JUDGMENT P.K. PALLI, J,—The plaintiff/appellant having lost in both the Courts below, is in second appeal. Suit for declaration and injunction filed by him earlier that he is owner in possession, was decreed. On appeal, the decree was set aside and the case was remanded back whereafter pleadings were amended, issues re-cast and fresh evidence was taken. The plaintiff/appellant alternatively prayed for a decree of possession against the defendants/respondents. 2. The trial Court after remand, on appreciation of the material placed on record by the parties, dismissed the suit and the appeal filed by the plaintiff/appellant laying challenge to the judgment and decree of the trial Court stands dismissed. This is how the plaintiff/ appellant is in second appeal. The parties, here-in-after in this judgment, shall be referred to as plaintiff and defendants. 3. One Dialu was, admittedly, the non-occupancy tenant of the suit land under one Amar Chand, landlord who was the owner. Dialu is said to have died whereafter his son Nanaku succeeded to his tenancy rights. According to the plaintiff, Nanaku had surrendered his tenancy rights in favour of the owner Amar Chand and thereby relinquished his right, title and interest in the suit property, but Smt. Tilfu who is said to be the step-sister of Nanaku, got the Girdawari entries recorded in her favour from the Consolidation Officer. Appeal filed by the plaintiff was allowed by the Settlement Officer resulting in setting aside the order passed by the Consolidation Officer and the case was remanded for fresh decision. Soon thereafter the plaintiff filed the present suit and later agitated that she has been dispossessed from the suit land by the defendants and decree for possession was claimed. 4. The defendants while laying contest to the suit, have pleaded that the plaintiff is neither owner nor in possession of the suit land which is in possession of defendant No. 1 eversince the time of her father Dialu and she has now become the owner by operation of law and her brother Nanaku started residing in the house of Dialu whereafter he had executed a will in her favour bequeathing the suit property to her. The Girdawari entries are said to be correct. 5. Learned Counsel Mrs. Devyani Sharma, while opening her address of arguments, has argued that both the Courts below have completely misread, mis-interpreted and mis-construed Exts. The Girdawari entries are said to be correct. 5. Learned Counsel Mrs. Devyani Sharma, while opening her address of arguments, has argued that both the Courts below have completely misread, mis-interpreted and mis-construed Exts. P-4 to P-8 and these documents conclusively proved the surrender of tenancy rights by Nanaku in favour of the plaintiff. These documents have been wrongly held by the Courts below as not having been proved in accordance with the Evidence Act. It is being argued that Nanaku completely divested himself of the tenancy rights in favour of the plaintiff. 6. In respect of the will, it is being argued that the tenancy rights could not be willed away. Reference has also been made to the provisions of the Himachal Pradesh Tenancy and Land Reforms Act and it is being argued that neither Dialu nor Nanaku had become the owners of the suit property. The question of the same being willed away in favour of defendant No. 1 did not arise. It is, thus, sought to be urged that the aforesaid Act got assent of the President of India on February 2, 1974 and came into force on October 3, 1975 and Nanaku had surrendered his rights much before the Act came into force and, thus, by that date he had not become its owner by operation of law. 7. Mrs. Devyani Sharma further contends that Exts. P-4 to P-8 are the certified copies of the proceedings before the competent authorities and are perse admissible. The Courts below have wrongly held that these are not proved and, thus, do not improve the case of the plaintiff. It is being argued that the affidavit has been proved by the person who identified the deponent and as the deponent is dead, no fault could be found and the affidavit should be read in evidence. It is also being said that the defendants are not in possession as they are residing in different village. 8. In reply, it is being argued by Mr. Sanjeev Kuthiala, learned Counsel appearing for the defendants, that the will executed by Nanaku in favour of defendant No. 1 has been legally proved to be a valid one and does not call for any interference by this Court in second appeal. Reference has also been made to the Jamabandi Ext. 8. In reply, it is being argued by Mr. Sanjeev Kuthiala, learned Counsel appearing for the defendants, that the will executed by Nanaku in favour of defendant No. 1 has been legally proved to be a valid one and does not call for any interference by this Court in second appeal. Reference has also been made to the Jamabandi Ext. P-l which is of the year 1965-66 where Dialu is recorded as non-occupancy tenant on fifty paise rent. A part of the suit land is recorded as Banjar and a part of it is recorded as Abadi It is further being argued that the tenant had become owner of the suit land by operation of law as proprietary rights came to be conferred upon him and the will was validly made in favour of the sister who is defendant No. 1. Learned Counsel has further referred to paras 26 and 28 of the judgment of the trial Court in further support of his contention. 9. In rejoinder, Mrs. Devyani Sharma has taken me through Section 104 of the aforesaid Act as well as the rules of 1975 framed thereunder. 10. After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties at length and on careful scrutiny of the impugned judgments and the record, I find that there is no merit in this appeal. 