JUDGMENT D. Raju, C.J.—These appeals may be dealt with together since they involve rights claimed by one and the same parties though in respect of I different extent of land. The learned Counsel appearing on either side also made common submissions and as a matter of fact the learned First Appellate Judge disposed of all the appeals before him by a common order. 2. The real contest is between the plaintiffs and the 1st defendant, who are real brothers. The plaintiffs filed suits for declaration to the effect that they being the tenants-as-will under defendant No. 2 or more than one defendants who are the original owners of the land and the plaintiffs have acquired proprietary rights and have become the owners of the respective extent of land after the coming into force of the Himachal Pradesh Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972. The plaintiffs projected the claim that they had been the tenants-at-will in respect of the lands under the respective owners or their predecessor-in-interest for the past so many years and they were paying Galla-batai for the cultivation of the land. The 1st defendant, the other brother of the plaintiffs contested the claim of the plaintiffs on the ground that the suit lands were originally under the occupation, as a tenant, of one Dhanu and inasmuch as the said Dhanu related to parties as under died without leaving any direct heirs and the plaintiffs as well as the 1st defendant, who are real brothers succeeded to the tenancy rights held by late Dhanu and, as such, he became not only the joint tenant, but was cultivating the land jointly and the proprietary rights conferred under the Act have to be also of the three brothers including the 1st defendant and, therefore, the 1st defendant would be entitled to 1/3rd rights of ownership. The 1st defendant appears to have subsequently got also his name introduced under an order dated 18.4.1983 passed by the Assistant Collector 2nd Grade, Rajakhasa by attesting mutation of inheritance of late Dhanu in favour of the plaintiffs, as also the 1st defendant. The 1st defendant appears to have subsequently got also his name introduced under an order dated 18.4.1983 passed by the Assistant Collector 2nd Grade, Rajakhasa by attesting mutation of inheritance of late Dhanu in favour of the plaintiffs, as also the 1st defendant. The learned trial Judge after considering the oral and documentary evidence on record was of the view that the tenant Dhanu through whom the 1st defedant projected his claim was said to have died in the year 1950-51, that, therefore, no tenancy could have remained with such a person in the year 1962-63 and the entries for those years are absolutely wrong and cannot be relied upon. Thereafter, the learned trial Judge also came to the conclusion that in his view neither Dhanu was a tenant nor the tenancy rights of the said person ever succeeded to by the plaintiffs and defendant No. 1 jointly, but on the other hand from the revenue records and the evidence adduced, it stood proved that the tenancy was created in favour of the plaintiffs and it is only the plaintiffs, who remained in possession of the suit land as tenants-at-will. On that view of the matter, the suit came to be decreed. Aggrieved, the 1st defendant filed appeals before the District Court and the learned Additional District Judge (1), Kangra Division at Dharamshala by his common judgment and decree dated 21.5.1992 allowed the appeals and declared that the 1st defendant is entitled to 1/3rd share in the suit land, as has been held by the Assistant Collector 2nd Grade vide his order marked as Ex. DA in the proceedings. Felt aggrieved, the first plaintiff has filed these appeals making the 2nd plaintiffs as a pro forma respondent along with the other respondents. 3. Mr. Ramakant Sharma, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant as also Mr. D.K. Khanna, learned Counsel appearing for the contesting 1st defendant-respondent in all these appeals invited my attention to the relevant portions of the judgments and also the provisions of law in addition to adverting to some of the materials on record to project and substantiate their respective stand points. Ramakant Sharma, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant as also Mr. D.K. Khanna, learned Counsel appearing for the contesting 1st defendant-respondent in all these appeals invited my attention to the relevant portions of the judgments and also the provisions of law in addition to adverting to some of the materials on record to project and substantiate their respective stand points. The contention on behalf of the appellant in all these appeals by the learned Counsel is that the 1st defendant has failed to prove that the succeeded to the tenancy rights of Dhanu in terms of Section 45 of the Act and that the Jamabandi records at any rate for the year 1967-68 onwards would go to show that it was the plaintiffs, who were entered, as against the lands in question, as tenants in occupation and merely on the basis of the orders passed by the Assistant Collector 2nd Grade, the learned First Appellate Judge could not have come to the conclusion that the 1st defendant also was entitled to 1/3rd share of the tenancy rights and consequently 1/3rd rights of ownership in the lands under Section 104 of the Act. The further contention on behalf of the appellant is that the 1st defendant failed to sufficiently substantiate the claim of tenancy in favour of late Dhanu in respect of the land at the relevant point of time when the Act came into force and on the materials on record, the learned First Appellate Judge could not have interfered with the findings of the learned trial Judge and consequently, the rights claimed by the 1st defendant could not have been countenanced in law. The further submission of the learned Counsel for the appellant is that the First Appellate Court misread the evidence on vital aspects, in disturbing the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Judge in favour of the plaintiffs. 