JUDGMENT P. K. Palli, J — The defendant No. 1 has filed this second appeal. The suit filed by the plaintiffs seeking declaration that they are the owners in possession of the suit land and the orders passed by the Assistant Collector as well as the Collector ordering the change in the revenue record are illegal and without jurisdiction and void with further prayer of permanent injunction that the defendants be restrained from interfering in the suit land, stands decreed by the learned trial Court and the judgment and decree stand affirmed by the learned first appellate Court in the appeal filed by the present defendant. 2. The plaintiffs pleaded that they alongwith the proforma defendant Nos. 2 to 14 succeeded to the estate of one Gangi being the nearest heirs and ever since her death, they are the owners in possession of the suit land. An application is said to have been filed by the defendant for correction of the Gardwari and the Assistant Collector vide order dated 23-12-1976 ordered the change treating the defendant as non-occupancy tenant. The said order stands upheld by the Collector vide order dated 23-12-1980 The plaintiffs claimed that they never inducted the defendant as tenant over the suit land and the orders passed by the Assistant Collector as well as the Collector are illegal and are not binding upon them. 3. The defendant while resisting the suit has come up with the plea that he was a non-occupancy tenant over the suit land under Gangi and has become owner by virtue of the provisions contained in the Himachal Pradesh Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972. The orders impugned by the plaintiffs are said to be perfectly legal and valid. 4. The learned trial Court on appreciation of the material placed on record by the parties has held that the defendant has failed to establish on record that he was a non-occupancy tenant over the suit land. It has been further held that the impugned orders are illegal and are not binding on the plaintiffs and they are entitled to the decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendant No. 1 from interfering into the suit land in any manner whatsoever. These findings stand affirmed by the learned first appellate Court. 5. Mr. It has been further held that the impugned orders are illegal and are not binding on the plaintiffs and they are entitled to the decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendant No. 1 from interfering into the suit land in any manner whatsoever. These findings stand affirmed by the learned first appellate Court. 5. Mr. Verma, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant-defendant contends that the suit is time barred and the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit. The argument proceeds on the basis that it is only the revenue Court which is to determine the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. The Assistant Collector as well as the Collector have found the defendant No 1 as non-occupancy tenant and the said finding is not open to challenge by the plaintiffs in the Civil Court. 6. Mr. Verma next proceeds to contend that the learned Courts below have committed error in granting decree in favour of the plaintiffs when it has not been proved hat the impugned orders suffered from any vice or error of jurisdiction. 7. It is submitted by Mr. Verma that the plaintiffs have impliedly admitted the defendant to be the non-occupancy tenant in the plaint and the document Ex. DW I/A has not been specifically denied. It is also argued that the Civil Court could not sit over the orders having been validity passed by the revenue authorities who had the exclusive jurisdiction in that respect. Strong reliance has been placed by the learned Counsel in the case of Chuhniya Devi v. Jindu Ram, 1991(1) Sim LC 223. It has been argued that the suit could be filed within one year to lay challenge to the orders passed by the revenue authorities and the plaintiffs conspicuously have not placed on record the order passed by the Assistant Collector and the suit having been filed in the year 1981 is time barred. Learned Counsel has also cited case law in support of this contention. 8. My attention has also been brought to the Kafiat column of Ex. D-l which is a Jamabandi of the year 1982-83 and therein it is recorded that the change has been occasioned on account of the mutation of inheritance and the defendant has become the owner of the suit land of which he was the non-occupancy tenant by operation of law and has acquired proprietory rights. 9. Mr. D-l which is a Jamabandi of the year 1982-83 and therein it is recorded that the change has been occasioned on account of the mutation of inheritance and the defendant has become the owner of the suit land of which he was the non-occupancy tenant by operation of law and has acquired proprietory rights. 9. Mr. Kuthiala, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents-plaintiffs in reply strongly relies upon the observations made by the learned Courts below in the impugned judgments and adopts the same line of reasoning. Besides this, Mr. Kuthiala contends that there was no piece of evidence to show that the defendant was ever inducted as non-occupancy tenant by the plaintiffs of their predecessor-in-interest Smt. Gangi. 10 It is next argued that the plaintiffs laid challenge to both the orders i e. one passed by the Assistant Collector and also of the Collector which order is dated 23-12-1980 and the suit having been filed on 11-3-1981 was perfectly within time. It is sought to be contended that there was no need to place the order passed by the Assistant Collector on record of the case as the same has been merged in the appellate order of the Collector. Mr Kutniala further contends that the Civil Court shall have no jurisdiction in case, the relationship between the parties is admitted, but in the present case, the plaintiffs have laid challenge to the status of the defendant as well as to the orders passed by the revenue authouties as wholly illegal and without jurisdiction and, therefore, the Civil Court shall certainly have the jurisdiction to determine the issues raised. Reliance has also been placed on the case law by the learned Counsel to this effect. 