JUDGMENT Kuldip Chand Sood, J.—Having lost before the trial Court and the first Appellate Court, the plaintiffs are in second appeal. 2. In order to appreciate the controversy, few facts may be noticed: 3. One Garibu was non-occupancy tenant along with his brothers, in respect of the land subject matter of dispute to the extent of l/4th share, hereinafter referred to as the "suit land". According to the plaintiffs, Garibu died in the year 1960. Mutation of inheritance was attested in favour of Naurati Devi, defendant No. 1. Naurati Devi acquired proprietary rights on coming into force of the Himachal Pradesh Tenancy and Land Reforms Act. A mutation to this effect was attested in her favour on May 11, 1976. In the year 1990, Naurati Devi sold her share to defendants No. 2 to 6 by a registered sale deed who thereafter became joint owners in possession to the extent of the share of Naurati Devi purchased by them along with other co-owners. The plaintiffs filed the present suit on February, 1991. 4. The case of the plaintiffs was: 5. Naurati Devi was not married to Garibu. She falsely claimed herself to be the widow of Garibu and get the mutation of inheritance attested in her favour in connivance with the revenue staff. According to the plaintiffs, Garibu was the elder brother of their father Narata Ram and therefore, it were the plaintiffs who were entitled to inherit Garibu in the absence of any issue or widow. In the alternative, the plaintiffs set up the defence that Naurati Devi left the village, where the suit land is situates. Her whereabouts were not known and therefore, the plaintiffs have acquired the title by adverse possession. It is the case of the plaintiffs that Naruati Devi sold the suit land to defendants No. 2 to 6 without any right, title or interest. Therefore, the sale made by Naurati Devi in favour of defendants No. 2 to 6 is illegal and void. Defendant Nos. 2 to 6 thus did not acquire any legal title so far the suit land was concerned. 6. It is in this background, the plaintiffs prayed for declaration to the effect that they were the owners in possession of the suit land having inherited l/4th share of Garibu, who died issueless and intestate. Defendant Nos. 2 to 6 thus did not acquire any legal title so far the suit land was concerned. 6. It is in this background, the plaintiffs prayed for declaration to the effect that they were the owners in possession of the suit land having inherited l/4th share of Garibu, who died issueless and intestate. Further declaration was sought that the sale deed dated May 24, 1990 executed by Naurati Devi in favour of defendants No. 2 to 6 was illegal, null and void and not binding on the plaintiffs being result of fraud and misrepresentation. A consequential relief of injunction restraining the defendants No. 2 to 6 from interfering in the possession of the plaintiffs over the suit land and raising any construction thereon or changing the nature of the land or otherwise alienating the same was also sought. In the alternative, a decree was sought that the plaintiffs had become owners of the disputed property by adverse possession. 7. The defendants resisted the suit. Allegations were controverted. It was pleaded that on the death of Garibu, mutation of inheritance was rightly attested in favour of his widow Naurati Devi on February 25, 1972 in terms of mutation No. 1577. Naurati Devi was conferred proprietary rights under Section 104 of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, "Act for short" mutation whereof was attested on May 11, 1976 in terms of mutation No. 1851. Thus, the defendant Naurati Devi became absolute owner of the suit land to the extent of l/4th share held by Garibu. Naurati Devi sold her share to defendants No. 2 to 6 by a registered sale deed of May 24, 1990. The defendants No. 2 to 6 in the circumstances became absolute owners to the extent of l/4th share in the suit land. It was denied that Naurati Devi was not the legally wedded wife of Garibu. According to the defendants, defendants No. 2 to 6 were bona fide purchasers of the property in dispute having purchased it, after making due enquiries and perusal of the revenue record. It was denied that the defendant No. 1 was married to any one else. It is the case of the defendants that Naurati Devi married Chamela Ram in the year 1980 much after the death of Garibu. It was denied that the defendant No. 1 was married to any one else. It is the case of the defendants that Naurati Devi married Chamela Ram in the year 1980 much after the death of Garibu. According to the defendants, the plaintiffs were aware about the mutation of inheritance of Garibu having been attested in favour of Naurati Devi and also about the conferment of the proprietary rights to her as also about the sale of the share of Narauti Devi to defendants No. 2 to 6 and therefore present suit at such belated stage was not maintainable. 8. Learned trial Judge settled several issues. He found that the plaintiffs were neither owners nor in possession of the suit property. The plea of the plaintiffs that they had become owners by adverse possession was negatived. The case of the plaintiffs that Garibu died intestate without leaving any heir was not accepted and it was held that Naurati Devi inherited the share of Garibu in the suit land being his widow and became absolute owner of his share after conferment of the proprietary rights. 9. The suit of the plaintiffs was dismissed. Plaintiffs carried an appeal before the learned District Judge, which too was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Solan by his impugned judgment dated September 7, 2001. 10. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perusing record, I am of the view that no question of law arises in this appeal. 