JUDGMENT Arun Kumar Goel, J.:- Appellant (hereinafter referred to as plaintiff ) has filed this appeal against the judgment and decree dated 26.4.1990 passed by District Judge, Chamba Division at Chamba. By means of impugned judgment and decree, dismissal of the suit ordered by the trial Court has been upheld. This appeal as per order dated 3.8.1990 was admitted on the following substantial questions of law:- "3. Whether the findings that Shri Jassa was a tenant on the land in dispute was based on any legal evidence on record and bald statement was justifiably accepted simply on the ground that there was no rebuttal /6f the same? 5. In any case whether both the courts were justified in dismissing the suit of the plaintiff with respect to the house in dispute in which no tenancy was also pleaded or proved?" In order to properly appreciate the respective submissions of the Bed counsel for the parties, brief facts out of which this appeal has arisen need to be pointed out. Plaintiff filed a suit for declaration and possession of land measuring 9 bighas 3 biswas as detailed in the plaint and is situated in Mohal Foratka, Pargana Bathri, Tehsil Bhatiat, District Chamba, H.P. On khasra No. 132, there was one Kotha (house) which was situated on an area of 0-7 biswas. 2. Smt. Gorkhi was the last owner of the suit property who died on 26.10.1982, whereas present suit has been filed on 3.9.1985. On the death of Smt. Gorkhi, mutation No. 126 (Ext. P-l) which was entered at the instance of Jassa respondent No. l for recording him to be the person upon whom the property had been bequeathed by Smt. Gorkhi on the basis of a Will which was [rejected. While rejecting this mutation, after protracted proceedings, it was ordered that the property of Smt. Gorkhi is to be mutated in favour of plaintiff and proforma respondents-defendants No.5 and 6 half share and in favour of I respondents -defendants No.2 to 4 half share. By means of present suit. Plaintiff questioned the mutation in the names of defendants No.2 to 4 of half share out of the suit property as it had been wrongly and illegally attested. Besides this, it was averred against defendant No. 1 that he had forcibly taken possession of the house as well as land in suit without any right, title and interest. Plaintiff questioned the mutation in the names of defendants No.2 to 4 of half share out of the suit property as it had been wrongly and illegally attested. Besides this, it was averred against defendant No. 1 that he had forcibly taken possession of the house as well as land in suit without any right, title and interest. In these circumstances, declaration as well as possession was prayed for. 3. Jassa defendant No. l pleaded that the suit is barred by time and plaintiff being estopped from filing it on account of his act and conduct. While admitting the revenue entries to be correct, he denied the case of the plaintiff that forcible possession has been taken by the former after the death of Smt. Gorkhi. On the other hand, he raised the plea of adverse possession since he was in continuous possession for 25/26 years and rendering service to Smt. Gorkhi. He also pleaded tenancy and setup a Will having been executed by Smt. Gorkhi in his favour. Plea of adverse possession was raised in the alternative. 4. From amongst other defendants, only defendant No.2 filed his written statement and admitted that defendant No. l was in possession of the land in question since life time of Smt. Gorkhi It was further pleaded by defendant No.2 that the plaintiff and defendants No.5 and 6 are cousins of defendants No.2 to 4. It was also pleaded that Gorkhi had executed a Will in favour of defendant No. l of which in fact plaintiff and proforma defendants were well aware. On the basis of the pleading of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court:- 1. Whether plaintiff and proforma defendants are the only legal heirs to succeed the estate in suit of Smt. Gorkhi as alleged? OPP. 2. Whether Mutation No. 126 dated 5.4.1983 to the extent of 112 share in the name of defendants 2 to 4 in the estate of Smt. Gorkhi deceased has wrongly been sanctioned as alleged? OPP. 3. Whether defendant No. l has forcibly taken possession in October, 1982 on the Kotha and land in suit as alleged"? OPP. 4. Whether the suit is within time ? OPP 5. Whether plaintiff is estopped by his act and conduct to bring the present suit ? OPD 6. OPP. 3. Whether defendant No. l has forcibly taken possession in October, 1982 on the Kotha and land in suit as alleged"? OPP. 4. Whether the suit is within time ? OPP 5. Whether plaintiff is estopped by his act and conduct to bring the present suit ? OPD 6. Whether defendant No. 1 was in possession of the suit land on payment of rent under Gorkhi deceased ? OPD-1. 7. Whether Smt. Gorkhi deceased executed a valid Will dated 8.8.67 of the suit land in favour of defendants No. l ? OPD-1. 8. If issue No. 7 is not proved, whether defendant No. l has become owner of the suit land by adverse possession as alleged ? OPD-1. 9. Relief. Issues No. 1 to 4 were held against the plaintiff, whereas issues No.5 to 8 were held against defendant No. l and thus, under issue No. 9, suit of the plaintiff was dismissed. 