JUDGMENT Surinder Sarup, J. :- This second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree of Shri L.N. Sharma, Additional District Judge, Shimla dated 31.5.1995 whereby the appeal of the defendant/respondent Kalavati has been accepted and the decree passed in favour of the plaintiffs/appellants by the learned trial Court of Shri Bhim Chand, i.e. Sub Judge 1st Class, Court No.2. Shimla vide his judgment and decree dated 14.8.1992 has been partly set aside. By that decree the trial Court decreed the plaintiffs’ suit for declaration in to and held that they are in possession of the suit land, and also detailed in the two judgments below, situated in mauza Panog, Tehsil and District Shimla and for restraining the respondent from interferring in their possession over the suit land. The decree, which has been passed in appeal by the learned Additional District Judge is that the judgment and decree of the trial Court stands set aside and it has been held that the plaintiffs/respondents have no right to interfere in the peaceful possession of the defendant (respondent), till the plaintiff/appellant(s) have taken possession of land from her in due process of law. Hence, the present appeal, in which the defendant- respondent has also filed cross-objections. 2. Briefly, the facts are that the plaintiffs/appellants filed a suit for declaration that mutation No. 243 had bast No. 286, Tehsil and District Shimla attested by the Assistant Collector IInd Grade, Shimla on 3.9.1986 is illegal, void and without jurisdiction and die plaintiffs are the owners with possession of the suit land. They also sought the following consequential reliefs: (i) Confirmation of possession of the plaintiffs on the above described land in dispute; (ii) alternatively decree of possession of the above referred land in dispute in favour of the plaintiffs; and (iii) permanent prohibitory injunction in favour of the plaintiffs against the defendant restraining her not to interfere in the possession of the plaintiffs on the above referred land in dispute and not to take any benefit under the above referred mutation No.243 dated 3.9.1986. 3. The case of the plaintiffs as pleaded by them is that one Tara Vati, who was issue less had given the entire property to them including the suit land comprised in Khasra No. 117 and 167, total land measuring 4 Bighas 12 Biswas, Mauza Panog, Tehsil and District Shimla. 3. The case of the plaintiffs as pleaded by them is that one Tara Vati, who was issue less had given the entire property to them including the suit land comprised in Khasra No. 117 and 167, total land measuring 4 Bighas 12 Biswas, Mauza Panog, Tehsil and District Shimla. This was done by the gift deed dated 10.5.1960 and some property was also sold to them vide registered sale deed dated 16.9.1965. Thereafter possession was also delivered to them by her. However, the defendant in connivance with the revenue staff had got her name entered in the revenue record as tenant without any base. She was already married and was residing in her in-laws village and she had no concern with the land in dispute. The mutation attested under Section 104 of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act is wrong and not binding. The plaintiffs have also challenged the orders passed by the Revenue Courts in appeal and revision and alleged that they are without jurisdiction and non nest. The plaintiffs have also pleaded that the defendant is trying to encroach upon the suit land under the garb of wrong revenue entries and prayed for the said decree. 4. The defendant/respondent filed her written statement in which she took the preliminary objections that the suit is not maintainable; that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit; that the plaintiffs are estopped to file the suit due to their own acts, deeds conduct and admissions; that the suit is time barred; that the suit is not properly valued for the purposes of court fee and jurisdiction ; that the plaintiffs have no locus standi to file the suit and that the suit lacks material particulars and that the plaintiffs have no cause of action to file the same. 5. On merits, it was denied that any land was gifted to the plaintiffs/appellants by the said Smt. Tara Vati muchless the suit land. It was stated that she -is in physical possession of the same, which was given to her by said Smt. Tara Vati prior to May, 1960 and since then she is coming in physical possession of the scene continuously. The gift deed, if any executed regarding the suit property by said Smt. Tara Vati then she was having no right to transfer the property which was in possession of the defendant/respondent. The gift deed, if any executed regarding the suit property by said Smt. Tara Vati then she was having no right to transfer the property which was in possession of the defendant/respondent. The plaintiffs never acquired any right, title or interest on the suit land as the defendant was induced as tenant of the suit land by Smt. Tara Vati about 28 years back and it was agreed between them that she would look-after Smt Tara Vati and in lieu of said services, the suit land was given to her. The defendant also alleged that tie revenue entries are correct and all the orders passed by the Revenue Courts are valid and binding. 6. After the plaintiffs had filed their replication re-iterating their claim in the plaint, the learned trial Court framed the following issues:- 1. Whether the plaintiffs are owners in possession qua suit property by way of gifts and sale by Smt. Tara Vati and Sheesh Ram as alleged? ......OPP. 2. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the relief of declaration? .....OPP. 3. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled in the alternative to the relief of possession as prayed for ?.......OPP. 4. Whether the plaintiffs are entitle d to the relief of permanent prohibitory injunction as prayed for ?.....OPP. 5. Whether the suit is not maintainable as alleged?......OPD. 6. Whether the plaintiffs are estopped from filing the present suit as alleged? OPD. 7. Whether this Court has no jurisdiction to try this suit?.......OPD. 8. Whether the suit is time -barred?......OPD. 9. Whether the suit lacks material particulars?......OPD. 9(A)Whether the defendant was inducted as a tenant over the suit land by Smt. Tarawati ? (issue framed on 6.11.1990)......OPP. 10. Relief. 