4. Per contra, the learned Counsel for the 1st defendant-respondent with equal force and vehemence contended that the revenue records filed in Ex. 4. Per contra, the learned Counsel for the 1st defendant-respondent with equal force and vehemence contended that the revenue records filed in Ex. DX for the year 1962-63, disclosed that the name of Dhanu, the uncle of the plaintiffs and the 1st defendant has been recorded as cultivating tenant in respect of the suit land in his capacity as a non-occupancy tenant and when he died, the mutation of inheritance was wrongly attested in favour of the plaintiffs alone ignoring the rights of the 1st defendant as also ignoring the fact that he was also in joint enjoyment at such tenancy rights and that this mistake having been set right by the orders marked as Ex. DA by the Assistant Collector 2nd Grade by attesting mutation of Inheritance in favour of the plaintiffs as well as the 1 st defendant, no exception could be taken to the judgment of the learned First Appellate Judge rendered after taking into account all these aspects and on an over-all consideration of the evidence on record. In other respects, the learned Counsel for the 1 st defendant adopted the reasons assigned by the learned First Appellate Judge and equally contended that the learned trial Judge failed to give due weight to the evidence of the owner A the land and, therefore, no interference is called for with the judgment of the learned First Appellate Judge. In traversing the plea urged on behalf of the appellant in all these cases on the illegality and the invalidity of the order passed by the Assistant Collector 2nd Grade, filed as Ex. DA in the proceedings for the reasons that he was not the competent authority to pass such an order, the learned Counsel for the contesting respondent contended that the entries have been corrected during the settlement proceedings and to such a case the provisions contained in Rule 29 of the Himachal Pradesh Tenancy and Land Reforms Rules, 1975 will have no application and the Assistant Collector 2nd Grade who ordered the mutation of inheritance by correcting the relevant entries was well within his jurisdiction and authority and, therefore, the reliance placed by the learned First Appellate Judge on the said document is in accordance with law. 5. I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned Counsel appearing on either side. 5. I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned Counsel appearing on either side. In my view the learned First Appellate Judge committed an error in placing reliance upon the order of the Assistant Collector 2nd Grade filed as Ex. DA in strongly as well as mainly sustaining the claim of the 1st defendant. I am unable to appreciate or accept the stand taken for the 1st defendant that in matters of the nature, Rule 29 had no application. Indisputably from 1967-98 onwards in the relevant revenue records, it is the name of the plaintiffs alone, which was found entered as tenants in occupation and the persons paying the Galla-batai. If that be the position, if the rights of such persons have to be curtailed or to be held to be shared by others, whose names did not figure earlier in the records, it must be considered to. be a dispute regarding the entries already in existence in respect of the land in the records of the Land Reform Officer and if that be the position, I fail to see how the provisions of Rule 29 can be held to be not applicable. In order to justify the said order my attention was not drawn to any other powers in the Assistant Collector 2nd Grade to effect any correction in order to settle the controversy or dispute among the parties, who were competing for their clams in the land. Therefore, the order passed by the Assistant Collector 2nd Grade in this case filed as Ex. DA has to be necessarily held to be an illegal and void order passed by a person not competent to do so and for that matter it has to be eschewed from consideration in and jurisdiction of the claims in the present proceedings. Therefore, the learned trial Judge was well within his rights in eschewing the said document from the consideration and for the same reason the learned First Appellant Judge has committed, in my view, a serious error of law in placing strong reliance upon the same and from the proceedings trying to connect the 1st defendant through Dhanu even in the absence of any positive proof of record to show the actual date of death of Dhanu. Though, no doubt, the learned trial Judge has tried to fix the date of death of Dhanu in the year 1950-51 and the learned First Appellate Judge chose to, relying upon Ex. DX, which is a copy of the jamabandi for-the year 1962-63, come to the conclusion that he should have been alive even upto that date, the fact remains that there is no direct or positive evidence as .o the about date of death of late Dhanu and merely because of the entries alone in the Jamabandi records in respect of the particular item of land, it cannot be positively and with any certainty and definiteness held that the date of death could be fixed, to any date thereafter. It is not uncommon, even after the death of the particular owner or the person in whose name some entries are made in the land records, the entries are allowed to continue unless somebody take specific interest to have them corrected up to date notwithstanding the death of such person and it is in view of such circumstances only, I am unable to accept the view expressed by the learned First Appellate Judge based merely on a presumption from the entry in the land revenue record that he should have been alive till then or died thereafter only. This is a fact, which has to be and ought to have been specifically proved by positive evidence of production of any extract from the death register by the 1st defendant, who has been claiming tenancy rights by inheritance through late Dhanu. Even that apart, the 1st defendant