JUDGMENT P.K. Palli, J. (Oral): The plaintiffs are in second appeal before this Court. They are aggrieved against the judgment of reversal. The suit for declaration and injunction claiming themselves to be the tenants under the defendant in respect of the Suit land, was declared by the learned trial Court. 2. The defendant feeling agitated filed first appeal which stands accepted by the learned first appellate Court vide the impugned judgment? The parties hereinafter in the judgment shall be referred to as the "plaintiffs" and the "defendant". 3. The case has a chequred history. The suit was initially decreed, but the appeal filed by the defendant was accepted and the case was remanded back for fresh decision. An additional issue was framed in respect of the tenancy and was ordered to be determined. 4. The case was taken up by the learned trial Court again in sequence of the directions given by the appellate Court and once again it resulted in the decree as claimed by the plaintiffs. 5. The appeal filed by the defendant stands accepted and this is how the second appeal before this Court. 6. The suit has been filed in respect of Khasra Nos.361, 363,368 and 370. Khasra No. 361 came to be carved out from previous Khasra No. 171 min, Khasra No. 363 also came to be carved out from Khasra NO. 171 min, Khasra No. 368 was carved out from old Khasra No. 168 and 168/1 and Khasra No. 370 came to be carved out from Khasra No.l13. It is not disputed that the new numbers were given during the settlement operations carried out somewhere in the year 1972-73. Ex. P-l is the "Jamabandi-Missal Haquiat Bandobast Jadeed" where new numbers corresponding to the old have been clearly given. Jagdish, son of Gidhu who is the defendant in the present case is recorded as owner where as Saran Pass. Prem Dass-plaintiffs are recorded in the column of cultivation and are shown in possession as "Gair Mauroosis" In column No. 10 relating to Lagan, the entry is "Galla Batai Va Hissa Nisfi Basharah Khatauni No. 113". The case as set-up by the plaintiffs is that they have been occupying the land in question as tenants and their plea is supported by the entries appearing in the Khasra Girdawari of the year 1969 Ex. P-C on record. 7. The case as set-up by the plaintiffs is that they have been occupying the land in question as tenants and their plea is supported by the entries appearing in the Khasra Girdawari of the year 1969 Ex. P-C on record. 7. The entries in the column of cultivation show the plaintiffs in possession of the land in dispute as "Gair Mauroosis" on payment of half produce the entry is thus the same as it appears in the settlement record. 8. In the Khasra Girdawari entries for the period 1973-74, 1974-75 and 1975-76 Ex.P-P, the plaintiffs are again shown in the column of cultivation as "Gair Mauroosis" on payment of half produce in lieu of rent. The trouble arose during the year 1974 when the defendant succeeded in getting the names of the plaintiffs obliterated from the record and instead he himself is shown in possession as "Khud Kasht". 9. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants-plaintiffs Mr. Gupta contends that when the plaintiffs are appearing as tenants in the entries of the year 1969 as recorded in the Khasra Girdawari and wh6reafter the settlement operations were held and they came to be recorded in the Jamabandi prepared during the settlement as tenants on payment of half produce, the entries could not be changed in the year 1974 without following proper procedure and without any order or direction requiring the change. 10. Learned counsel appearing for the defendant Mr. Sood besides adopting the line of reasoning as has been projected by the learned first appellate Court in the impugned judgment has brought to my notice the entries appearing in the Jamabandi of the year 1961-62 Ex.P-3 where the defendant is recorded as owner and in possession of the land in dispute. Reliance is also placed on the entries appearing in the Khasra Girdawari of the year 1967-68 Ex.P-5 where the defendant Jagdish is entered as owner in possession of the suit land. It is in this very Khasra Girdawari during the preparation of the Girdawari in Kharif 1969 that the plaintiffs have been recorded as tenants on payment of produce to the extent of half share. In Khasra Girdawari entries of the year 1973-74 as noticed above in Ex.P-4, it is the plaintiffs who are recorded as tenants under the defendant in the Kharif crop of 1973 as well as in the Rabi crop of (h« year 1974. In Khasra Girdawari entries of the year 1973-74 as noticed above in Ex.P-4, it is the plaintiffs who are recorded as tenants under the defendant in the Kharif crop of 1973 as well as in the Rabi crop of (h« year 1974. It was in Kharif of the year 1974 that the defendant is recorded in self-cultivation. 