JUDGMENT P.K. PALLI, J.—The plaintiffs having lost in both the Courts below is in second appeal before this Court. Parties hereinafter in the judgment shall be referred to as the "plaintiffs" and the "defendant." 2. The plaintiffs claimed a decree for declaration to the effect that they are the owners of the suit land comprising Khasra No. 103 min measuring 5 Bighas and 5 Biswas on the basis of sale deeds dated 6-5-1963 and 19-6-1963. Alternatively, the declaration was sought that they have become owner by way of adverse possession in case the sale deeds are held to be illegal and invalid. Consequential relief by way of permanent injunction is also claimed restraing the defendant-Mandir Thakur Dwarn, Paonta Sahib from selling the suit land through public auction and dispossessing the plaintiff illegally and forcibly. 3. The learned trial court on appreciation of the material placed on record by the parties found that the plaintiffs are not the owners of the suit land nor the same was purchased by them through the alleged agreements. It was also found that they are not able to establish that they have become the owners by way of adverse possession. The revenue entries projecting the plaintiffs as mortgagees or as non-occupancy tenants have been held to be illegal and the plaintiff have been found entitled to no relief by the Court. The appeal filed by the plaintiffs stands dismissed by the learned first appellate Court. 4. Mr. Kuldip Singh, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiffs appellants contends that the plaintiffs have successfully proved that they have become the owners of the suit land on the basis of documents Ex. PW-2/A and PW-3/A which have been proved beyond any doubt by way of evidence of the marginal witnesses i.e., PW-2 and PW-3. 5. It is next sought to be contended that in any case, the plaintiffs have been found to be in possession of the suit land and according to the admission made by the defendant in the written statement and as per the orders passed by the Collector and the Commissioner, the plaintiffs have been held to be the mortgagees. The plaintiffs are at least entitled to a decree of injunction that they cannot be dispossessed from the suit land otherwise by following due procedure of law. 6. The plaintiffs are at least entitled to a decree of injunction that they cannot be dispossessed from the suit land otherwise by following due procedure of law. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the defendant has adopted the same line of reasoning in reply which stands projected by the learned Courts below in the impugned judgments. 7. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on careful examination of the judgments and the record, I find that there is no merit in this appeal. 8. As I look at the plaint, it has been averred therein that Mandir Thakur Dwara, Paonta Sahib through its Manager was the owner of the suit land as per the Jamabandi of the year 1963-64 and the management of the said temple and the land was in the hands of one Ramanuj who was the Manager/Mohatmim of the temple and its properties. Ramanuj is said to have sold the land measuring 2.2 Bighas out of Khasra No. 103 in his capacity as manager of the temple in favour of the plaintiff No. 1 for a sum of Rs. 903/- and also delivered actual physical possession at the time of the execution of the said document on 6-5-1963. 9. Vide another document which is said to be an agreement of sale dated 19th June, 1963, the land measuring 3.17 Bihas again out of the said Khasra No. is said to have been sold in favour of the plaintiff No. 3 for a sum of Rs. 1650/- and likewise its possession was delivered. As Tej Pal Singh one of the vendee died, the plaintiff No. 2 being his mother have succeeded to the entire estate and has been shown in his place on record. It may be stated here that the plaintiff No. 2 is the wife of the plaintiff No. 1 whereas the plaintiff No. 3 is the son. 10. These documents have been stated to be sale deeds by the plaintiffs in the plaint. In para 5 of the plaint, it has been averred that the revenue agency without appreciating the document of sale initially recorded the plaintiffs as tenants at will on payment of Batai and after sometime, the entries were changed to that of the mortgagees and then as Kabiz which is said to be against the reality. In para 5 of the plaint, it has been averred that the revenue agency without appreciating the document of sale initially recorded the plaintiffs as tenants at will on payment of Batai and after sometime, the entries were changed to that of the mortgagees and then as Kabiz which is said to be against the reality. It has been specifically pleaded that the plaintiffs were never the tenants nor the mortgagees of the suit land but from the very beginning, are the vendees on the basis of these documents. The entries were said to be illegal and fraudulent and not binding on the plaintiffs. 