11. After having heard the learned Counsel for the parties at length and on careful examination of the impugned judgments and the record, I find that in the plaint, the plaintiffs have claimed a declaratory decree to the effect that they are the owners in possession and further the relief of permanent injunction is claimed restraining the defendant from interfering in their right, title or interest over the suit land Challenge has also been laid to the order dated 23-H-1976 passed by the Assistant Collector as well as the order dated 23-12-1980 passed by the Collector. In para 5, it has been said that Ikrarnama relied upon by the defendant No 1 was never given effect to. The same is the result of fraud and deception and in case, there is any such document, the same is void. It has been specifically stated that the plaintiffs never accepted the defendant as non-occupancy tenant and the orders passed by the revenue authorities are liable to be set aside. 12. In para 6 of the plaint, it is stated that the defendant under the garb of the orders under challenge has started interfering in their peaceful possession over the suit land for which he has no right. In the prayer clause, nothing has been said that the agreement be declared as illega, void or an act of fraud or deception. In the written statement, the ownership and possession of the plaintiffs over the suit land stands denied. There is not even a whisper in the entire written statement that there was any agreement or that the defendant has been inducted an non-occupancy tenant over the suit land on the strength of the document All that has been said is that the defendant No 1 was holding the suit land as non-occupancy tenant and has now become the owner of the same under the Tenancy and Land Reforms Act As per entries comprising record-of-rights i.e. Jamabandi of the year 1977-78 Ex P-A, the plaintiffs are un-disputably recorded as owners in possession of the suit land alongwith the proforma defendants This is again an admitted position that the suit land was declared atone point of time to be owned by one Smt Gangi and the plaintiffs have succeeded to her estate as her heirs. Though the order passed by the Assistant Collector resulting in the change of entries has not been placed on record, but the order of Collector Ex PB affirming that order reveals that the defendant had moved an application before the Assistant Collector that he was holding the land as non-occupancy tenant under Smt. Gangi and was paying her the share of produce as rent. An agreement dated 21- 5-1959 was relied upon by the defendant on which basis he claimed himself to be the tenant This document appears to have been marked as PW I/A in those proceedings and an argument was raised by the plaintiffs that the same is forged, In the order, the Collector has specifically made it clear that the Assistant Collector has only ordred the correction of the entries of the Khasra Girdawari and not of the Jamabindi and as such the order was perfectly within jurisdiction It is also stated that proper inquiry was made and faces were ascertained and only thereafter the correction was ordered to be made in the entries comparising Khasra Girdawari. A reading of the order further reveals that it was on the basis of an agreement that the defendant set up his plea of non-occupancy tenancy against the plaintiffs on the basis of some agreement and an observation was made that it is irrelevant to plead that the agreement has been wrongly relied upon or the evidence has been incorrectly appreciated It was in this situation, it was held that the defendant is in possession of the disputed land and has been a non-occupancy tenant. There is again another important observation in this very order/ the mere entry in the Khasra Girdawari does not bestow or take away any right of any party nor do such entries settle the rights permanently" It was in this situation that the order was upheld. The plaintiffs thus rightly filed the present suit laping challenge to these orders and even if the order of the Assistant Collector has not been placed on record, the plaintiffs cannot be non-suited as in my considered opinion, the appellate order passed by the Collector is dated 23-12-1980 and the suit having been filed withing less than one year is perfectly within limitation. 13. A look at the entries recorded in the Khasra Girdawari in the year 1983-84 reveals that Kanshi Ram is recorded in the proprietorship column as well as in the possessory column as "Hissedar" as well as "Gair Marasi" and the rate of rent given therein is 12 paise total for the entire year. A part of the land is recorded as "Banjar Kadeem" as a part of the land is recorded as "Khadyatar". A part of the land is recorded as "Banjar Kadeem" as a part of the land is recorded as "Khadyatar". In the Jamabandi of the year 1982-83, Ex D-l, the defendant is recorded in the proprietorship column having 41 shares to the extent of 41st share and Smt. Prabhi is recorded as owner of "One Bhag". In the possessory column, the name of the defendant is recorded as "Hissedar" as well as "Gair Marusi" in respect of 41st shares an in respect of one part, Smt Prabhi Hissedar is recorded in the rent column as "12 Paise Bill Saal Tamam" In the Kafiat column No. 12, all what is said is "Hasool Malkiat Varaasat". 14. The argument of Mr. Verma that the proprietary rights came to be conferred upon the defendant by operation of law and, therefore he is recorded as owner in possession and the mutation was sanctioned in that behalf, does not seem to be correct It may be noted here from this Jamabandi that the entries in the Girdawari came to be made after the order of the Collector Ex. PB which is dated 23-12-1980. In this very order, it has been clearly observed that the order of the Assistant Collector is in respect of the correction of the entries in the Khasra Girdawari" which neither confers nor takes away any right of any of the parties nor does it settle their rights permanently. 