JUDGMENT SURINDER SARUP, J.—The defendant has come up in this second appeal against the concurrent judgments and decrees of the Courts below, whereby the suit of the plaintiff-respondent has been decreed for declaration that the revenue entries in favour of the defendant styling him as a tenant on the suit land are wrong and also a decree of permanent injunction restraining him from interfering in the suit land, has been passed. The judgment of the trial Court is that of Shri L.R. Sharma, Sub-Judge 1st Class, Theog, District Shimla, dated 313.1989 and that of the Appellate Court is of Shri M.R. Chaudhary, District Judge, Shimla, dated 21.4.1994, 2. The plaintiff-respondent filed the suit. The facts giving rise to this suit are that he is owner of the suit land, fully described in the plaint and as per the details given in the impugned judgment, measuring 6 bighas 2 biswas, situated in Chak Kiari. In the column of possession, the entry in the name of defendant-appellant from 1979 onwards is wrong and contrary to the facts. He was never inducted in possession of the suit land nor he is a tenant of the same He got the entry made in column of possession in the revenue record in his favour without the plaintiffs knowledge. The parties are related. In view of this fact, in absence of the plaintiff, who is a lady, the defendant used to look after the crops sown by her on the suit land. She is in cultivating possession of the suit land and the entry in the column of possession is the result of collusion between the defendant and the Patwari. In the alternative, decree for possession was prayed. 3. In the written statement, the defendant also pleaded that the plaintiff is neither owner nor in possession of the suit land. On the other hand, the defendant being the tenant of the suit land has become its owner by operation of law. According to him, the father of the plaintiff Gulab Dass was of unsound mind in the later part of his life and he was owner of the suit land. During his life time, it was Banjar. The plaintiff got married in village Deora, Tehsil Jubbal which is about 40 km away from the place where the suit land is situated. Therefore, she has admitted the defendant as tenant on the same. During his life time, it was Banjar. The plaintiff got married in village Deora, Tehsil Jubbal which is about 40 km away from the place where the suit land is situated. Therefore, she has admitted the defendant as tenant on the same. He had planted 200 apple plants over the suit land. 4. On the pleadings of the parties the trial Court framed the following issues:— 1. Whether the plaintiff is owner in possession of the suit land and the revenue entry showing the defendant as tenant are wrong as alleged? .....OPD. 2. If the defendant is proved to be in possession of the suit land, whether the possession is that of a licensee as alleged? .....OPP. 3. Whether the plaintiff is estopped from claiming back the possession of the suit land by her acts and conduct as alleged?........OPD. 4. Whether there is an apple orchard over the land in suit, if so, its effect? ...........OPD. 5. Whether the suit has not been properly valued for the purposes of court fee and jurisdiction ? ..........OPD. 6. Relief. All the issues having been answered in favour of the plaintiff, her suit was decreed. The appeal of the defendant was dismissed by the lower Appellate Court and the defendant has come up in second appeal before this Court. 5. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have examined the record with their assistance. It has been submitted by Shri K.D. Sood, learned Counsel for the defendant-appellant that despite the fact that the onus of issue No. 1 had been objected to, as is apparent from the record, both the Courts below have not adverted to this aspect of the case and have decided the issue against the appellant and in favour of the plaintiff-respondent, thus, causing prejudice to his case. In this connection, my attention has also been invited to Section 104(4) of the HP. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972. The same provides that whenever dispute arises whether a person cultivating the land of a landowner, is a tenant or not, the burden of proving that such a person is not a tenant of the land owner shall be on the latter. In reply, Mrs. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972. The same provides that whenever dispute arises whether a person cultivating the land of a landowner, is a tenant or not, the burden of proving that such a person is not a tenant of the land owner shall be on the latter. In reply, Mrs. Devyani Sharma, learned Counsel for the respondent, has submitted that the operative word in this section is cultivating and in view of the findings of both the Courts below in the present case that the defendant has not been proved to be cultivating the land in dispute, this provision of law is not applicable. I find force in the submission of the learned Counsel for the plaintiff-respondent. The fact remains that on appreciation of evidence, both the courts below have come to the conclusion that the defendant is not proved to be in cultivating possession of the suit land. In this view of the matter Section 104 (4) ibid does not apply. 