in spite of positive dispute about his rights in the land as a tenant by the plaintiffs has not chosen to place on record any material to show that he has been in joint occupation as a non-occupancy tenant either by independent record or by proof of payment of any amount to the landlords concerned in respect of his share. In the absence of any such records from the side of the 1st defendant only, the learned trial Judge also chose to reject the claim of joint tenancy projected by the 1st defendant. In the absence of any such records from the side of the 1st defendant only, the learned trial Judge also chose to reject the claim of joint tenancy projected by the 1st defendant. On the other hand, the learned First Appellate Judge while ignoring this vital aspect has chosen to pick merely loop-holes in the case of the plaintiffs by pointing out that the record is silent that the plaintiffs have paid Galla-batai to some persons and that the quantity of such payment paid to the landlords is also unknown. This comment in my view was unwarranted and uncharitable for the reason that it was never in issue or dispute that the plaintiffs have paid such amounts and what was being disputed by the 1st defendant was that all the brothers were jointly in occupation and that the 1st defendant believed the other brothers and what was being done by the other brothers was for and in the common interest of all the brothers, including the 1st defendant. In order to substantiate the claim that the plaintiffs were paying amounts as disclosed in the revenue records, the appellant has filed CMP No 3 98 in RSA No. 219/92, CMP No. 396/98 in RSA No. 268/92, CMP No 473/98 in RSA No. 269/92, CMP NO. 476/98 in RSA No. 270/92 and CM No. 475/98 in RSA No. 271/92 invoking the powers under Order 41, Rule 27, C.P.C. to permit in evidence these documents as additional evidence. These documents were the receipts issued by the respective land owners in original and there could be no serious objection to the said documents being allowed in evidence. As indicated already, apparently they were not produced in the Court below for the reason that there was no such controversy at all as pointed out earlier and the documents being relevant and vital in order to sufficiently answer the points sought to be made out by the learned First Appellate Judge, which, in my view, was not only unwarranted but proceeded on surmises, have to be entertained and allowed as conditional evidence. The said applications are allowed and the documents will be marked as Exs. P-4 to ?-47 on the plaintiffs side. 6. The said applications are allowed and the documents will be marked as Exs. P-4 to ?-47 on the plaintiffs side. 6. In my view even brushing aside the plea of the plaintiffs that it is not by inheritance through late Dhanu they claimed tenancy rights and instead they plead for such claim in their own right stating that they have been granted such tenancy rights, and taking it for consideration, the plea of the 1st defendant that Dhanu was at any rate alive till 19(52-63 wherein he was shown to be a tenant and he died, the 1st defendant cannot succeed in his claim for an equal share along with the plaintiffs as joint tenant in the tenancy rights unless it is further shown and proved by some document that he had been really and actually in joint possession and he had been paying any amount in the shape of Galla-batai to the respective owners of the land in respect of his share. It becomes all the more necessary for the 1st defendant, in the absence of any information n the records produced by the plaintiffs for such payment to be also on behalf of the. 1st defendant and such records conspicuously not disclosing the name of the 1st defendant in any of the receipts as well as in the absence of any entry in the revenue records of the name of the 1st defendant as a joint tenant except under the order passed by the Assistant Collector 2nd Garde filed as Ex. DA, to produce positive material to claim a substantial property rights. 7. The learned Counsel for the respondent orally made a request that the 1st defendant may also be permitted to file any record if he has in possession in respect of the payment of amount for his share and that if need be the matter may be remitted to the courts below with such opportunity. I am afraid I can countenance such a claim in the teeth of the facts and circumstances present in the cases where it is found that the land owners are trying to support the case of the 1st defendant by joining hands with him and if an opportunity is now given, the possibility of creating documents to project the claim cannot be completely ruled out. !n order to verify as to the exact stand taken by the 1st defendant, I have gone through the written statement filed by the 1st defendant at least in one suit, Civil Suit No. 12/87. It could be seen from the nature of defence taken also that except making a general claim that all the three brothers must be held to have jointly succeeded and the rights of Dhanu, their made who died issueless devolved upon the plaintiffs as well as the 1st defendant, there is no averment even as to how he was jointly enjoying the property or asserting his joint tenancy rights or making any claim or as to having ever made any payment either directly to the land owners or through the plaintiffs. For this reason also, I find it will not be appropriate and in the interest of justice to accede to the claim of the learned Counsel for the 1st defendant to order any remand of the proceedings to facilitate the filing of any fresh evidence. 8. For all the reasons stated above, I am of the view that the learned First Appellate Judge was in error in reversing the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Judge. Consequently, the appeals are allowed. The judgments and decrees passed by the learned First Appellate Judge are set aside and that of the learned trial Judge are restored There will be no order as to costs. Appeals allowed.