11. Mr. G.D. Verma, learned Senior Counsel for the appellants strenuously urged that both the trial Court and the First Appellate Court misread and misappreciated the evidence and there was no acceptable evidence on record to prove that Naurati Devi was widow of Garibu. Learned trial Judge in his judgment has referred to the entire evidence on record, both oral and documentary The tenor of the witnesses of the plaintiffs including Plaintiff Joginder Singh was that Garibu was never married to Naurati Devi, as they did not witness the marriage of Naurati Devi with Garibu. They also referred to the certificate issued by the Secretary, Gram Panchayat Bansal showing that name of Naurati Devi did not find mention in the Parivar register maintained in the Panchayat concerned. Learned trial Judge noticed that the plaintiffs and their witnesses were less than truthful. They gave a version, which was not spelled out in the plaint. They also referred to the certificate issued by the Secretary, Gram Panchayat Bansal showing that name of Naurati Devi did not find mention in the Parivar register maintained in the Panchayat concerned. Learned trial Judge noticed that the plaintiffs and their witnesses were less than truthful. They gave a version, which was not spelled out in the plaint. In the evidence led by the plaintiffs, it was suggested that Garibu was married to one Anti who expired in the year 1958. The other witnesses namely, Shankar Lai PW2 and Nek Ram (PW 3) also supported this version of the plaintiffs. Learned trial Judge noticed that there was not even a whisper in the plaint about the marriage of Garibu with Anti. No documentary evidence was produced to show that Garibu was married to Anti Devi at any point of time. 12. It is significant to note that Garibu was employed in the Military Engineering Service at Kasauli. After the death of Garibu, the service benefits were given to Naurati Devi as deposed by DW 1, which was not objected to by the plaintiffs. Rattan Kumar (DW 2) who was Personal Assistant to the Garrison Engineer M.E.S. at Kasauli clearly stated that according to the service record of Garibu maintained in their office, Naurati Devi was recorded as widow of Garibu and on the death of Garibu, the service benefits were extended to Naurati Devi. Apparent as it is Garibu only had shown Naurati Devi as his wife in the service record. Exhibit DW2/B is a letter from the office of the Garrison Engineer Kasauli addressed to Naurati Devi widow of late Garibu dated November 16, 1964. This letter shows that on the death of Garibu, all service benefits, to which widow of Garibu was entitled, were given to Naurati Devi. PW 2 Shankar Lai stated that he knew Garibu, yet, took a stand that he was not employed at all. PW 5 Durga Ram though admitted that Garibu was employed with M.E.S. at Kasauli but denied that after the death of Garibu, his service benefits were granted to Naurati Devi. 13. This apart, the version of the plaintiffs that Garibu died in the year 1960 is not correct. In fact, he expired in the year 1964 as stated by defendant Ram Kumar Bindal and is so apparent from the document Exhibit DW2/A to Ext. 13. This apart, the version of the plaintiffs that Garibu died in the year 1960 is not correct. In fact, he expired in the year 1964 as stated by defendant Ram Kumar Bindal and is so apparent from the document Exhibit DW2/A to Ext. DW2/D. Had Naurati Devi not been widow of Garibu and the plaintiffs were legal heirs of Garibu, they would have claimed the benefits of service of Garibu with M.E.S. They would have known that Garibu was employed with M.E.S. 14. Apart from the oral evidence, the documentary evidence clearly proves that Naurati Devi inherited the share of Garibu in the suit land after his death. Jamabandi for the year 1960-61 shows Garibu along with his brothers Shibu, Khushi Ram and Narainu in possession of the property as non-occupancy tenant to the extent of l/4th share each. Now plaintiffs are the sons of Narata Ram and Narata Ram is not shown to be brother of Garibu or son of Bealu in the revenue record. The claim of the plaintiffs that they were sons of younger brother of Garibu on the face of it is false. The plaintiffs had no better title to inherit the tenancy rights of Garibu. In the Jamabandi for the year 1964-65, Naurati is shown along with other co-sharers to be in possession of the suit property as non-occupancy tenant. To a similar effect are the entires in the Jamabandi for the year 1969-70. However, there is a note in the Jamabandi that vide mutation attested on February 25, 1972, mutation of inheritance of Garibu was attested in favour of Naurati. In the Jamabandi for the year 1974-75, there is a note to the effect that by an order of the Compensation Officer, proprietary rights were conferred on the non-occupancy tenants including the plaintiffs. In the Jamabandi for the year 1982-83, Naurati Devi is shown as owner of the suit property along with other co-sharers to the extent of l/4th share. To a similar effect are the entires in the Jamabandi for the year 1989-90. These revenue entires remained unrebutted. 15. It may be seen that mutation of inheritance was attested on February 25, 1972 by the Assistant Collector 2nd Grade (Exhibit DW1/A) in open session and no body including the plaintiffs objected to the attestation of this mutation. 16. To a similar effect are the entires in the Jamabandi for the year 1989-90. These revenue entires remained unrebutted. 15. It may be seen that mutation of inheritance was attested on February 25, 1972 by the Assistant Collector 2nd Grade (Exhibit DW1/A) in open session and no body including the plaintiffs objected to the attestation of this mutation. 