11. It was also said that in case, these sale deeds are held to be illegal and invalid, the plaintiffs have become the owners of the suit land by way of adverse possession as they have been in possession of the suit land from 1963 and have thus perfected their title by way of adverse possession which is said to be continuous and hostile to the knowledge of the true owner, 12. The learned Courts below on careful perusal of the pleadings and the entries forming record-of-rights have come to conclude that Ext. PW-2/A and Ext. PW-3/A are simple agreements of sale and not sale deeds. Both these documents are, admittedly, un-registered documents. It is to well known that no title can be said to have passed to the plaintiffs on the basis of these un- registered documents. In the recitals forming the deeds it is described as an agreement for change of possession of the land. One Vijay Nand also happened to represent himself as Vendor alongwith Rama Nuj. I am informed by the learned State Counsel that Vijay Nand is not a stranger but son of Rama Nand, who at the relevant time was Manager of the temple. It has been found that the plaintiffs vehemently denied that they were ever tenants on the suit land or were mortgagees in possession. As pointed out above from the averments made in the plaint, they claim themselves to be owners in possession on the basis of these documents. Rather a challenge has been made by them that the entries in the revenue record have incorrectly recorded them to be "tenants" or as "mortgagees" or "Kabiz" only. As pointed out above from the averments made in the plaint, they claim themselves to be owners in possession on the basis of these documents. Rather a challenge has been made by them that the entries in the revenue record have incorrectly recorded them to be "tenants" or as "mortgagees" or "Kabiz" only. It has also been found that in these two documents there is a reference that the mutation of ownership has been entered in favour of the State, which means they were never owners nor have acquired any rights of tenancy or of mortgagess. On the question of adverse possession it has been found that the plaintiffs themselves claimed title to the suit land on the basis of these documents. Therefore at last their possession to begin with, could be termed as permissible. It has not been explained as to at what point of time the plaintiffs raised their flag to the denial of the ownership of the defendant to its knowledge nor any overt act has been projected as to at what point of time they started claiming themselves adversely to the knowledge of the true owner. 13. As I look at the record, I find from the recitals contained in these documents that the vendor has stated that he would take steps separately for the acquisition of proprietary rights in respect of the land. There is nothing stated that the land stands sold out to the plaintiffs. It is really surprising to find when the documents incorporate that the mutation has already been sanctioned in favour of the State the Manager has no right, title or interest which can be conferred on the plaintiffs through these documents and how he was hopeful of getting the proprietary rights of the suit land. 14. It is another thing to contend that a person who is likely to acquire ownership rights and in anticipation of it makes the sale and thereafter acquires rights, he would be bound by the instrument and the same can be held to be valid and legal. But in the present case he has given the land to the plaintiffs while acting as Mohatmim. It is well known that the words Mohatmim, Manager, Mahant, Gaddi Nashin1 are unchangeable and synonymous terms. As Manager he has to look after the interest of the temple and property attached to it like a guardian of a minor. But in the present case he has given the land to the plaintiffs while acting as Mohatmim. It is well known that the words Mohatmim, Manager, Mahant, Gaddi Nashin1 are unchangeable and synonymous terms. As Manager he has to look after the interest of the temple and property attached to it like a guardian of a minor. No such person is authorised to alienate the property of the temple or trust except for legal necessity and that too for the benefit of the trust. Rama Nuj, the then Mohatmim, who executed these documents deserves condemnation. The plaintiffs are also party to the frauds, as it is clearly stated in the documents that the mutation has been entered in favour of the State. This was done in view of the provisions contained in the HP. Hindu Public Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Act, 1984. These documents, thus, by no stretch of imagination can! be said to confer on the plaintiffs any right, title and interest in the property, which I was admittedly a trust property and belonging to the temple. 