7. On the basis of the evidence on the record, the trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiffs/appellant in toto. Plaintiffs had examined as many as 13 witnesses in support of their claim. The relevant evidence of the parties will not be discussed briefly. 8. PW. l Om Parkash and PW.2 Ram Dutt, Secretary Gram Panchayat ; produced the record to ascertion the age of the defendant/respondent PW.3 Med Ram is an attesting witness of the sale deed. According to him the sale deed was executed by Smt. Tara Vati in favour of the plaintiffs. PW. 8. PW. l Om Parkash and PW.2 Ram Dutt, Secretary Gram Panchayat ; produced the record to ascertion the age of the defendant/respondent PW.3 Med Ram is an attesting witness of the sale deed. According to him the sale deed was executed by Smt. Tara Vati in favour of the plaintiffs. PW. 4 Bhup Ram has stated that the gift deed was executed by Smt. Tara Vati in favour of the plaintiffs and the same was got scribed from Shri Kangu Ram petition writer. PW.5 is Shri Govind Ram, Office Kanungo, who has brought the mutation record. PW.6 is Shri Balwant Singh, a document writer. He stated that at the instance of Tara Vati he scribed the gift deed, the entry of which has been made in his register at serial No. 248. PW .7 Shri Shiv Ram has also stated that the land was given to them by Smt. Tara Vati through a registered sale deed and gift deed. Shiv Ram is one of the plaintiffs. PW 8 Mehar Chand is a Registration Cleric, who brought the record from the office of the Sub Registrar, to prove the sale deed. PWs. 10, PW 11, PW.12 and PW.13. S/Shri Govind Ram Bansi Dhar Sharma, Brahma Nand and Kapil Dev has also supported the case of the plaintiffs. They have all denied the possession of the defendant over the suit land. 9. In support of her case, Kalawati, defendant appeared herself in the witness-box as D.W.I She reiterated in the witness-box all what was pleaded by her in her written statement. At the same time in cross-examination, there is an important admission made by her that after her manage, she used to reside with her in-laws in their house. However, in the next lien she stated that she used to cultivate the suit land her-self. It is not understandable as to how she was able to cultivate the suit land. This part of her statement in her cross-examination belief her case to some extent. DW.2 Gita Ram has also supported the case of the defendant. DW.3 Padam Chand is the father of Kalawati, who is naturally an interested- witnesses. Therefore, his testimony is of no avail to her. This part of her statement in her cross-examination belief her case to some extent. DW.2 Gita Ram has also supported the case of the defendant. DW.3 Padam Chand is the father of Kalawati, who is naturally an interested- witnesses. Therefore, his testimony is of no avail to her. However, in cross -examination he has admitted the execution of the gift and sale deed by Smt Tara Vati in favour of the plaintiffs, thereby belying the case of the defendant Kalwati whose stand throughout is that the land was not gifted by Tara Vati in favour of the plaintiffs. In other words, the defendant is self-contradictory and cannot controvert the evidence led by the plaintiffs/ appellants. 10. The learned Appellate Court has made its conclusion on the basis that the revenue entries through out are in favour of the defendant/respondent and thus the defendant/respondent is, a tenant He has relied on the jamabandis for the year 1968-69,1973-74 and 1983-84 placed on record. For ready reference the column of cultivation in all these jamabandis may be referred to, which shows the possession of Smt. Kalawati, defendant/respondent as "Billa Lagan Babjan Lihaj", meaning thereby that her possession was out of concession, as to who gave this concession is not clear from the record. In the circumstances, it may be termed at the instance of the plaintiffs/ appellants that she was given the possession as of concession. Moreover, the case of the defendant/respondent in the written statement is as already referred above, that she is a tenant and was inducted as a tenant over the suit land by the said Smt. Tara Vati. The revenue entries also bely her case. 11. Thus, it is clear that the plea of the defendant/ respondent that she is tenant over the suit land is wrong. It is settled law that in order to find out the status of a person in possession of agricultural land, h is not the column of possession only, which is to be seen, hut it is the column of rent also, which does not show that the defendant/ respondent is paying any rent to the land owner, in this case, to the plaintiffs/ appellants who are shown to be the owners of the same. 12. 12. Learned counsel for the respondent/defendant was at great pains to show that she is a tenant and for this he relied on the entry in the column of cultivation which shows her to be the tenant at will. As already stated above, this mere entry is not enough to prove her status, because, in the column of rent, she is not shown to be paying any rent, but is shown to be in possession on concession, presumably of the plaintiffs/appellants. The learned counsel for the defendant/ respondent has then referred to the jamabandi Ext. D.-3. There again the entry in the column made is similar, i.e. possession being on account of concession. Therefore, the defendant respondent has completely failed to prove that she was inducted as a tenant with possession over the suit land by late Smt. Tara Vati. On the other hand, her own father has admitted in the witness -box that the suit land had been gifted by Smt. Tara Vati to the plaintiffs/ appellants. 13. Cross objections have been filed by the defendant/ respondent on the ground that the learned Appellate Court was wrong in declaring her to be not the tenant of the suit land. There cross-objections are without merit, as I have already held above that the defendant/respondent has failed to prove her tenancy on the suit land. 14. For the reasons recorded above, this appeal succeeds and it is accepted. The judgment and decree of the learned appellate Court are set aside and a decree for possession is passed in favour of the "plaintiffs/ appellants on account of their having becomes owners by virtue of the gift deed and sale deed in their favour by late Smt. Tara Vati of the suit land, property having come to them through their predecessors -in-interest. In consequence of this decree, the cross-objections filed by the defendant/ respondent are dismissed . In the circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs both of the second appeal as well as the cross - objections.