JUDGMENT A.L.Vaidya, J. : Shri Lai Chand appellant filed a suit for declaration to the effect that the plaintiff and proforma defendants No.2 and 3 (predecessors of appellants No. 2 to 11) were in possession, as tenants-at- will, of the land measuring 66 Kanals 12 Marias as described in the plaint and had been entered, as such, in the record of rights for the year 1963- 64. Further declaration sought was that the entry regarding land measuring 5 Kanals 0 Marias, out of land measuring 33 Kanals 1 Mark comprised of Khasre No. 2650 min and land measuring 2 Kanals 0 Maria, oat of land measuring 22 Kanals 11 Marias comprised of Khasra No. 2695/1, in the revenue records in the name of defendant No. 1 from 1979 as tenant-at - will was wrong, incorrect, void and contrary to law and has been made in-connivance with the Patwari Halquaillegally, at the back of the plaintiff and proforma defendants No. 2 and 3. As a consequential relief permanent injunction had been prayed for in order to restrain defendant No. 1 from interfering, in any manner, and taking forcible possession of the suit land. In the alternative the plaintiff prayed for possession of the suit land. 2. Plaintiffs case, as reflected from the averments made in the plaint, had been that the plaintiff and proforma defendants No. 2 and 3 are in possession as tenants-at -will of the land measuring 66 Kanals 12 Marias, as described in the heading of the plaint. Defendant No. I, that is, Pala respondent, was alleged to be very clever and head strong person. Accordingly to the plaintiff, this defendant No. 1 never entered into possession of the suit land nor the plaintiff and defendants No.2 and 3 were ever ejected or had relinquished the possession of the suit land but mis defendant No.l in connivance with Patwari Halqua got incorporated a wrong entry in Kharif 1979 in his name in the revenue record to the extent of 5 Kanals 0 Maria out of the land measuring 33 Kanals 1 Maria comprised of Khasra No. 2650 min and to the extent of 2 Kanals 0 Maria out of land measuring 33 Kanals 11 Marias, comprised of Khasra No. 2695/1 min illegally and behind the back of the plaintiff and defendants No. 2 and 3. It was also averred that the plaintiff came to know about mis wrong entry only a month back prior to the filing of the suit According to the plaintiff, Pala defendant No. 1, was asked to admit the tenancy rights of the plaintiff and defendants No.2 and 3 and not to interfere and try to take forcible possession of the suit land but he refused to accede to the request of the plaintiff, hence the suit for declaration and injunction was preferred. 3. The defendant contested the suit and took preliminary objections that the suit in the present form was not maintainable as the plaintiff and defendants No. 2 and 3 were out of possession of the land in dispute; that the suit was bad for non joinder of necessary parties; and .that the suit was not within time. On merit, the case of mis contesting defendant had been that father of the plaintiff and defendants No.2 and 3 died about 40 years back and thereafter the owners inducted defendant No. 1 as tenant - at - will and the Abadi of the answering defendant also existed therein for the last more than 30 years. It was tardier pleaded mat Prem Singh, father of the plaintiff and proforma defendants No. 2 and 3, was not in possession of the suit land which was Banjar and not capable of physical possession. According to the defendant, he has reclaimed the land to the extent of about 2 Ghumaoon and brought it under cultivation and he was in actual cultivation of the suit land. According to him the entries were rightly corrected in the name of the answering defendant after proper enquiry. The other averments were not admitted. 4. The plaintiff filed replication and the averments made in the plaint were reaffirmed. Preliminary objections raised on behalf of the defendant were not admitted to be correct ; 5. The trial court put the parties to trial on the following Issues: 1. Whether the plaintiff along with defendants No. 2 and 3, is in possession of 66 Kanals 12 marks land in suit, as a tenant at will ? OPP 2. Whether the entries in revenue record from 19 79 in favour of defendant No. 1. as a tenant of Khasra No. 269S/1 measuring 3 Kanals is wrong, void and illegal, as alleged ? OPP 3. OPP 2. Whether the entries in revenue record from 19 79 in favour of defendant No. 1. as a tenant of Khasra No. 269S/1 measuring 3 Kanals is wrong, void and illegal, as alleged ? OPP 3. