JUDGMENT SURINDER SARUP, J.—This second appeal has been filed by the defendants-appellants against the judgment and decree of the lower Appellate Court, i.e. the Additional District Judge, Una dated 19.6.1992. As a result of the same, by reversing the judgment and decree of the trial Court, i.e., the Court of Sub-Judge (II), Una dated 19.3.1988 dismissing the suit of the plaintiff-respondent, his suit has been decreed. 2. The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration to the effect that the plaintiff is owner and in possession of 10 shares besides 3 shares of land measuring 13 Kanals 9 Marias bearing Khewat No. 630 Min, Khatauni No. 3078, Khasra Nos. 2826, 2827, 2828, 2829, 2830, 2834, 2835, 2836, 2837 as entered in Jamabandi for the year 1981-82 situated in Village Badehar alias Dehlan H.B. No. 2 19 and the entry appearing in the cultivation column in the name of the plaintiff as tenant at-will with respect to 10 shares under S/Sh. Banarsi Dass, Vidya Sagar defendants and their names appearing in the ownership column with respect to half share in the Khata is wrong, illegal against facts and void and has got no effect on the rights of the plaintiff as owner, with a consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from asserting or claiming any right in the suit land to the extent of half share in the above-mentioned land. 3. It was pleaded by the plaintiff-respondent that one Kanta Devi was owner to the extent of 1/2 share of total land measuring 13 Kanal 9 Maria. She sold her share to the defendants by a registered sale deed dated 11.8.1969. It was pleaded that the plaintiff, being a co-sharer in the joint Khata, filed a suit for pre-emption against the defendants, being Civil Suit No. 265/70, which was compromised by the parties in the Court of then Sub-Judge, Una. In consequence thereof, the plaintiff paid the entire pre-emption amount of Rs. 1,500/ - to the defendants on 30.11.1970 and the suit was decreed in his favour. 4. It was pleaded by the plaintiff that he came in possession of the suit land, thus successfully pre-empted by him as a result of the compromise between the parties on that very date itself and that he has been in continuous possession till date. 1,500/ - to the defendants on 30.11.1970 and the suit was decreed in his favour. 4. It was pleaded by the plaintiff that he came in possession of the suit land, thus successfully pre-empted by him as a result of the compromise between the parties on that very date itself and that he has been in continuous possession till date. However, the name of defendant is still entered in the column of ownership in the revenue record to the extent of half share wrongly. In the cultivation column thereof, the name of the plaintiff is recorded as tenant at will under the defendants to the extent of 1/10 share i.e. 6 Kanals 14 Marias. On these pleadings, the plaintiff set up the case that the entries in favour of the defendants are wrongly appearing in the revenue record in the ownership column, as also the status of the plaintiff as a tenant-at-will in the column of possession therein is also wrongly shown. Hence, the said entry is illegal and is not binding upon him. He set his claim before the defendants regarding ownership etc. but they refused, hence the suit. 5. The defendants-appellants in their written statement admitted that they had purchased the land from the said Kanta Devi through registered sale dated in the year 1969. But, it was denied that any Civil Suit was filed by the plaintiff for pre-empting that sale or that it was compromised. It was their case that the plaintiff was never in possession as alleged by him, and that the revenue entries are correct according to the factual position on the spot. 6. On the above pleadings of the parties^ the trial Court framed only two issues. They are: 1. Whether the plaintiff is owner in possession of the suit land, as alleged? OPP 2. Relief.” 7. Ultimately, after the parties had led their evidence, the trial Court dismissed the suit but, that judgment and decree as mentioned above, has been reversed by the lower Appellate Court, who has decreed the suit of the plaintiff-respondent. 8. I have heard Shri Ramakant Sharma, learned Counsel for the appellants and Shri N.K. Thakur, learned Counsel for the respondent and have examined the record. 9. 8. I have heard Shri Ramakant Sharma, learned Counsel for the appellants and Shri N.K. Thakur, learned Counsel for the respondent and have examined the record. 9. During the course of his argument, the learned Counsel for the appellant has laid great stress as well as store on the findings of the trial Court against the plaintiff-respondent and in favour of the defendants-appellants. Be that as it may, this Court has to examine the legality of the judgment under appeal, i.e. of the lower Appellate Court (Additional District Judge, Una), because in substance, the present second appeal lies against the said judgment and decree, whereby the suit of the plaintiff-respondent has been decreed. 