11. Admittedly, Dialu was residing in the house constructed on the disputed site and after his death, his son Nanaku came in its possession. Even if it be assumed that Nanaku surrendered his tenancy rights in favour of the plaintiff who was the owner, it has not been established on record that the plaintiff was put in actual physical possession of the suit property. Ext. P-3 is the order passed by the Settlement Officer dated August 28, 1978 whereby the order of the Consolidation Officer dated January 2, 1978 was set aside ordering correction of the Khasra Girdawari. It was observed that the Consolidation Officer shall go into the question again and hold proper enquiry in respect of the built up area and the land surrounded by the house. It was further ordered that the entries in respect of tenancy rights shall be ordered only if relationship of landlord and tenant is established. Ext. It was observed that the Consolidation Officer shall go into the question again and hold proper enquiry in respect of the built up area and the land surrounded by the house. It was further ordered that the entries in respect of tenancy rights shall be ordered only if relationship of landlord and tenant is established. Ext. P-4 is the order of the Consolidation Officer whereby the name of Dialu was ordered to be obliterated and Girdawari entries were ordered to be changed in favour of Amar Chand, owner. Ext. P-5 is the reply to the application filed by the plaintiff for correction of the Khasra Girdawari. In this application he has categorically stated that he had surrendered the tenancy rights in favour of Amar Chand, owner and he had no objection if the Girdawari is changed in his favour. Ext. P-6 is the application seeking correction of the Girdawari. It may be noticed here that these applications and orders came to be made when the consolidation operations were in process. 12. Ext. P-7 is the application filed by Nanaku seeking preponement of the date in the case. In Ext. P-8 Nanaku has given a concessional statement. Ext. DA is the order passed by the Consolidation Officer dated June 2, 1981. This order has been passed by the Consolidation Officer after the remand by the Settlement Officer. On re-appraisal, it has been found that the defendant be shown in possession as tenant on paise fifty as rent and she should be shown to be in cultivation. It was also found that the defendant had carried out the repairs of the house. The site was inspected by the concerned Officer. The will was also considered. 13. Ext. DW-1 /A is the statement of plaintiff Amar Chand recorded by the Consolidation Officer and is dated January 2, 1978. He has admitted that he knew the defendant. The keys of the house were got handed over to her with the intervention of the Panchayat and are with her and she would be opening and locking it. Ext. DC-1 is the order passed by the Assistant Collector whereby application filed by the plaintiff for seeking correction of the Khasra Girdawari entries was ordered to be sent to the Consolidation Officer as consolidation process had started. Ext. Ext. DC-1 is the order passed by the Assistant Collector whereby application filed by the plaintiff for seeking correction of the Khasra Girdawari entries was ordered to be sent to the Consolidation Officer as consolidation process had started. Ext. DW-4/A is the application filed by the defendant against the land-owner Amar Chand that Khasra Girdawari entries be ordered to be recorded in her favour. Ext. DW-2/A is the will dated July 22, 1974 executed by Nanaku in favour of defendant No. 1. This will was registered on August 3, 1974. 14. As said above, even if it be assumed that Nanaku had surrendered his tenancy rights in favour of the plaintiff, it can safely be held that possession of the suit property was never handed over to him. The same remained with defendant No. 1 and there is a clear admission of the plaintiff in this respect. In her statement in the Court, the plaintiff has also conceded that the disputed house was constructed by Dialu. The other witness examined by the plaintiff, i.e. PW-2, has also admitted that Nanaku lived in the disputed house and he had repaired it also. Statement of PW-5 Rama Nand is also to the similar extent. Relinquishment, in order to be accepted, has to be accompanied by actual delivery of possession which is in the present case conspicuously missing. The question of defendant No. 1 succeeding to the tenancy rights is nowhere. Will Ext. DW-2/ A has been duly proved on record and no argument has been addressed laying challenge to the will. 15. It has come in the statement of DW-1 that Dialu died twenty-twenty two years ago. Mutation in favour of Nanaku was never objected to by any one. Nanaku is said to have died 5-6 years back. The statement was made in the year 1981 which would take us back to 1975-76. This would amply prove that Nanaku had already succeeded to the tenancy rights of his father and had become owner of the suit property by operation of law. There was, thus, no bar for him to transfer the suit property by way of will in favour of defendant No. 1. From the various documents placed on record it transpires that Nanaku was alive till the end of 1974. Exts. P-4, P-5 and P-7 can be read with advantage in this respect. 16. There was, thus, no bar for him to transfer the suit property by way of will in favour of defendant No. 1. From the various documents placed on record it transpires that Nanaku was alive till the end of 1974. Exts. P-4, P-5 and P-7 can be read with advantage in this respect. 16. The matter can be looked into from another angle also. Admittedly, no challenge has been made by the plaintiff to the order passed by the Consolidation Officer on remand which is Ext. DA. The suit came to be filed in the year 1979 when, admittedly, this order has not come on the surface. No appeal was filed against this order by the plaintiff. The order has, thus, attained finality. It was, thus, absolutely necessary for the plaintiff to amend the suit laying challenge to this order that the same was without jurisdiction. Despite amended pleadings and issues having been re-cast, no effort was made in this respect. As per Section 57 of the Himachal Pradesh Holding (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, there is a complete bar of jurisdiction of the Civil Court with respect to any matter arising out of consolidation proceedings or with respect to any other matter in regard to which a suit or application can be filed under the provisions of that Act. The plaintiff, in my opinion, deserves to be non-suited on this score alone. 17. In view of what has been said above, the appeal is ordered to be dismissed. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.