JUDGMENT Kuldip Singh, J.(Oral)-The defendant has come in appeal against the judgment, decree dated 4.4.2009 passed by learned District Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala in Civil Appeal No.166-B/XIII-2006, affirming, judgment, decree dated 14.11.2006 passed by learned Civil Judge, (Sr. Division), Baijnath in Civil Suit No.83/2004. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent had filed a suit for declaration that she is owner in possession of the suit land. It is also her case that earlier the father of her husband was the tenant on the suit land and thereafter her husband Dulo Ram was the tenant on the suit land. The proprietary rights were conferred in favour of respondent in the year 2001. However, appellant filed an application for correction of revenue entry which was allowed by the AC Ist Grade, Baijnath on 23.4.2004, ordering the correction and entering the name of appellant as tenant on the suit land. In these circumstances the respondent had filed the present suit. In the suit the defence of the appellant was that he was inducted tenant about 40 years ago. The suit was decreed by learned Civil Judge on 14.11.2006 and respondent was held to be owner in possession of the suit land. The appellant filed an appeal which was dismissed by learned District Judge on 4.4.2009. Hence, the present appeal. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the two Courts below have not properly appreciated the evidence on record. The appellant has proved his possession as tenant on the suit land. The Courts below have not considered the oral and documentary evidence placed by the appellant/defendant on record. The learned counsel for the appellant has pointed out the statement of DW-2 Mata Saran and has submitted that Mata Saran who was earlier co-owner of the suit land has admitted that about 40 years ago appellant was inducted as tenant on the suit land. In the written statement filed by appellant the contract of tenancy has not been pleaded. There is no pleading in the written statement who inducted the appellant as tenant on the suit land. The statement of DW-2 Mata Saran was recorded on 22.5.2006 and admittedly on that date Mata Saran was not co-owner of the suit land in as much as on that date the respondent had already become owner of the suit land. There is no pleading in the written statement who inducted the appellant as tenant on the suit land. The statement of DW-2 Mata Saran was recorded on 22.5.2006 and admittedly on that date Mata Saran was not co-owner of the suit land in as much as on that date the respondent had already become owner of the suit land. In absence of pleadings of contract of tenancy in the written statement, the statement of Mata Saran has no legal significance. The learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that DW-2 Mata Saran is inimical towards the respondent in as much as when respondent had become owner of the suit land then at the instance of Mata Saran, the appellant had filed the application for correction of revenue entries. It is not the case of the appellant that the two Courts below have ignored some material evidence which has bearing on the result of the case nor such evidence has been pointed out by learned counsel for the appellant at the time while making submissions. No perversity in the impugned judgment has been pointed out. There is no question of law much less substantial question of law involved in the appeal, accordingly, appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. 4. In view of the disposal of the main appeal, this application has become Infructuous. CMP No.542 of 2009