6. Shri K.D. Sood has referred to document Ex. D-6 on the record. A bare perusal of the same shows that there was transfer of possession of some Khasra numbers as per the details given therein from some cultivator to another The presence of only the land owner (Malkan) cultivator (Kastkaran) and Member Panchayat has been recorded in the same. It does not disclose whether the land was transferred from plaintiff to the defendant, which is the latters case. Moreover, this document was merely tendered in evidence. When the owner of the document i.e. Patwari, appeared in the witness box it was not put to him, so that its authenticity could be proved. In these circumstances, this piece of evidence is of no avail to the defendant-appellant. 7. The matter can be looked at from another angle also. Despite the fact that the onus of issue No. 1 was objected to on behalf of the defendant, and both the courts below have not dealt specifically with this aspect of the case, I find no illegality having been committed by them so as to warrant interference in the second appeal, as it does not involve any substantial question of law. It is well settled that once the parties have led their respective evidence and they are well aware of their pleadings and evidence, issues lose their importance at this stage, to the extent that they are only relevant for convenience of the Court deciding a Us between the parties so as to arrive at a finding on appreciation of evidence and pleadings of the parties under each issue, which is contentions between the parties. In these circumstances, the defendant-appellant also being well aware of his own case as well as that of the plaintiff, had to succeed on his own strength on merits. He cannot take shelter behind the plea that having objected to the onus on issue No. 1, and the courts having failed to decide the same, his case has been prejudiced. The facts show otherwise. 8. Shri K.D. Sood has then submitted that it was incumbent on the lower appellate Court to give a finding on each issue, being a court of first appeal. Since it has not given any finding under issue Nos. 4 and 5, which were important issues from the defendants point of view, this approach resulted in prejudice being caused to them. In reply, learned Counsel for the plaintiff-respondent has referred to the grounds of appeal before the first appellate Court where no such plea has been taken. Shri K.D. Sood has sought to counter to this argument by referring to two circumstances. He has, first, submitted that ground No. 1 covers this aspect of the case. I do not agree with this contention as the same is a general ground and unless the defendant was making a grievance of the findings of the trial Court under issue Nos. 4 and 5 having been given against him and if the defendant was making objection, he should have specifically pleaded them in the grounds of appeal. 9. Shri K.D. Sood then referred to para-8 of the judgment of the lower appellate Court, where he has formulated two points for determination in the appeal before him. The first point is to the effect:— "Whether the findings of the learned lower Court on the issues framed are legal and correct, if so, its effect?" 10. 9. Shri K.D. Sood then referred to para-8 of the judgment of the lower appellate Court, where he has formulated two points for determination in the appeal before him. The first point is to the effect:— "Whether the findings of the learned lower Court on the issues framed are legal and correct, if so, its effect?" 10. No doubt, on this point the lower appellate Court should have discussed the findings of the trial Court on all the issues and it is also a fact that he has not discussed issues Nos. 4 and 5, but, in the totality of the circumstances of the case, this omission on the part of the lower appellate Court does not render the judgment illegal. At the most, it is an irregularity which does not amount to substantial question of law so as to call for interference in second appeal, moreso, when on the facts of the case the suit has been rightly decreed, inasmuch as the defendant has not been able to prove his tenancy, which was his case in the pleadings. 11. In order to do substantial justice, I have thought it proper to go into the merits of the case also. The finding of the learned lower appellate Court, which has inturn affirmed the finding of the trial Court is that till 1979 all the entries in the revenue record are in favour of the plaintiff. The change in possession has taken place only thereafter in favour of the defendant-appellant, but this change has not been proved to have any force of law. Neither the Rojnamcha has been proved /. e. document Ex. D-6 for the reasons already stated above, nor the change in the entries in the revenue record in favour of the defendant is in consonance with the H.R Land Records Manual and the instructions of the Financial Commissioner (Revenue) issued from time to time. Moreover, the defendant himself admitted when he appeared in the witness box that PW-2 Shankru used to cultivate the suit land on the asking of Krishna-plaintiff and was receiving wages. He has also not denied the plea of possession of the plaintiff, specifically in the written-statement. Therefore, viewed from any angle, the possession of the defendant over the suit land as tenant, as alleged by him, is not at all proved. No other point has been urged, nor any survives for decision. He has also not denied the plea of possession of the plaintiff, specifically in the written-statement. Therefore, viewed from any angle, the possession of the defendant over the suit land as tenant, as alleged by him, is not at all proved. No other point has been urged, nor any survives for decision. For the reasons recorded above, this appeal fails and is dismissed I with costs. Appeal dismissed.