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form ? OPD 4. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties ? OPD. 5. Whether the suit is within time? OPP 6. Relief. 6. Issue No. 1 was decided partly in favour of the plaintiff while Issue No. 2 in the negative. Issue No. 3 again was partly disposed of in favour of the parties while Issue No. 4 was decided against the defendant. Issue No.5 was again disposed of in favour of the parties. The trial Court granted the following reliefs? "In view of my findings on Issues No. 1 and 2, the suit of the plaintiff qua land described in old Khasra No. 2693/1 corresponding to new Khasra No. 2183 min measuring 8 Kanals 11 Marias and old Khasra No. 2650/1 min corresponding to new Khasra No. 2140 min measuring 16 kanals 10 marlas, as per jamabandi for 1984-85 is hereby dismissed. The plaintiff and proforma defendants, however, are granted a decree of declaration and permanent injunction against defendant No.l about the rest of the suit land. The suit of the plaintiff is partly decreed and partly dismissed, as noticed above . 7. The aforesaid judgment and decree was assailed before the first appellate court where also the plaintiffs appeal .was dismissed. 8. The aforesaid judgment and decree passed by the first appellate Court have been assailed in the present appeal on various grounds. 9. Learned counsel for the parties have been heard and the entire record has been scrutinized minutely . 10. As per pleadings of the parties, the plaintiff claimed himself and the proforma defendants to be in occupation as tenants - at -will of the suit land while on the other hand the contesting defendant claimed himself to be the tenant of the suit land. According to the contesting defendant, when the father of the plaintiff and proforma defendants No.2 and 3 died about 40 years back thereafter the owners inducted him as tenant-at-will upon the suit land. According to the contesting defendant, when the father of the plaintiff and proforma defendants No.2 and 3 died about 40 years back thereafter the owners inducted him as tenant-at-will upon the suit land. From the aforesaid pleadings it can safely be inferred that, according to the defendant -respondent, prior to 40 years back when the father of the plaintiff and defendants No. 2 and 3 was alive, it was he who was in actual occupation of the suit land. This fact is otherwise supported by the entries in the record of rights Parties in order to support their respective claim and counter claim have examined oral as well as documentary evidence. The documentary evidence mainly are the entries in the record of rights which can be appreciated at this stage . 11. Ex.Pl is the copy of Jamabandi for the year 1963-64 pertaining to the land measuring 318-15 Kanals which included the suit land also. The suit land is apart of KhasraNo. 2650 min and KhasraNo. 2695/1. Khasra No. 2650 min has been recorded to be measuring 33 Kanals 1 Maria while Khasra No. 2695/1 has been recorded to be measuring 33 Kanals 11 Marias. The entire land has teen recorded to be in actual occupation of shri Prem Singh as a non-occupancy tenant on payment of Chakauta at die rate of Rs. 21/- annually. This Prem Singh, admittedly, is the father of die plaintiff and preforma defendants No.2and3. 12. Ex.P2 is the copy of Khasra Girdawari of die entire land, as described in Ex.Pl. This copy pertains to crops commencing from Kharif 1979 to Rabi 1982. In place of Prem Singh, die suit land has been recorded to be in occupation of Lal Chand, Karam Chand and Am in Chand sons of Prem Singh, who happened to be the plaintiff and preforma defendants. There has been some change recorded in this copy pertaining to Khasra Nos. 2650 min and 2695/fin Kharif 1979. So far as Khasra No. 2650 min is concerned, the possession has. been recorded that of Pala as non occupancy tenant on payment of Chakauta for land measuring 5 Kanals only. So far as Khasra No. 2695/1 is concerned, again, the entry has been changed in the name of Pala as non occupancy tenant on payment of l/4th of die produce. 13. Ex. been recorded that of Pala as non occupancy tenant on payment of Chakauta for land measuring 5 Kanals only. So far as Khasra No. 2695/1 is concerned, again, the entry has been changed in the name of Pala as non occupancy tenant on payment of l/4th of die produce. 