15. There is another interesting feature which is said to be the alleged and that is document marked Ex DW I/A which is said to be the agreement dated 27-5-1959. It is possibly the same document which was made the basis for change in the record by the Assistant Collector as well as The defendant raised no plea the written statement Wel1as the collector. relying on the this document though the plaintiffs have made a reference to it in the plaint as said above. The defendant while in the witness box make out an interesting story. He has stated that according to the writing Ex. DW1i/A. the land in suit came to him and in lieu thereof and he relinquished the land in favour of the plaintiffs at a different place. This plea has not been taken in the written statement. The defendant while in the witness box make out an interesting story. He has stated that according to the writing Ex. DW1i/A. the land in suit came to him and in lieu thereof and he relinquished the land in favour of the plaintiffs at a different place. This plea has not been taken in the written statement. Interestingly, the defendant never confronted the plaintiff with this document when the plaintiff was in the witness box although it is said to be signed by him. This document carne on the surface in the statement of defendant himself. Curiously, it is not the original agreement and is only photocopy it is not explained as to where the original is. The defendant never sought the permission of the Court to lead secondary evidence on the ground that the original has been lost, Even if this document is looked, the same by no stretch of imagination makes out a case of non-occupancy tenancy in favour of the defendant There is nothing indicated about the terms in respect of the payment of rent Even the word tenant is conspicuously missing in this writing Simply because he was cutting the grass on the suit land on behalf of Smt. Gendgi will not clothe him with the status of non-occupancy tenant. In his statement, he states that he has ben paying only the revenue. The "Mamla" by no stretch of imagination can be held as "Lagan". It has been further stated by him in cross-examination that he used to pay Rs. 5 as "Mamla" to Smt Gangi It is admitted that the land is "Khadyatar" In the next breath, it is stated that he used to pay "Chakota" to Smt. Gangi, but she never gave any receipt. It is further stated by him that he has been occupying the land as tenant-"Gair Mauroosi" since 1942-43. 16. In case, the defendant was occupying the land in question as non-occupancy tenant, the same would definitely been reflected in the record-of-rights, but there is no entry till the correction was ordered to be made by the revenue officers. The document appears to have been wholly misread and misconstrued by the Assistant Collector as well as the Collector and the Collector certainly went wrong in holding the defendant to be the non-occupancy tenant on the basis of this writing. 17. The document appears to have been wholly misread and misconstrued by the Assistant Collector as well as the Collector and the Collector certainly went wrong in holding the defendant to be the non-occupancy tenant on the basis of this writing. 17. Legally, this writing is not admissible as the same has not been proved in accordance with law. In order to create a tenancy, there has to be a bilateral agreement or some kind of understanding and the payment of rent is always the determining factor in such a situation. The defendant has taken contradictory stand and the motive is not difficult to understand. The defendant made a desperate bid to get his name inserted by seeking correction of the entries in the Girdawari and these entries latter formed the basis of the Jamaabandi and on the strength of these entries, he desired the proprietorship rights conferred upon him under the tenancy law-Nothing has been brought on record that the ownership was changed in favour of the defendant by conferring the proprietary rights on him No order has been placed on record to that effect nor there is any Rapat Rojnamcha or any other entry which may support the contention of Mr. Verma. The orders passed by the revenue officers to which the plaintiffs have laid challenge in the present suit can safely be held not only illegal and without jurisdiction, but also completely void The orders are based on an agreement which was relied upon by the defendant. The agreement does not prove the occupancy tenancy. The Civil Court in the given situation shall certainly have the jurisdiction to determine such kind of dispute. 18. The matter can be viewed from another angle also. The plaintiffs certainly denied the execution of any agreement in the plaint itself and in ease the defendant was relying on the document, the proper plea should have been taken and thereafter the efforts should have been made to place on record the original document and then trustworthy evidence should have been led to prove it by confronting the plaintiffs. The defendant in the given situation has only to blame himself and no-one else. 19. In view of what has been said above, the appeal is devoid of any merit. The impugned judgments are based on correct appreciation of evidence and call for no interference. The defendant in the given situation has only to blame himself and no-one else. 19. In view of what has been said above, the appeal is devoid of any merit. The impugned judgments are based on correct appreciation of evidence and call for no interference. The appeal is consequently ordered to be dismissed with no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed. -