15. A look at the entries comprising record of rights makes out an interesting story. In the Jamabandi of the year 1968-69, Ext. PW-1/C and in the Jamabandi of the year 1963-64, Ext. PW-1/B which is also exhibited on record as Ext. DW-1/B, it is plaintiff No. 1 who alone is recorded in possession as "BILA LAGAN BA VAJA REHAN". The same is the position in the Jamabandi of the year 1973-74, Ext. PW- , 1/D. 16. Surprising in the Jamabandi of the year 1978-79, Ext. PW- 1/E and in the Jamabandi of the year 1983-84, Ext. PW-1/F, plaintiff No. 1 is again recorded as "Kabiz", which would mean that he is in possession of the land. 17. It may be noted that there was some dispute pending in the Court of the Collector. The proceedings had been initiated by the temple and on the strength of the entries appearing in the revenue record plaintiff No. 1 had been held to be the mortgagee, but the plaintiff did not accept the position. Plaintiffs case throughout has been that they are not mortgagees. A challenge to the order right to the Court of Divisional Commissioner was made. Plaintiffs case throughout has been that they are not mortgagees. A challenge to the order right to the Court of Divisional Commissioner was made. In case the plaintiffs were claiming themselves to be the tenants over the suit land or mortgagees, a mention of this status should have been got incorporated in the documents Ext. PW-3/A and Ext. PW-2/A. Surprisingly, there is not even a whisper of it in these documents. The plaintiffs could not now be permitted to say that as per the admission made by the defendant or on the strength of those orders, they may be considered as mortgagees. The plaintiffs have to blame only themselves for taking contradictory pleas. In Ext. DW-2/B, which is a copy of Jamabandi, Kabal Singh is recorded as "GAIR MAROOSI". It is he who is alone recorded as such in respect of the entire land comprising Khasra No. 103 min, i.e., 6 Bighas 5 Biswas. 18. In the Missal Haquiat 1959-60, THAKUR DAWARA under the management of Rama Nuj is recorded in self cultivation of the Mohatmim. In the Jamabandi of the year 1963-64, Ext. DW-1/B, Kabal Singh is recorded as "GAIR MAROOSI". The same is the position in the Jamabandi of the year 1968-69. Ext. DW-1/C. 19. In the Jamabandi of the year 1973-74, Ext. DW-1/D, Kabal Singh is recorded as mortgagee and interestingly in column No. 9, pertaining to rent, it is recorded "BILA LAGAN BA VAJA REHAN". There is nothing indicated in the Kaifiyat column No. 12 as to how this entry came to be recorded as "MURATHAN", i.e., mortgagee. In the next Jamabandi following, i.e., 1978-79, Ext. DW-1/F, Kabal Singh is recorded only in possession and there is nothing indicated in the rent column. Similar is the position in Ext. DW-1/B, which is a Jamabandi of the year 1983-84. In the Kaifiyat column there is a reference about the vesting of the THAKUR DAWARA in the management of the State on account of the provisions of the Act reference to which has already been made above. Similar is the position in the Jamabandi next following i.e., of the year 1988- 89, Ext. DW-1/H. 20. In the Kaifiyat column there is a reference about the vesting of the THAKUR DAWARA in the management of the State on account of the provisions of the Act reference to which has already been made above. Similar is the position in the Jamabandi next following i.e., of the year 1988- 89, Ext. DW-1/H. 20. It is a shocking state of affairs to notice that how the revenue officials I were tempering with the entries and changing the same from time to time, without any entry in the remarks column and without any order or direction for the change. It has been found in large number of cases coming to this Court and time and again this practice has been depricated, but with no fruitful result. 21. Revenue officials dealing with the entries which have the effect on the right, title and interest of the citizens have to be very careful as its tempering leads to a frivolous litigation and sometimes result in wrong findings. The revenue officials while dealing with the entries, particularly in this case when the same pertains to a religious institution, were expected to be more cautious, but as I have noticed above on the basis of the record, I cannot refrain myself from commenting adversely on their act and conduct. The Collectors of the Districts too have a responsibility towards the public and strict instructions are required to be issued to the field staff engaged in the process and in case it is found that the instructions are not followed in its letter and spirit, strict action should be taken against such defaulting officials, who are tempering with the entries which form record-of-rights. 22. Instructions may also be sent to the Tehsildars and other registering i authorities in the State that they should refuse to register any such document which is executed by the Mohatmim Mahant1. Manager, Grandhi, trustee, Mutwali, where the property of the trust of which he is the Manager is sought to be alienated by him and strict action be taken against such persons as specified above who have alienated such properties for their personal ends. 23. Manager, Grandhi, trustee, Mutwali, where the property of the trust of which he is the Manager is sought to be alienated by him and strict action be taken against such persons as specified above who have alienated such properties for their personal ends. 23. Let a copy of this judgment be sent to the Chief Secretary to the Govt of Himachal Pradesh, Financial Commissioner, Divisional Commissioners as well as District Collectors to issue directions to be followed by the field staff in the light of the observations made herein-above in this judgment. 24. So far as the present appeal is concerned, there is absolutely no merit and the same is ordered to be dismissed with costs throughout. Appeal dismissed.