10. In this connection, I have gone through the judgment under appeal indepth and in my considered view, I do not find any illegality in the same so as to justify interference in second appeal. Moreover, no substantial question of law is involved which would require consideration. 11. As found by the learned lower Appellate Court, in their written statement the defendants-appellants have admitted that they purchased the suit land from Smt. Kanta in the year 1969. They, however, denied the factum that the plaintiff had pre-empted that sale successfully through a pre-emption suit. This denial by them is factually wrong. This is clear from the fact that the plaintiff gave the number of that suit i.e. C.S. No. 265/70, which was decreed by the then Sub-Judge, Una on the basis of a compromise between the parties. The defendants-appellants have also denied that they had been paid pre-emption amount of Rs. 1,500/- on 30.11.1970. 12. A perusal of the document Ex. P-l, which is a copy of the judgment of the then Sub-Judge, Una dated 30.11.1970 shows that the parties were the same as in the present case and that the suit for pre-emption filed by the plaintiff-respondent herein had been decreed for possession by way of pre-emption of the suit land on payment of Rs, 1,500/-, being the amount of pre-emption money. 13. There is also on record Ex. P-6, copy of the compromise deed in this behalf The same gives the details of the earlier preemption suit. 14. This Court is also in agreement with the finding of the lower Appellate Court that it is immaterial whether the pre-emption amount was paid by the plaintiff-respondent to the defendants-appellants in the Court or outside. P-6, copy of the compromise deed in this behalf The same gives the details of the earlier preemption suit. 14. This Court is also in agreement with the finding of the lower Appellate Court that it is immaterial whether the pre-emption amount was paid by the plaintiff-respondent to the defendants-appellants in the Court or outside. The judgments of the reported cases relied upon in the impugned judgment under appeal of the learned Additional District Judge, Una, are fully applicable to the facts of the present case. 15. Shri Rama Kant Sharma has then submitted that no decree in the earlier pre-emption suit was drawn up. There is no merit in this argument, inasmuch as, the learned lower Appellate Court has rightty observed that the omission by the office of the Court of Sub-Judge, Una in not preparing a decree-sheet in accordance with the judgment and decree passed on the basis of compromise on 30.11.1970, was a ministerial act and has no bearing on the factum that indeed a pre-emption decree was passed in favour of the plaintiff-respondent qua the same suit land, and against the defendants, on the basis of the compromise between the parties. 16. The mere fact that in the latter revenue record, i.e. Ex. P-3 to P-5, the plaintiff-respondent is shown as Gair Marusi, i.e. tenant at will in the column of cultivation does not render him as a tenant under the defendants-appellants. This is so because, it is by now well-settled that in order to see whether there is a relationship of tenant and landlord between the parties qua agricultural land, what has to be seen in the revenue record is not merely the column of possession /cultivation but also the column of rent. In absence of any rent being paid, the person recorded merely as a tenant-at-will in the column of possession/cultivation does not become a tenant under the revenue law. In this connection, I have perused the said revenue record and I find that the column of rent is blank. Therefore, the finding by the lower Appellate Court, though for different reasons, that the plaintiff-respondent is not proved to be the tenant of the defendants-appellants over the suit land is substantially correct. 17. Lastly, Shri Rama Kant Sharma has argued that the suit of the plaintiff-respondent was beyond limitation. Therefore, the finding by the lower Appellate Court, though for different reasons, that the plaintiff-respondent is not proved to be the tenant of the defendants-appellants over the suit land is substantially correct. 17. Lastly, Shri Rama Kant Sharma has argued that the suit of the plaintiff-respondent was beyond limitation. There is no merit in this argument as, no such plea was raised before the lower Appellate Court, nor any such objection appears to have been taken in the written statement. Consequently, there was no issue regarding limitation. In these circumstances, at this belated stage, the defendants-appellants cannot be permitted to take up this plea so as to take the plaintiff-respondent by surprise, as it would amount to permitting a new plea to be raised at the stage of second appeal, without any pleadings, issue or otherwise on that aspect. This is legally not permissible. 18. No other point has been urged nor arises for decision. 19. For the reasons recorded above, this appeal fails and is dismissed but, in the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.