13. Ex. DW3/A is the copy of Roznamcha dated 19th October, 1979 wherein it has been recorded that in presence of Kalu Ram Chowkidar and Zamindaran Girdawari has been changed pertaining to various Khasra numbers referred to therein. In this copy Khasra No. 2650 min and Khasra No. 2695/1 has also been recorded. 14. Ex Dl is die copy of Khasra Girdawari from 19.10.1979 to 28.9.1982 wherein die entries are die same as have been referred to in Ex.P2 Girdawari. Ex. PB is die copy of Rapat Roznamcha dated 21st July, 1975. According to this entry, various Khasra numbers were recorded in possession of die owners on account of some litigation pertaining to die correction of entries, Present suit land was also included in mat 15. Ex. PA is the copy, of Rapat Roznamcha dated 9di September, 1977, whereby on die basis of an order passed by die Collector die earlier entry made in the names of die owners has been changed in die names of the present plaintiff and preforma defendants No. 2 and 3, as tenants on payment of Chakauta. 16. Ex.D2 is we copy of Jamabandi for die year 1983-94 wherein land measuring 8-11 Kanals under Khasra No. 2695/1 min and land measuring 16-10 Kanals under Khasra No. 2650 min has been recorded to be in occupation of Pala as tenant on payment of Chakauta at the rate of Rs. 20/-annually. 17. Ex. PA (due to some bonafide mistake this document has also been exhibited in die same manner as document referred to earlier, copy of Rapat Roznamcha dated 9th September, 1977) is die copy of Jamabandi for die year 1941-42 where in Prem Singh, father of die plaintiff and proforma defendants No. 2 and 3, has been recorded in actual occupation of die entire land which included die suit land also, as a tenant on payment of Rs. 21/- annually as rent 18. Ex. 21/- annually as rent 18. Ex. PB (again, due to some bonafide mistake this document has-been exhibited in die same manner as document referred to earlier, diet is, copy of Rapat Roznamcha dated 21st July, 1975) is die copy of Jamabandi for die year 1954-55 wherein die entry remains die same, as referred to above, in favour of Prem Singh. 19. There is one copy of Janmbandi for die year 1984-85 which has been filed by die Local Commissioner where in Khasra No. 2695/1 measuring,8-l 1 Kanals and Khasra No. 2650/1 min measuring 16-10 Kanals has been recorded in occupation of Pala as a non occupancy tenant on payment of Rs. 20/- as annual tent 20. Apart from the entries in the record of rights, as referred to above, some documents With regard to litigation between the plaintiff and proforma defendants No.2 and 3 on one side and the landlords on the other side have also been brought on record. Ex. PW l/B is the copy of the judgment passed by the Senior Sub Judge, Una, dated 2.3.1978, in civil suit No.421/75 titled as Lal Chand, Amin Chand and Karam Chand v. Bidhi Singh & Ors. The present plaintiff and proforma defendants No.2 and 3 had filed this suit for declaration that they were coming in possession of the suit land as tenants-at -will from the time of their ancestors and the defendants had procured a wrong order from the Asstt. Collector 2nd Grade and now on the basis of the said wrong order, they have started interfering with their possession over the land in dispute. Thus, apart from declaration, injunction was also prayed for. Learned Senior Sub Judge passed a decree for declaration in favour of the plaintiffs to the effect that the plaintiffs were in possession of the land in dispute as non-occupancy tenants and the defendants were restrained by way of permanent injunction from interfering with the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs over the land in dispute. The subject matter of the present suit was also the subject matter of this suit decided by the Senior Sub Judge in the year 197S. 21. Ex.PWI/A is the copy of the order passed by the Collector Una on 19.7.1577 whereby it was ordered that instead of Prem Singh possession of appellants Lai Chand, Karam Chand and Amin Chand sons of Prem. 21. Ex.PWI/A is the copy of the order passed by the Collector Una on 19.7.1577 whereby it was ordered that instead of Prem Singh possession of appellants Lai Chand, Karam Chand and Amin Chand sons of Prem. This pertained to the entire land as described in ExJP1 which included the suit land also. This was so done as the owners had filed an application before the Tehsildar on 16.11.1974 for correcting Khasra Girdawari entries in their names. 