its present form, In the replication filed by the plaintiff he controverted the pleas of the defendant and reiterated his claim. 3. On the aforesaid 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 in the relief of injunction as prayed for ? OPP 3. Whether the suit is competent in the present form ? OPP 4. Whether the act and conduct of the plaintiff is a bar to the present suit ? OPD 5. Whether Sh Ranbir Singh is a necessary party to the suit, if so, its effect ? OPD 6. Relief. OPP 3. Whether the suit is competent in the present form ? OPP 4. Whether the act and conduct of the plaintiff is a bar to the present suit ? OPD 5. Whether Sh Ranbir Singh is a necessary party to the suit, if so, its effect ? OPD 6. Relief. Issues 1 to 3 were decided in favour of the plaintiff and issues 4 and 5 were decided against the defendants and consequently suit of the plaintiff was decreed. Respondent feeling aggrieved by the judgment of the trial Court preferred an appeal against the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court and prayed for reversal of the judgment and decree and consequent dismissal of the suit, 4. In the aforesaid background, appellant has preferred the present appeal which was admitted on the following substantial questions of law vide orders of this Court dated 14-3-1990 : "2, Whether the tenancy of the appellant over khasra Nos. 59 and 56 (old) (pre-settlement) could be extinguished by the Settlement Authorities without an order of the Competent Court 3. Whether mis-reading and mis-interpreting of the revenue entries vitiates the judgment of the Court below and is liable to be set aside/ 5. Plaintiff appeared as his own witness and he proved his possession as well as ownership over the land in question although in the first instance he has stated that he is a tenant over the land in question. In his cross-examination he has stated that earlier Brij Lal was the tenant who has bequeathed this property by way of Will in his favour and Brij Lal died in the year 1974. Thereafter he came into possession of the land in question. Plaintiff further stated that defendant has no concern over the land in question, however, he tries to interfere with his possession and in the year 1983 he forcibly tried to interfere as well as cut the trees from the land in question and it is in these circumstance that the suit has been filed by him. Copies of revenue records are also there on record which are in the nature of Ext. P/l copy of Misal Haquit Bandobast Jadid for the year 1974-75, Ext. P/2 copy of khasra Girdawari of khasra No. 59 from Kharif 1967 to Rabi 1968, Ext. P/3 copy of khasra No. 56 from Kharif 1967 to Rabi 1968, Ext. Copies of revenue records are also there on record which are in the nature of Ext. P/l copy of Misal Haquit Bandobast Jadid for the year 1974-75, Ext. P/2 copy of khasra Girdawari of khasra No. 59 from Kharif 1967 to Rabi 1968, Ext. P/3 copy of khasra No. 56 from Kharif 1967 to Rabi 1968, Ext. P/4 entry from the Panchayat register regarding the date of death of Brij Lal, Ext, P/5 copy of judgment and decree in suit filed by Om Parkash against Chandu Lal. 6 As against aforesaid evidence of the plaintiff, Mohar Singh defendant appeared as DW I and he proves that the land originally belonged to Ranbir Singh and Randhir Singh who are both since died. He further states that he is in possession of khasra No. 56 and 59 measuring 9-1/2 kanals. According to him, he never surrendered any possession and during settlement he was the tenant, however, out his land an area measuring 1 kanal 19 marla was deleted and entered in the name of Chandu during settlement. He states that the original owners had filed a suit against Chandu Lal wherein he has appeared as witness, however, he feign ignorance regarding dismissal of the said suit. He also states that he is not aware that after the death of Brij Lal to whom the land went and who is in possession thereafter DW 2 is Om Parkash s/o Ranbir Singh, who was the plaintiff in the suit which was dismissed vide judgment, copy of which is Ext. P/5. Besides this, defendant also produced documentary evidence Ext. D/l copy of jamabandi for the year 1978-79, Ext. D/2 copy of khasra Girdawari from kharif 1981 to Rabi 1981, Ext. D/3 copy of mutation No 165. 7. On the basis of the aforesaid evidence, the suit of the plaintiff was decreed by the trial Court and the said judgment and decree has been affirmed in appeal by the lower appellate Court. 8. Shri K. C Rana, learned Counsel for the appellant has at the very outset stated that for the purpose of present appeal his clients claim is confined to only two khasra numbers, namely, khasras No. 75 and 93 and his client has nothing to do with khasra Nos. 48, 51 and 115 i. e. the remaining land regarding which the suit was filed. 48, 51 and 115 i. e. the remaining land regarding which the suit was filed. He has further submitted that the suit for permanent injunction filed by plaintiff Chandu Lal was not maintainable as he was not in possession of the land, particularly, in respect of khasra Nos. 75 and 93, so both the courts have erred in the facts and circumstances of the case in decreeing the suit and, therefore, according to him, the appeal deserves to be allowed. In support of his this submission, he has drawn my attention to Ext. P/l wherein Mohar Singh, Appellant is recorded as sub-tenant under Brij Lal through whom the plaintiff claimed title on the basis of the Will. He has also referred to Exts. P/2 and P/3 wherein the entries of Mohar Singh are shown as Gairmaursi on payment of Galabatai, besides this he has referred to Ext. D/3. 