JUDGMENT Surinder Sarup, J. (Oral):- This second appeal is directed against the concurrent judgments and decrees of the Courts below, whereby the suit of the plaintiff has been dismissed. The judgment of the lower appellate Court is that of Shri V.K. Ahuja, Addl. Distt. Judge, Sirmour District at Nahan dated 22.08.1989 and that of the trial court is that of Shri B.D. Sharma, Senior Sub Judge, Nahan dated 21.08.1988. 2. The facts, giving rise to the appeal are that the plaintiff - appellant filed a suit for declaration and possession as against defendants- respondents on the pleadings that they are real brothers and they were the tenants under one Murari Dutt on land comprised in Khasra No. 104 measuring 6-18 bighas. It was averred that the proprietary rights were conferred upon the plaintiff vide mutation No.774 dated-19.05.1976. The proprietary rights were conferred upon defendants of land measuring 6-11 bighas. It was also alleged that according to Tatima prepared and attached with the mutation, total land measuring 6-7 bighas only was to be allotted to defendants No. l to 3 out of total land-measuring 6-18 bighas, but due to mathematical error instead of 13 biswas of land, only 7 biswas of land was allotted to the plaintiff and the remaining land measuring 6-11 bighas was allotted to defendants- respondents. 3. It was further the case of the plaintiff that he remained in possession of land measuring 13 biswas comprised in Khasra No.104 min for more than 30 years, nature of which is Gair Mumkin Abadi and plaintiff constructed Chhappar and when he learned about wrong calculations of the Patwari; he filed a suit for injunction, but since the possession was specifically taken, hence the suit for declaration and possession. 4. The defendants, in their written statement pleaded that the plaintiff was never a tenant of said Murari Dutt and due to error, mutation of 6-11 bighas was attested in favour of defendants, which ought to have been for the whole land measuring 6-18 bighas. It was also pleaded that since the plaintiff was never a tenant under Murari Dutt of any agricultural land and as such, be new became owner of that land and as such mutation No.774 in favour of plaintiff is not genuine. 5. On the pleadings of the parties, the trial court framed the Mi issues: "1. It was also pleaded that since the plaintiff was never a tenant under Murari Dutt of any agricultural land and as such, be new became owner of that land and as such mutation No.774 in favour of plaintiff is not genuine. 5. On the pleadings of the parties, the trial court framed the Mi issues: "1. Whether the plaintiff alongwith defendants were in possession of 6 bighas 18 biswas of land as tenant and became owners as alleged? OPP. 2. Whether plaintiff was a tenant and has become owner of 13 biswas of the suit land ? OPP 3. Is the plaintiff entitled to relief of possession, as prayed for? OPP 4. Is the suit not within time? OPD 5. Has the plaintiff no locus-standi to file this suit? OPD 6. Is the suit not properly valued for the purposes of Court fee ? 7. Relief." 6. Issues No. l, 2 and 3 were taking up together and the finding there under is that the plaintiff has failed to prove his case as such he is not entitled to the relief claimed. All these three issues have been decided against him. Under Issue No.5, it was held that the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the suit. Issues No. 4 and 6 were not pressed before the trial Court. On these findings, the suit was dismissed. The appeal having met the same fate, tie plaintiff has come up in second appeal. 7. I have heard Ms Devyani Kuthiala, learned counsel for the appellant. None appears on behalf of the respondents, although actual date notice was issued to them both by ordinary as well as registered post on 08.04.1997. Presumption under the law is that if the notice sent by the Court is not received back served or unserved, it will be deemed to have been served. In these circumstances, this Court deems that service has been effected upon the respondents for an actual date of hearing. Since they have failed to put in appearance, they are proceeded against ex-parte. 8. It must be stated that the learned counsel for the appellant Ms. Devyani Kuthiala has argued her case with great ability and persuation. She has submitted that both the Courts below have completely gone on a wrong tenant in non-suiting the plaintiff-appellant. Since they have failed to put in appearance, they are proceeded against ex-parte. 8. It must be stated that the learned counsel for the appellant Ms. Devyani Kuthiala has argued her case with great ability and persuation. She has submitted that both the Courts below have completely gone on a wrong tenant in non-suiting the plaintiff-appellant. Accordingly, the fact that she was separately residing from the defendants, who are her brothers, is not a disqualification in the case. The second stand, which has been taken by both the Courts below that the plaintiff did not produce any Patta, has been very ably counterd by Ms Devyani Kuthiala by submitting that in view of the revenue record, in the shape of evidence, produced by the plaintiff-appellant, it was not necessary to produce the Patta. The revenue record clearly indicates that vide mutation No. 774 he was entitled to an area of 13 biswas and due to mathematical error he was shown in the revenue record as being entitled to only 7 biswas. It was for this reason that he was not put in possession of the remaining area of 6 biswas. Ms Devyani Kuthiala has also brought to my notice the statement of PW-5 Dal Singh Patwari to the effect that there is a mathemetical error in calculating the area to which the plaintiff-appellant is entitled. 9. Not resting on her laurels she has also invited my attention to Section « of the Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act, which runs as follows: "45. Presumption in favour of entries in record of rights and periodical records - An entry made in a record -of-right in accordance with the law for the time being in force or a periodical record in accordance with the provisions of this Chapter and the rules thereunder, shall be presumed to be the true until the contrary is proved or a new entry is lawfully substituted therefore." 10. On the basis of this provision of law, she has very forcefully submitted that the plaintiff is entitled to succeed to his share in the joint land of the tenancy and the mathematical error has been proved on record. In .view of these reasons, the judgments and decrees of both the Courts below suffer from error of law apparent on the face of record and are liable to be aside. 11. In .view of these reasons, the judgments and decrees of both the Courts below suffer from error of law apparent on the face of record and are liable to be aside. 11. For the reasons recorded above, this appeal succeeds and is accepted. The judgments and decree of both the Courts below are set aside and the suit of the plaintiff—appellant is decree as prayed for. Since the respondents have chosen not to contest the proceedings, there will be no order as to costs.