22. Thus/on the basis of the aforesaid entries in die revenue record coupled with the decision of the civil Court and revenue officers the entire land, as described in Ex.Pl which included the suit land also, was also recorded in actually occupation of Prem Singh father of the plaintiff and proforma defendants No. 2 and 3 as non -occupancy tenant on payment of rent equal to Rs. 21/- annually. On the basis of the aforesaid documents the owners got the entire land recorded in their names in actual occupation vide Ex.PB, copy of Roznam -cha dated.21st July, 1977 which entry was later on corrected vide Ex.PA, referred to above, in the names of the present plaintiff and .the proforma defendants No.2 and 3. it was in Kharif 1979 that vide Ex.PW3/A Shri Pala was recorded in occupation as non occupancy tenant on payment of some rent of the suit land. Thereafter, the suit land had been recorded in possession of Pala and mis entry has been carried up to the latest entry in the record of rights. 23. It may not be out of place to mention here mat there is legal presumption of truth attached to the latest entries in the record of rights but this presumption is rebuttable one. In the present case in the latest record rights, as discussed above, Pala has been recorded in actual occupation of the suit land as a tenant. His simple case, as pleaded, has been that about 40 years back when Prem Singh, father of the plaintiff and proforma defendants No. 2 and 3 died he was inducted as a tenant by the land owners. This only reflected that prior to the death of Prem Singh he, that is Prem Singh was in actual occupation of the suit land which fact is otherwise reflected from the entries in the record of rights, referred to above. This only reflected that prior to the death of Prem Singh he, that is Prem Singh was in actual occupation of the suit land which fact is otherwise reflected from the entries in the record of rights, referred to above. There is no dispute to the proposition that the lates entries in the record of rights to which legal presumption of truth is attached, were the result of the change made in Kharif 1979 pertaining to the suit land. In case this change made in Kharif 1979 in favour of Pala defendant is held to be legal one definitely the later entries made on the basis of the same would be held to be legal one. In case this change is not held to be legal and the change made in Kharif 1979 is avoided, the later entries in favour of Pala defendant shall automatically fall. There is again no dispute to this proposition. 24. At this stage the definition of tenant as given in the Himachal Pradesh Tenancy and land Reforms Act, 1972 can be referred which would be essential to apreciate the case of the parties in this particular regard especially that of Pala defendant. The tenant has been defined as under in Section 2(17) of the aforesaid Act : "2(17) "tenant" means a person who holds land under a land owner, and is. or but for a a contract to the contrary would be liable to pay rent for that land to that land-owner and includes - (i) a sub -tenant; and (ii) the predecessors or successors in interest of 3 tenant or a sub-tenant, as the case may be, but it does not include - (a)....................... (b)…………….” 25. Taking into consideration the aforesaid definition a party claiming the status of a tenant has not only to prove the alleged agreement of tenancy but also to plea the same. In the present case there does not appear to be any dispute that during the "life time of Prem Singh he was occupying the suit land and that too as a tenant, as has been held by the civil Court. It is correct that civil courts decree might not be binding on the present defendant as he was not a party to that litigation but so far as the land owners were concerned, the matter between Prem Singh and his successors and them was final. 26. It is correct that civil courts decree might not be binding on the present defendant as he was not a party to that litigation but so far as the land owners were concerned, the matter between Prem Singh and his successors and them was final. 