9. Ext. P/5 is a certified copy of judgment in civil suit titled Sh Om Parkash and others v, Chandu and others. This suit was based on title filed by the plaintiffs wherein they had sought declaration to the effect that they and proforma defendants are owner in possession of the land in that suit which is also the subject-matter of the suit out of which the present appeal has arisen. Reference to this document is necessary which clearly belies the stand of the appellant in the present case and is \a vital piece of evidence and negatives his claim as put-forth in the present appeal and which has been rightly negatived by both the courts below. In this behalf it is relevant to note that appellant while appearing as DW 1 in the trial Court has admitted that he appeared as a witness in that case, however, at the same time he feigns ignorance regarding the dismissal of the said suit. In Ext, P/5, while deciding issues 1 to 3 the court has decided issues No. 2 and 3 in the said suit against the plaintiff which were to the following effect: "2. Whether defendant No. 1 is not the tenant of the suit land ? OPP 3. Whether defendant has become owner of the suit land under Land Reforms Act ? OPD" Similarly issue No. 4 has been decided in favour of the defendant and against the plaintiff. Whether defendant No. 1 is not the tenant of the suit land ? OPP 3. Whether defendant has become owner of the suit land under Land Reforms Act ? OPD" Similarly issue No. 4 has been decided in favour of the defendant and against the plaintiff. Issue No. 4 is : "4 Whether the defendant No. 1 is the successor-in-interest of Shri Brij Lal, as alleged ? OPD" 10. In the face of this judgment, defendant cannot derive any benefit out of stray entries in Exts. P/l, P/2 and P/3. So far mutation Ext. D/3 is concerned, it does not show as to in respect of which land it is as it is not connected with the suit land in any manner whatsoever. 11. In case the appellant was a tenant in respect of suit land as being claimed by him, or he had any concern with it, then instead of supporting the claim of the plaintiffs in civil suit wherein judgment P/5 was passed, he would have applied for becoming party to the said suit and would have further contested the claim of the plaintiffs therein It appears that with a view to support their case knowing well that the plaintiff Sh. Chandu Lal, who was arrayed as defendant in the suit wherein Ext P/5 was passed and said Chandu Lal is putting up independent title to the land in suit (which is the same in Ext. P/5 as in the present suit), that being the position both the courts below have rightly come to the conclusion that the plaintiff is the owner in possession of the land in question having inherited the same from Shri Brij Lal Needless to point out here that after coming into force of the Himachal Pradesh Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972, the conferment of proprietary right is automatic and by operation of law. Rest of the matter is procedural as required under the Act and the rules framed thereunder. So far appearance of Om Parkash as a witness in the present case as DW 2 on behalf of the appellant is concerned, suffice to say that firstly he is bound by the judgment Ext. Rest of the matter is procedural as required under the Act and the rules framed thereunder. So far appearance of Om Parkash as a witness in the present case as DW 2 on behalf of the appellant is concerned, suffice to say that firstly he is bound by the judgment Ext. P-5 and the findings are conclusive between him and other plaintiffs as against Chandu Lal plaintiff in the present suit and secondly he has reason to give evidence against plaintiff in the present case because his suit was dismissed vide Ext. P-5 and thus, his statement cannot be of any help to the appellant. Similar is the position in respect of the stand of the appellant in the present case. Defendant Mohar Singh cannot show his ignorance regarding pendency of Civil Suit No. 52/81 (decided vide Ext P-5) In case he was either not aware and or had not appeared as witness, he may have been in a position to say something but that is not the situation in the present case. By necessary implication, it can be safely held that he was not only aware of the said judgment but is also bound by it this is so when he is claiming tenancy through DW 2 Sh. Om Parkash whose title has already been negatived vis-a-vis the plaintiff Chandu Lal Thus, remains the only statement of the appellant which is also not worthy of any credence. In order to succeed on the plea of tenancy, appellant was required to say that there was some bilateral agreement between the land owner and the tenant claiming such tenancy. Merely because the appellant considered himself to be a tenant would not make him a tenant, as creation of tenancy is a bilateral matter like any other contract in law Appellant has miserably failed to prove on record by any reliable, cogent and trustworthy evidence creation of tenancy and, therefore, his solitary self serving statement cannot be accepted in support of his plea. 12. Further Sh Kanwar on behalf of respondent has submitted that from the evidence on record it is abundantly clear that the deceased plaintiff Chandu Lal is the owner in possession and only administrative act of the sanctioning mutation is pending as is evident from Ext. 12. Further Sh Kanwar on behalf of respondent has submitted that from the evidence on record it is abundantly clear that the deceased plaintiff Chandu Lal is the owner in possession and only administrative act of the sanctioning mutation is pending as is evident from Ext. D/l. Needless to reiterate here that mutation does not create/extinguish title and in the present case it was merely an administrative act particularly in the face of Ext P/5 and the Land Reforms Officer is bound to give effect to the same. So on this ground also the present appeal is devoid of any merit and it merits dismissal. 13. No other point has been urged by the learned Counsel for the parties. 14. As a result of the above discussion the present appeal is devoid of any merit which is dismissed with costs quantified at Rs. 1,000. Appeal dismissed.