16. This apart, according to the plaintiffs, Garibu died in the year 1960, yet, no steps were taken by them till the year 1991 to claim any title on the property left by Garibu. Had Naurati Devi not been the legal heir of Garibu, plaintiffs would have taken appropriate proceedings to claim title on the properties left by Garibu. From the very beginning Naurati Devi, as is apparent from the jamabandi for the year 1964-65, was shown to be the widow of Garibu. It is incredible to believe that plaintiffs were not aware of the mutation of inheritance attested in favour of Naurati Devi. If the plaintiffs came into possession of the suit land, as claimed by them, then they would have reported their possession after inheritance to the revenue authorities and claimed the attestation of mutation of inheritance in their favour. The plea raised by the plaintiffs apparently is after thought to grab the property of Naurati Devi who sold it to defendants No. 2 to 6 in the year 1990. 17. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs sought to raise a legal question that Naurati Devi did not step into the witness box and therefore, adverse inference should be raised. It is true that if defendant does not step into the witness box, adverse inference may be raised. In the present case, one of the defendants, namely, defendant No. 3 Ram Kumar Bindal did appear as DW 1 and, therefore, by no stretch, it can be said that adverse inference can be raised as defendant Naurati Devi did not step into the witness box. It is neither the rule of law or prudence that. If there is more than one defendant, all of them should be examined as witnesses in support of the case set up by them. Otherwise also, if a party fails to appear in Court, adverse inference can only be raised if there is no other evidence on record. It is neither the rule of law or prudence that. If there is more than one defendant, all of them should be examined as witnesses in support of the case set up by them. Otherwise also, if a party fails to appear in Court, adverse inference can only be raised if there is no other evidence on record. The rule was settled in Pandurang Jivaji Apte v. Ramchandra Gangadhar Ashtekar (Dead) by LR ., AIR 1981 Supreme Court 2235. Their Lordships observed: "In our opinion, the question drawing an adverse inference against Apte and Bavdekar on account of their absence from the court would arise only when there was no other evidence on the record on the point in issue". 8. In the present case, there is acceptable and reliable evidence on record to show that defendant Naurati Devi was widow of Garibu and inherited the suit land along with other properties in terms of revenue record and the evidence of the other witnesses coupled with the service record of Garibu. In these circumstances, no adverse inference can be raised against the defendants for the reason that Naurati Devi was not examined as witness. 19. The case may be viewed from another angle. Admittedly, Garibu was non-occupancy tenant on the suit land alongwith his brothers and State of Himachal Pradesh was the owner of this land. After the death of Garibu, name of Naurati Devi was entered as non-occupancy tenant in the revenue record in place of Garibu. Thus the owner State of Himachal Pradesh treated for all purposes, Naurati Devi as tenant alongwith other tenants on the suit land. The proprietary rights were granted to the tenants including Naurati Devi in the suit land treating them as tenants. In the circumstances, Naurati Devi acquired proprietary rights to the extent of her share as tenant independent of Garibu. She was treated as tenant by the true owner. It is not open to the plaintiffs to plead that Naurati Devi was not tenant in the suit property, particularly in the absence of the true owner, that is, the State of Himachal Pradesh particularly when they were not legal heirs of deceased Garibu. 20. Lastly, Mr. She was treated as tenant by the true owner. It is not open to the plaintiffs to plead that Naurati Devi was not tenant in the suit property, particularly in the absence of the true owner, that is, the State of Himachal Pradesh particularly when they were not legal heirs of deceased Garibu. 20. Lastly, Mr. Verma, learned Senior Counsel urged that plaintiffs liad filed an application before the first Appellate Court for permission to lead additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27, CPC that was unjustly rejected by the first Appellate Court. By this application, plaintiffs wanted to lead evidence to prove that defendant Naurati Devi married Chamela son of Bhalla resident of village Juda Jattan in Tehsil Jagadhari, District Yamuna Nagar and a son was born to her. Learned first Appellate Court rejected the application on the ground that the documents sought to be proved were mere Photostat copies which were not attested or certified and took a view that Photostat copies of the documents could not be admitted in evidence under the Evidence Act without the plaintiffs having obtained permission to lead secondary evidence. Learned First Appellate Court also was of the view that under the garb of the provisions of Order 41 Rule 27, plaintiffs, who were unsuccessful litigants, could not be permitted to lead evidence so as to fill up the lacunae left in their case and therefore, proceeded to dismiss the application. No fault can be found with the view taken by the learned Additional District Judge. In any event of the matter, the evidence sought to be led by the plaintiffs was irrelevant as the defendant Naurati Devi was admitted as tenant by the true owner and so recorded in the revenue record. She was granted proprietary rights as far back as in the year 1976 without any demur from the plaintiffs. Therefore, even if Naurati Devi married Chamela Ram, it was of no consequence. No other point is urged. 21. No question of law much less substantial question of law is involved in this appeal. 22. In result, appeal fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs.-