JUDGMENT Surinder Sarup, J.—This second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree of the Court of Shri G. R, Sharma, Additional District Judge, Mandi dated of the 8-2-1989, whereby the Judgment and decree of the Court of Shri L R, Sharma, Sub Judge, 1st Class, Sarkaghat, District Mandi dated 12-3-1987 was reversed and the suit of plaintiff-respondent has been decreed. It may be mentioned here that the suit had been dismissed by the trial Court. 2. The facts, as pleaded on behalf of the plaintiff-respondent, are that Mohanti Devi and Ram Das were residents of village Narola lllaqa Hatli, Tehsil Sarkaghat. They were owners of the suit land, fully described in the plaint and as also in the judgments of the Courts below. It was further pleaded that the defendant appellant Kanshi Ram, being brother-in-law of Ram Das was inducted by the latter as tenant of the suit land to the extent of l/3rd share. He was inducted as tenant on the land, which fell in the share of Mahanti Devi He came to be recorded as non-occupancy tenant qua the share of Mahanti Devi but in face he was never inducted by Mahanti Devi as a tenant of her share. The latter, during her life time executed a will in respect of her property in favour of the plaintiff-respondent. Thereafter, the defendant-appellant started taking undue advantage of the entries in the revenue record regarding the share of Mahanti Devi in the suit land. He tried to acquire the proprietary rights qua the share of Mahanti Devi in the land. Lastly it was pleaded that the entry in the revenue record qua her share in favour of the defendant-appellant is erroneous and liable to be corrected. 3. In the written statement, the suit we resisted by pleading that the entries in the revenue record are correct and the land continued to be in possession of the defendant-appellant as non-occupancy tenant, he having been inducted as such by Mahanti Devi and Ram Das During her life time, Mahanti Devi never disputed the entry in the revenue record. The defendant-appellant acquired ownership rights qua tha share of Ram Das. The defendant-appellant acquired ownership rights qua tha share of Ram Das. He could not do so regarding the share of Mahanti Devi under the H P, Tenancy and Land Reforms Act because she was a widow She was never in possession of her share because she had inducted him as a tenant it may be mentioned here that Kanshi Ram, defendant-appellant died during the pendency of this appeal and his L Rs have been brought on record. 4 On the pleadings of the parties, trial Court framed the following issues : "1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for joint possession of the suit land ? O.P P. 2. Whether the revenue entries are wrong as alleged ? O.P.P. 3. Whether the defendant was tenant under Mahanti Devi and Ram Das as alleged ? O.P.D. 4. Whether the plaintiff is estopped from filing the present suit ? O.PD, 5. Relief” 5. Under Issue No. 1, it was held that the plaintiff is nor entitled for joint possession of the suit land Under Issue No 2, it was held that the revenue entries are correct. Under Issue No. 3, it was held that the defendant was a tenant under Smt Mahanti Devi and Ram Das Under Issue No. 4, it was held that the plaintiff is estopped from filing the present suit and hence the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed giving rise to the first appeal, which having been allowed further giving rise to the present second appeal. 6 I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have examined the record. The point in issue is a short one. It is a clear case of mis-reading of evidence by the learned lower appellate Court. It is clear from the documents Ex. D-l, D-2 and D-3 that the said Kanshi Ram defendant has proved himself to be a tenant over the suit land. A perusal of Ex D-3, which is a copy of Khasra Girdawari will show that in the remarks column it is shown that Kanshi Ram is in cultivating possession having the status of tenant at will of l/4th shares as Patedar of Ram Das and Mahanti Devi This clearly shows the tenancy of said Kanshi Ram the original defendant. It is incomprehensible how the learned lower appellate Court has held otherwise. 7. Be that as it may, Khasra Girdawari is not apart of record. It is incomprehensible how the learned lower appellate Court has held otherwise. 7. Be that as it may, Khasra Girdawari is not apart of record. It is well-settled that Khasra Girdawaris are prepared by revenue authorities merely to reflect the current possession so that they may recover the land revenue from the current occupier However, the matter does not rest there. Ex D-2 Missal Haquiat, after settlement shows that the old Khasra Numbers were changed into new Khasra Numbers. The entry in the column of cultivation shows that the shares of both Mahanti Devi and Ram Das are in possession of Kanshi Ram who is a tenant at will In the column of rent, the entry is Galla batai meaning thereby on payment of 1/4 batai of the crop This entry as per settled law proves the tenancy of said Kanshi Ram under both Ram Das and Mahanti Devi. 8. In the face of the above clear-cut evidence, the learned lower Court below, with due respect to him, fell into grave legal error and has mis-read the evidence while decreeing the suit of the plaintiff-respondent. Consequently, his finding to the effect that the defendant is not prove to be a tenant of the suit land is required to be reversed and I order accordingly. 9. For the reasons recorded above, this appeal succeeds and is allowed. The judgment and decree of the learned lower appellate Court is set aside and that of the trial Court is restored, In the circumstances, the parties are left to bear their own costs. Appeal allowed.