5. It may be appropriate to mention here that the plea of defendant No. l of his being a tenant over the suit land, a Will having been executed in his favour by Smt. Gorkhi and his alternative plea of adverse possession were negative by the trial Court. On matter having been taken up in appeal by the plaintiff, defendant No. l did contest the appeal there, but he did not question the findings recorded under issues No. 5to8 by the trial Court meaning thereby that he was not aggrieved by such findings. After hearing the appeal, the lower appellate Court dismissed the suit, but under point No.2 held defendant No. 1 -Jassa cultivating the disputed land as a tenant since the life time of Smt. Gorkhi and consequently while dismissing the appeal ordered that unless he is evicted from the disputed land in accordance with due process of law, plaintiff is not entitled to possession. However, mutation qua defendant No. 2 to 4 was upheld. Besides this, judgment of the first appellate Court shows that no findings were recorded qua the prayer for possession either by the first appellate Court or the trial Court. It is in this background mat the present appeal has to be considered. 6. When this appeal was taken up. However, mutation qua defendant No. 2 to 4 was upheld. Besides this, judgment of the first appellate Court shows that no findings were recorded qua the prayer for possession either by the first appellate Court or the trial Court. It is in this background mat the present appeal has to be considered. 6. When this appeal was taken up. Shri Anand Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant vehemently urged that there is not an iota of evidence so as to uphold the plea of tenancy urged by defendant No. 1, as according to him tenancy is a bilatreral agreement and payment of rent is a qui pro quo in order to establish the factum of tenancy. Rent can be in cash or kind as well as it could be in the shape of services being rendered, but it has to be shown that the parties had agreed for payment of rent in any of the recognized modes. Thus, tenancy having not been proved, the first appellate Court had fallen into error while recording the findings under point No.2 in favour of defendant No. 1. According to Shri Sharma, suit was also within time and the findings in this behalf recorded by the trial Court are also not sustainable. It was further pointed out on behalf of the plaintiff that the pleas urged by defendant No. l are self-contradictory and mutually distructive. The moment defendant no. 1 claims him self to be a tenant, he concedes and admits permissive possession over the suit land. Besides this adverse possession completely excludes the plea of tenancy. On the other hand, Shri R. L. Sood, learned counsel for defendant No. 1 submitted that suit was not maintainable being time-barried, findings recorded by the first appellate court holding his client to be a tenant over the suit land are supported from the evidence &s well as from written statement of defendant No.2, though he made a reference to the written statement of defendant No.4, wherein his entire claim has been conceded. But there is no such written statement on the file of the trial Court. It may be clarified here that on the file of trial court, there are two written statements, one filed by defendant No. 1 and-the other by defendant No.2. 7. In support of the plea of tenancy, reference was made to the statements of DW-1, Jassa, DW-2 Teju aud DW-4 Tilku. It may be clarified here that on the file of trial court, there are two written statements, one filed by defendant No. 1 and-the other by defendant No.2. 7. In support of the plea of tenancy, reference was made to the statements of DW-1, Jassa, DW-2 Teju aud DW-4 Tilku. Ext. P-l mutation-dated 5.4.1983 was also pressed into service in support of the plea of suit being pot maintainable as it being an official act could be challenged under Article 100 of Limitation Act within one year from 5.4.1983. Service in lieu of payment of rent as well as actual payment of rent both were the modes through which rent was being paid by defendant No. 1 to Smt. Gorkhi. 8. It may also be worthwhile to point out here that parties are Gaddis, a notified Scheduled Tribe within the meaning of Article 366 of the Constitution of India and thus, provisions of Hindu Succession Act are not applicable in view of Section 2(2) thereof. 9. At the very outset it may be observed that so far mutation (Ext. P-l) whereby property in question was mutated in favour of the plaintiff and profonna defendants 1/2 share and the remaining 1/2 share in favour of defendants No.2 to 4 is concerned, this finding calls for no interference in this appeal. Learned counsel for the plaintiff could not put forth anything to controvert that the mutation of property in favour of the parties in terms of Ext P-l called for any interference in this appeal. Thus, it is held that declaration prayed for questioning mutation No.126 dated 5.4.1983 (Ext. P-l) call for no interference and accordingly those findings are upheld. 10. In support of his plea of tenancy, defendant No. l has appeared as DW-1 and examined two witnesses DW-2 and DW-4. DW-2 has -stated that defendant No. l being treated as God son by the deceased Smt. Gorkhi. He has not said a word about the tenancy having been created in favour of defendant No. l by Smt. Gorkhi though he has stated that the suit land was being cultivated by defendant No. l and none else was seen cultivating the same. DW-4, Tilku is the other witness who stated that defendant No. l was treated as a God son by Smt. Gorkhi who was being supplied grains by defendant No. 1. DW-4, Tilku is the other witness who stated that defendant No. l was treated as a God son by Smt. Gorkhi who was being supplied grains by defendant No. 1. This witness has further stated that on every crop, share in grains was being given by defendant No. 1 to the deceased Smt. Gorkhi. But in which year grains were given, he is not aware. DW-3 is Bishan Dass. He stated that land revenue wasJbeing paid by Chaudhary father of defendant No. 1 and after his death, by the said defendant. In cross-examination he admitted that receipts were being issued of land revenue and record was also being maintained in that behalf, but no document has been produced regarding payment of land revenue. 