26. The entries were changed in the name of Pala defendant vide E\.DW3/A, referred to earlier There is nothing in this document that the present plaintiff and defendants No.2 and 3 were present when this entry was changed. There is nothing on record to suggest even remotely that any enquiry was conducted by the Patwari before making this entry and in that enquiry the present plaintiff and proforma defendants No.2 and 3 were associated. This report is silent that Pala was inducted as a tenant on payment of rent by the land owners. There is no evidence that before recording this entry in October 1979 the earlier tenants who were recorded in this record of rights were evicted in accordance with law or they had relinquished their tenancy rights. Thus, at the very face of it so far as the documents are concerned, which have been discussed above, the change in entry in the name of Pala defendant was made without any authority and against law and procedure in this behalf. In case this entry is ignored, the subsequent entries made in favour of Pala automatically lose their legal entity. 27. AT this stage it may be ointed out that this suit, as preferred by the plaintiff, was decreed as far back as on May 27,1986, by the trial Court which decree was set aside and the case was remanded back vice judgment dated 6.1.1987 passed by learned District Judge, Una. Learned District Judge, on the basis of the statement of the learned counsel for the parties, set aside the judgment and decree under appeal without expression of any opinion as to the merit of the controversy between the parties. It was farther observed that Shri Karam Chand respondent No.3 had expired when the case was pending in the lower Court and without impleading his legal representatives the suit was decided. The decree, as such, was set aside and the parties were directed to appear before the trial court which was. It was farther observed that Shri Karam Chand respondent No.3 had expired when the case was pending in the lower Court and without impleading his legal representatives the suit was decided. The decree, as such, was set aside and the parties were directed to appear before the trial court which was. to dispose of the case in accordance with law and that sufficient opportunity shall be provided to the plaintiff for, moving appropriate application and to decide the matter afresh in accordance with law. It was thereafter that the trial Court dismissed the suit which judgment and decree were maintained by the appellate Court, which is under appeal before this court. 28. The aforesaid reference has purposely been given inasmuch as this Pala defendant, according to the plaintiff, appeared as a witness of the owner in the civil litigation which took place between the owners and the present plaintiff and proforma defendants. The certified copy of the judgment on record is Ex.PWl/B, already referred to above. The trial Court while passing the judgment dated 27.5.1986 made the following observations in the judgment which are reflected in paragraph 8 of the said judgment and are being reproduced hereunder for the sake of convenience: "In the civil suit between the tenants and the land owners it appears that the present defendant Shri Pala Ram appeared as a witness on behalf of the land owners holding them in possession of the tenancy land. Shri Pala Ram very cleverly tried to avoid his appearance in the court to save himself of his earlier statement before the learned Senior Sub Judge, Una, and instead appointed his son Jaishi Ram as his attorney. It was admitted by Shri Jaishi Ram that Pala Ram was the only one person in the village of this name. The only inference which can be drawn under the circumstances is that the land owners having failed to take back the land from the tenants instigated Pala Ram to oppose the plaintiff and proforma defendants No.2 and 3 on the plea of tenancy which is based upon the stray entry made by Halqua Patwari in Kharif 1979 showing him in possession of 7 Kanals of land bifurcating the main khasra Nos. 2650 min and 2695/1. 2650 min and 2695/1. This entry made by Halqua Patwari is not supported by any order of the competent authority." The name of Pala Ram appearing as a witness of the owners has appeared in the judgment Ex.PWl/B where he has been described as DW 1. 29. The trial Court on the request of defendant No.l appointed a Local Commissioner vide order dated 1.7.1987. The last paragraph of the said order is relevant which is reproduced hereunder: "After having carefully appraised the evidence on record and the contentions of the parties, I deem it expedient to undertake local investigation. The defendant No. 1 had pressed for local investigation earlier as well. Admittedly, consolidation proceedings were yet to be completed. There was a statement of a village Patwari that the defendant No. 1 had been in possession of a portion of the suit land. Therefore, the local investigation is considered essential and accordingly Tehsildar Amb is hereby appointed as local Commissioner. The Local Commissioner shall demarcate the suit land and report if the defendant No.l had his Abadi/ construction in the suit land. He shall also report the extent and manner of encroachment, if any, of the defendant No. 1 on the suit land. His fee is determined at Rs. 200/- to be paid by defendant No. 1." 