11. The dispute as is projected by the plaintiffs is in respect to the sudden change which was brought about in October, 1974. 12. Learned counsel appearing for the defendant states that it is the defendant who is shown in the column of cultivation and the words "Khud Kasht" are written. Jamabandi of the year 1980-81 Ex.D-6 records the defendant as owner in possession of the suit land. Similar is the position in respect of the Khasra Girdawari entries of the year 1983 Ex.D-8. 13. In order to determine whether the plaintiffs are occupying the land in question under the defendant as tenants or not, the oral evidence led by the parties in this respect just cannot be appreciated. 14. No doubt, the tenancy comes on the surface on account of a bilateral contract between the parties, but the entries forming record-of-rights cannot be ignored in the absence of any agreement or a contract. It is always the rent, column in the Jamabandi which determines the status of the tenant. In the present case, the plaintiffs are recorded as tenants in the year 1969 and immediately thereafter the settlement operations were carried out. It is too well known that while preparing the. Settlement record, lot of care has to be taken and the entries which finally come to be recorded are arrived at after thorough probe and enquiry. The acts done by the staff engaged in the progress are to be accepted as authentic, unless contrary is shown by the party laying change to it. Even minute inquiry affecting the right, title or interest of every person as owner, tenant, possessor)" rights, occupancy rights, hereditary rights and Sham-lat rights are recorded. The record forming regular settlement besides being based on full enquiry, is also based on a survey of entries immediately preceding for a number of years i.e. upto the last settlement arrived at. 15. Even minute inquiry affecting the right, title or interest of every person as owner, tenant, possessor)" rights, occupancy rights, hereditary rights and Sham-lat rights are recorded. The record forming regular settlement besides being based on full enquiry, is also based on a survey of entries immediately preceding for a number of years i.e. upto the last settlement arrived at. 15. It was for the defendant in present case to prove that the entries forming settlement record which had attained finality were incorrectly recorded and the plaintiffs have been wrongly shown as tenants therein. 16. It is really surprising to find that the entries came to be changed at the time of preparation of the Girdawari in Kharif 1974 and that too without any inquiry and without following set procedure which is required for a change. There was no order or direction passed by any competent authority in this respect and the change came to be recorded in a clandestine manner completely washing away the entries forming record-of-rights i.e. "Missal Haquiat Bandobast Jadeed". It is, of course, true that the entries appearing in the record after the change record the plaintiffs to be the owners in possession of the suit land, but that by no reason add any strength to the rights of the defendant. The moment the change made in favour of the defendant is doubted-in its correctness, subsequent change based on wrong entries cannot be of any avail to the defendant. 17. The learned first appellate Court was certainly wrong in making an observation that the plaintiffs are shown an observation that the plaintiffs are shown as tenants only for an intervening short period i.e. 1969 to 1974 and the entries forming record-of-rights earlier to that year and after the year 1974, are in favour of the defendant. As already pointed out above, the moment the entries appearing in Kharif 1974 are held to be wholly illegal and unauthorized, all subsequent entries appearing earlier to the recording of-the defendant in possession, the plaintiffs have successfully projected themselves as tenants on the sharing of produce as Lagan and it was For the defendant in the given situation to lay challenge to it immediately. The learned first appellate Court arrived at a wrong finding that in the absence of any Agreement or contract of tenancy, the plaintiffs could not be held as tenants over the suit land. The learned first appellate Court arrived at a wrong finding that in the absence of any Agreement or contract of tenancy, the plaintiffs could not be held as tenants over the suit land. This finding could not be arrived at, for the reasons given above. 18. No other point has been raised or pressed. 19. In view of what has been said above, the judgment and decree passed by the learned first appellate Court is hereby set-aside and the passed by the learned trial Court is upheld. The appeal succeeds. There shall, however, no order as to costs.