11. On the other hand, plaintiff has appeared as PW-1 and has stated that he cultivated the land for Smt. Gorkhi for some time where after she got it cultivated from defendant No. l, Smt. Gorkhi, plaintiff and defendants No. 4 to 6 are Gaddis and as per custom, widow amongest Gaddis could not induct a tenant. He further claimed that at the time of death of Smt. Gorkhi, he was in possession of the suit property and after her death defendant No. 1 took forcible possession of the land in question. 12. Regarding plea of tenancy, there is no record and even in the Khasra girdawari, no such entry has been made in favour of defendant No. l showing him to a tenant under Smt Gorkhi as claimed by him..: 13. First appellate Court was wrong in coming to the conclusion that because defendant No. 1 was cultivating the land in question during the life time of Smt. Gorkhi after her husbands death, therefore, the plea of tenancy under Smt. Gorkhi becomes plausible. This finding cannot be supported either on evidence or other material produce during the trial. Long possession by itself would not establish the plea of tenancy unless of course other requirements of law are fulfilled. Both the courts below have referred to the written statement of defendant No.4 wherein the claim of defendant No. l had been conceded including that of tenancy. As already observed, there is no written statement j filed by defendant No.4 and only written statement from amongst the defendant No.2 to 4 is that of defendant No.2. Both the courts below have referred to the written statement of defendant No.4 wherein the claim of defendant No. l had been conceded including that of tenancy. As already observed, there is no written statement j filed by defendant No.4 and only written statement from amongst the defendant No.2 to 4 is that of defendant No.2. Except for written statement of defendant No.2, neither defendant No.3 nor defendant No.4 has filed any written statement. Thus, there is no admission on the part of defendant No.4. That being so, the findings recorded under point No.2 holding defendant No. l. Jassa to be tenant over the suit land cannot be sustained and are reversed. It is held that Jassa defendant No. 1 was not a tenant over the suit land and he had no right to remain in possession of the suit land as well as the house and claim of the plaintiff could not have been turned down in that behalf. Since plaintiff and proforma defendants 5 to 6 have been held to be the owners of 1/2 share out of the suit land and in that proportion the house also, remaining 1/2 share in land and house belongs to defendants 2 to 4. This decree shall ensure for the benefit of the said parties accordingly. 14. Now, coming to the question of limitation that was forcefully urged by Shri R.L. Sood, learned counsel for defendant No. l for the purposes of enabling this court to hold that the suit of the plaintiff was not maintainable as mutation order (Ext. P-l)was not questioned within one year of its having been passed on 5.4.1983, therefore, suit was barred by time. Suffice it to say that mutation neither confers nor extinguishes the title in any one. It is limited for fiscal purposes to keep the revenue records straight so as to ensure who is liable to pay the land revenue and ceases recoverable by the Government. That being so, the plea of defendant No. 1 -Jassa that the suit was not maintainable under Article 100 of the Limitation Act has been raised simply to be rejected. Reference in this behalf can be made to JT 1996(7) SC 580, Smt. Swarni v. Smt. Inder Kaur & Ors. and 1997(2) PLJ 132,BalwantSingh & Anr. v. Daulat Singh (dead) by LRS. & Ors. 15. This matter could be viewed from another angle. Reference in this behalf can be made to JT 1996(7) SC 580, Smt. Swarni v. Smt. Inder Kaur & Ors. and 1997(2) PLJ 132,BalwantSingh & Anr. v. Daulat Singh (dead) by LRS. & Ors. 15. This matter could be viewed from another angle. This plea if at all could be maintained was by defendants No.2 to 4. Defendant No. l was surviving on the findings of tenancy recorded in his favour by the lower appellate court which have been reversed by this Court. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that the suit of the plaintiff was barred by time or it was not maintainable since mutation had not been questioned within one year of its having been attested. Consequently this plea urged on behalf of defendant No. l also falls. 16. Moreover, the suit of the plaintiff was for possession against defendant No. l, who had entered into possession after (he death of Smt. Gorkhi, Mutation was not in favour of defendant No. l and qua defendants 2 to 4 mutation has been upheld. As such no declaration was claimed against defendant No. l. Therefore, plea of limitation urged on behalf of defendant No. l cannot be upheld. 17. No other point has been urged by the learned counsel for the parties. 18. As a result of the aforesaid discussion, this appeal is allowed. A decree for possession of the suit land alongwith house is passed to the extent of l/2 share in favour of plaintiff and defendants No.5 to 6 and for the remaining l/2 share in land and house both in favour of defendants No.2 to 4. Plaintiff shall be entitled to execute the decree which shall also ensure for the benefit of the parties in terms of this judgment. Costs on the parties.