30. The Local Commissioner reported that Khasra No.2650 and 269S/1, during consolidation were given khasra numbers 2140 and 2183. It was further reported that after effecting the demarcation it was found that Abadi of contesting defendant Pala was not situated in Kahsra numbers 2140 and 2183 but it was situated in Khasra No. 2144 and 2145. This report of the Local Commissioner is on record which is accompanied by field map Ex.LC/4 which pertained to Abadi of defendant No. 1 which was found to be situated in other Khasra numbers adjoining the suit land. The Local Commissioner has found that the Abadi of defendant No. 1 was not at all situated under Khasra Nos. 2650 or 2695/1 which was the subject matter of the suit. The learned trial Court has wrongly referred in the judgment that the plaintiff had stated that he had been satisfied with the demarcation and the plaintiff had not assailed the possession of defendant No. 1 on the suit land. These observations are definitely contrary to the facts on record. 2650 or 2695/1 which was the subject matter of the suit. The learned trial Court has wrongly referred in the judgment that the plaintiff had stated that he had been satisfied with the demarcation and the plaintiff had not assailed the possession of defendant No. 1 on the suit land. These observations are definitely contrary to the facts on record. The plaintiff in the plaint has claimed possession of the suit land in himself and while appearing before the Local Commissioner stated that Pala defendant No.l was not having his Abadi over Khasra Nos. 2140 and 2183 but he was having his Abadi in Khasra Nos. 2144 min, 2142 min and 2145 min owned by Tulsi and Mehar Singh and others., He also stated before the Local Commissioner that he was satisfied with the demarcation. Before Local Commissioner Palas statement was also recorded wherein he stated that Kahsra Nos. 2140 and 2183 about which the suit has been filed against him was demarcated in his presence. He further stated that his Abadi was not found in Khasra Nps. 2650 arid 2695 but it was found on Khasra Nos. 2142 min, 2144 min and 2145 min which land was owned by Mehar Singh, Tulsi and others. 31. Thus, on the basis of the aforesaid report of the Local Commissioner which was accompanied by the statements of die parties recorded at the time of demarcation it had been found that defendant No.l was not having his Abadi in the suit land. 32. - The oral evidence examined by defendant No, I will also not help his case legally. DW1 is Jaishi Ram sen of defendant No. 1 who was holding Special Power of Attorney for his father. He has made a general statement that his father was cultivating the suit land since 1935-36 when it was given for cultivation. According to him, it was a grassy land and was made cultivable by his father in the year 1941-42. This evidence will not definitely be legally competent to establish the alleged tenancy rights in favour of defendant No. 1, more so to justify the change of entry in the revenue record in favour of defendant No. 1 in Kharif 1979. As pointed out earlier, the father of the plaintiff and proforma defendant Nos. This evidence will not definitely be legally competent to establish the alleged tenancy rights in favour of defendant No. 1, more so to justify the change of entry in the revenue record in favour of defendant No. 1 in Kharif 1979. As pointed out earlier, the father of the plaintiff and proforma defendant Nos. 2 and 3 had been continuously recorded in occupation, of the entire land which included the suit land also as a non occupancy tenant on payment of rent. DW.l had admitted the previous litigation between the landlords and the present plaintiff and proforma defendants. He stated that he did not make any application before the court in that litigation for making Pala a party to the said suit . 33. DW2 is one Milkhi Ram. He stated that he has been seeing defendant No.l in occupation of the suit land since he attained the age of discretion. The age of this witness at the time of his examination was 65 years. He further added that Pala Ram was giving rent to the owners. Again, this witness has made a general statement he is not the person in whose presence the tenacy was created. Regarding payment of rent he stated that Pala Ram was paying the rent He has not stated what was the rent alleged to hare been agreed by Pala Ram. He also did not specify whether the rent was paid in his present . 34. DW3 is Avtar Singh Patwari who has proved the revenue record. Copy of Roznamcha Ex.DW3/A was produced by this witness. This document is dated 19th October 1979 while this witness was posted there in the year 1984 in April. He is not the person who has recorded this entry. 35. On the other hand tie plaintiff has exmained himself and has fully supported his case on oath. PW2 is one Sant Ram who has stated that the suit land was in possession of the plaintiff and preform a defendants. 36. Thus, taking into consideration the aforesaid circumstances, which are reflected from the record itself, the two khasra numbers in dispute have been rightly recorded in occupation of the plaintiff and proforma defendants/ Shri Prem Singh their father as tenants on payment of rent. The entry for part of the khasra numbers was changed without any authority in favour of Pala defendant in Kharif 1979. The entry for part of the khasra numbers was changed without any authority in favour of Pala defendant in Kharif 1979. In the earlier judgment the trial Court rightly observed that Pala defendant purposely did not appear as his own witness in order to avoid legal inconvenience as he had appeared in favour of die owners in the previous litigation, referred to above. In that litigation the owners were claiming to be in actual occupation of the land which was not held to be so by the civil Court but on the other hand the plaintiff and perform a defendants were held to be in actual occupation as tenants of the entire land, which included the suit land also, on payment of rent to the land owners. It appears that the owners who have failed in the litigation with the plaintiff and proforma defendants have tried to put up this Pala defendant in order to frustrate the claim of the present plaintiff and proforma defendants, it is really very strange to note that in order to prove the tenancy, as claimed by defendant No.l, none of the landowners has been examined. They could not be in view of the previous litigation. Thus, the entry in me latest record of rights stands legally rebutted and the change of entry in occupation column in favour of defendant No.l recorded in Kharif 1979 has to be legally avoided as having been made behind the back of the present plaintiff and proforma defendants and against law and procedure in this behalf. Thus, the entry existing prior to Kharif 1979 shall be deemed to have continued which was in favour of the plaintiff and proforma defendants. Both the courts below fell into an error in deciding the matter in a legal manner. The law and the evidence have been appreciated by the two Courts below in a most cursory and perverse manner. 37. Learned District Judge has come to the conclusion that in view of the decision of this Court in Chuhniya Devi v. Jindu Ram etc. etc. (1991(1) Sim. L.C.223) the Civil Court has got no jurisdiction qua the claim made by the plaintiff. 37. Learned District Judge has come to the conclusion that in view of the decision of this Court in Chuhniya Devi v. Jindu Ram etc. etc. (1991(1) Sim. L.C.223) the Civil Court has got no jurisdiction qua the claim made by the plaintiff. It may not be out of place to mention here that the applicability of the aforesaid decision is not at all called for to the facts of the present case which is a case where the parties are claiming tenancy in themselves. It is not a case between the landlord and tenant where the landlord is debarred to come to a civil court case the Act have been granted in favour of the tenant . 38. Thus, taking from any angle, the judgment and decree passed by the two courts below cannot be legally sustained. That being so, the present appeal is accented arid as a consequence thereof the judgement and decree passed by the two courts below are set aside and the suit of the plaintiff for declaration and permanent injunction, as prayed for, stands decreed with costs to be paid by defendant No. 1. The present appeal, as such, is disposed of accordingly. -